Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UAE to leave OPEC

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 750 posts

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#401

Post by traderj0e »

jmyeet wrote: post #329
bluGill wrote: post #177

OPEC has long been Saudi Arabia reducing output, and everyone else selling everything they can. They haven't had much power since the 1970s, but that they exist means they are a threat that if everyone else actually stuck to the agreement for a change. This is the common problem for cartels: everyone has inventive to cheat on the deals made. By selling a little more than your share you get more money, while because e…

I don't know where this idea that OPEC is toothless came from but it's objectively incorrect. Counter example: OPEC was the single largest factor in the inflation shock of 2020-2022. And nobody talks about it. In March 2020 at the start of the pandemic, it looked like the world economy would come to a standstill. Oil futures went into extreme contango, briefly going negative as nobody was taking delivery. So in April…

This is interesting and under-reported. But it doesn't mean that oil would've spiked a lot less without the OPEC cuts, and that's not the same as gasoline costs which depend on refineries too.

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#402

Post by ericmay »

watwut wrote: post #398
ericmay wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The war did not had to start at all and is causing considerable harm already. Iran feeling pain does not mean surrounding states were protected - instead they were put into harms way. They were always in harm's way. The war could have waited, and Iran could have doubled or tripled its missile stockpile and then they really would have been in harm's way. You're falling in to the same trap I mentioned "country does X…

Those states could export oil entirely reliable. They had tourism and finance industries dependent on them being safe. Iran did not mined strait until USA and Israel bombed it twice during negotiations, threatened civilisation destruction, murdered political leaders and attacked BOTH civilian and military infrastructure. You dont get to start a war or bomb and then blame the other side for not passivele accepting the…

> threatened civilisation destruction

Iran threatens to erase Israel and the United States off the map pretty much daily. So I just don't care that Trump did the same back to them. If they don't like threats like that, perhaps they should stop issuing them yea?

> murdered political leaders and attacked BOTH civilian and military infrastructure

What civilian infrastructure was deliberately attacked? We do know that Iran deliberately attacked civilian and military infrastructure. Did you mix the two up?

> You dont get to start a war or bomb and then blame the other side for not passivele accepting the situation.

Who started the war isn't an easy question to answer. I can easily and obviously argue that Iran started the war when they attacked Israel through their proxy forces. Ultimately though who "started" the war doesn't matter that much. Both sides have had grievances for quite a long time and things are just finally coming to more direct conflict.

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#403

Post by traderj0e »

elmomle wrote: post #365
sarjann wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the solution in game theory when there are multiple turns to just repeat the move the previous person made. So if the other side overpumped by x1 amount then you pump an extra x1 the next turn / year (maybe multiplied some reference production factor as they don't all have the same absolute limits).

Tit for tat (start by cooperating, and for each subsequent choice do what your opponent did last turn) is the optimal for repeated 2-party prisoners' dilemma. The real world is much more complex. OPEC is a multi-party game, for starters. For another thing, there are cascades of social/political problems that get in the way of optimal strategy at the level of nations. I.e. that only works if politicians are more inter…

Yeah also the softer tit-for-tat that offers a second chance performs better if miscommunication is added.

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#404

Post by cman1444 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #378
throwaway2037 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The petrodollar and petroeuro is misunderstood. The real point: These oil/gas exporting nations don't have enough investable assets in their own nations. As a result, they need to invest overseas. For a long time, the best places to invest this excess capital in the world were/are North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia (Japan/Korea/Taiwan). If you want to say that petrodollar or petroeuro is doomed, what will repl…

It's not that the petrodollar is doomed, it's just 'devaluing'. The US isn't a stable, safe place for cash anymore. But the world still needs massive amounts of safe cash. So there really is only one alternative: diversify. They'll diversity into Gold, rare-earth metals (they're only getting more important), CIPS, Yuan, Euro. That diversification helps everyone else, but will hurt the US, which hurts financial market…

To be honest this comment kind of reads like anti-US fanfiction.

>That diversification helps everyone else, but will hurt the US, which hurts financial markets, and thus everyone else.

These are huge jumps in logic, I'm not even sure where to begin. I guess the most glaring question is: If other countries are actively diversifying from US assets as you claim, why would they still be so hurt by a US financial market downturn?

>And once they're all divested, the diversification will add risk and losses.

Since when does diversification ADD risk, and how would losses be incurred?

>which of course China is leading the world in, as nobody cares about "better", they care about "cheaper"

Also a huge claim to make. You'll find plenty of people who want the best models and are pretty price-insensitive, especially among those who get the most economic value out of AI.

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#405

Post by traderj0e »

gnfargbl wrote: post #183
iLemming wrote: post #138

"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, and my grandson is going to ride a camel". Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum, the former Emir of Dubai.

Where is the Land Rover supposed to sit on this scale? There are current Land Rovers with market positioning suggesting they're "better" than Mercedes, and there are historic Land Rovers which were arguably not much better than camels.

Would say Land Rover is considered more expensive than Mercedes

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#406

Post by traderj0e »

sneak wrote: post #366
ndisn wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t convince (almost all) consumers to spend money on something that they do not want.

Car insurance. Low flow showerheads. Fuel-inefficient vehicles. Electric dryers. Electric stoves. Appliances that don’t last. Lawn care. Taxes. Social Security. The list is gigantic. Your claim could not be more false.

People want car insurance because it's a law, low-flow showerheads if water is expensive, and electric appliances if gas is expensive or outlawed. And some want fuel-inefficient vehicles because they like them and gasoline isn't very expensive, while plenty of other people opt for MPG.

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#407

Post by ericmay »

watwut wrote: post #399
ericmay wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I keep hearing this line defending US intervention but it doesn't really make sense. Iran was not threatening shipping traffic in the strait regardless of how many missiles they stocked up until they were forced to do so as an asymmetric warfare response to an attack by a superior military. Why would they threaten to do so prior to being ready? Have you ever played a strategy game where you build up your forces for…

It is not a game. And this war happened because Israel and USA assumed Iran is weak. This had squat zero with acute danger of military buildup. This happened because Hegseth thought Iran will fold and found it super unfair they did not. > Separately, you can just ask: why are they even stockpiling missiles in the first place? To protect themselves when America starta Another war. It cant go without war for long. As b…

Iran is weak compared to the United States. The war wasn't started because Iran is weak, it was started because Iran is engaging in various activities that have effects in the world that the United States finds unacceptable.

> To protect themselves when America starta Another war.

Yet, only Iran has to protect themselves. Why is that? Well it's because they're doing bad things, and they know that we may do something about it. Why isn't Peru stockpiling missiles, or Thailand, or Iceland? It's because Iran's government was seized by an authoritarian regime that hates America and decided we would be the enemy forever and has continued to attack, and take other violent or non-violent actions that destabilize the region and global trade. If they just stopped doing this stuff, there wouldn't be a reason to "attack".

> It is israel who just displaced millions of people.

I don't think so. But Iran is responsible for Syria and those millions of people too. Like Maduro is responsible for the 8 million + refugees from Venezuela.

Your point of view of the world does not match reality. Stop making excuses and defending brutal authoritarian dictatorships.

> Is the idea here that only USA gets to have missiles?

Well you believe in nuclear non-proliferation, right?

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#408

Post by fakedang »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #63
pjc50 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone's going to have to provide me with an explainer of how many different proxy forces are involved in Yemen. I can barely keep up with Lebanon and have forgotten Syria.

> an explainer of how many different proxy forces are involved in Yemen RealLifeLore has been doing a decent job covering it [1]. The broad summary is you have the Saudi-backed unity government, the Iranian-backed Houthis, who claim all of Yemen but practically want North Yemen, and the UAE-backed STC, who also claim all of Yemen but practically want South Yemen. Emiratis bring the Israelis to the party. The Iranians…

STC was defeated after a Saudi bombing campaign, and their independent nation quashed. While there might be holdouts here and there, they are a non-entity now.

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#409

Post by nkmnz »

cma wrote: post #304
nkmnz wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If they join a religion that isn't on the state approved list, they can't get married there and hard or extra expensive to get buried. There are some limits on religious freedom.

That’s a lie. You can form a civil union, which is very similar to the religious marriage. On the other hand, does Hamas recognise a Jewish marriage?

Re: UAE to leave OPEC

#410

Post by traderj0e »

testing22321 wrote: post #305
stickfigure wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If gasoline is more expensive, customers will demand more efficient vehicles. We aren't mindless zombies buying whatever we see on TV. I'm old enough to remember when Japanese small cars practically took over the market in the 70s and 80s due to gas price shocks. It can happen again.

> customers will demand more efficient vehicles The problem is those vehicles don’t exist, because the manufacturers only want to build the high margin gas guzzlers. Look at fuel economy of US made vehicles vs those in Europe. It’s beyond a joke.

Whatever your standard is for an "efficient" vehicle, more efficient things than those 15-20mpg trucks or SUVs do exist in the US. Every automaker sells a serious car that gets at least 30mpg combined if gas-only, or like 50mpg if hybrid.
Post reply on HN