Oil War

This contrarian argument, on the resilience of America’s shale industry in the face of the unfolding OPEC “price war”, is the pretext to host a discussion about a topic that is at once too huge to ignore, and too byzantine to elegantly comprehend. The most obvious complication — bypassed entirely by this article — is the harsher oil geopolitics, shaped by a Saudi-Russian proxy war over developments in the Middle East (and Russian backing of the Assad regime in Damascus, most particularly). I’m not expecting people here to be so ready to leave that aside.

Clearly, though, the attempt to strangle the new tight-oil industry in its cradle is a blatantly telegraphed dimension of the present Saudi oil-pricing strategy, and one conforming to a consistent pattern. If Mullaney’s figures can be trusted, things could get intense:

… data from the state of North Dakota says the average cost per barrel in America’s top oil-producing state is only $42 — to make a 10% return for rig owners. In McKenzie County, which boasts 72 of the state’s 188 oil rigs, the average production cost is just $30, the state says. Another 27 rigs are around $29.

If oil-price chicken is going to be exploring these depths, there’s going to be some exceptional pain among the world’s principal producers. Russia is being economically cornered in a way that is disturbingly reminiscent of policy towards Japan pre-WWII, when oil geopolitics was notoriously translated into military desperation. Venezuela will collapse. Iran is also under obvious pressure.

How is it possible that a world run by manic Keynesians gets to quaff on this deflationary tonic? It should hide a lot of structural ruin, at least in the short term. Global economic meltdown is deferred — and ultimately deepened — once again. (We’ll probably get the war first.)

ADDED: “Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s biggest oil producer, has reportedly said the oil price should stabilize at about $60 per barrel … Many OPEC members have been put under budgetary pressure by the lower oil price,as exporting countries rely heavily on oil revenues. Iran needs a price at $140 per barrel to balance its budget. Saudi Arabia needs a price of $90.70 per barrel, as it can count on huge reserves. Qatar needs $77.60 per barrel, and the United Arab Emirates $73.30 per barrel. […] In early November, OPEC officials said the price of $70 per barrel is a threshold at which other member countries could start panicking.”

ADDED: Some oil geopolitics musings from Fernandez.

December 4, 2014admin 47 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , ,

47 Responses to this entry

  • peter connor Says:

    From everything I have heard, costs of tracking production over the life of the well are far higher than the numbers you mention. This is somewhat confirmed by the drop in permits already, with the price in the high 60s…Wall Street deception, I would guess.


    admin Reply:

    Indeed. Described as ‘contrarian’ because these figures are so clearly out of line with the mainstream narrative. Some haziness is going to be inevitable, since there have to be marginal producers in any case.


    dantealiegri Reply:

    I have been consistently unimpressed with zerohedge as a source of high quality information.

    Just because the crackheads are day traders doesn’t make them less shifty.

    That said, their ability to be first on changing geopolitical situations is useful.


    Posted on December 4th, 2014 at 4:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    Even if oil prices fall to the $30 to $40 range, the Bakken wells will continue to produce because of sunk costs. They simply need the revenue, and will operate at a paper loss.

    Russia’s main problem is the aggressive expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe. They view this as an existential threat (which it is), and the NATO threat combined with falling oil revenuers might actually provoke a military response. The repeated references to Russia’s nuclear arsenal by high-ranking Russian officials and the provocative bomber patrols near NATO airspace should be taken as war threats.


    Nyan Sandwich Reply:

    I wonder how war would go. Hopefully it doesn’t go nuclear, or at all, but it would be very interesting. I do wonder how well the USA would be able to handle the domestic situation in a war. They have vastly superior military, but may not have the will. That said, they would have an easier time against Russia than against some other enemies.


    Derfel Reply:

    We need a good old-fashioned Kabinettskriege.


    peter connor Reply:

    Yes, existing wells will continue to produce unless prices reach unthinkable levels, as happened in the mid 1980s when tens of thousands of stripper wells were shut in with oil below $10/bl. I was personally involved in dealing with the many oil patch companies that went out of business during this period–hopefully it won’t get that bad this time.


    Posted on December 4th, 2014 at 5:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aeroguy Says:

    The big banks holding commodities derivatives seem to be another faction that will be hit hard by a protracted price war. I’m thinking I should back off from my previous prediction as I gather more information. There is a lot going on here and I see room for conflicting interests between different western power factions. That could make this an opportunity to observe the hierarchy of real power that they work so hard to conceal. If there’s anyone who laid out a coherent theory that led to predicting the price drop before it happened, I’d really want to hear about it.

    Would it be reasonable to expect a fully developed political theory to be able to consistently predict events like this or is it part of the whirling eddies of the fog of war? In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    To clarify what I mean by political theory:
    I love the foundation trilogy and while psychohistory as practice by Seldon is very much science fiction I see elevating the social sciences (which in their present state are essentially as scientific as alchemy) to a quantitative level as something that should be aspired to.

    In aeronautics the Navier-Stokes equation enables perfect predictions (short of a quantum level black swan) about the movement of a given fluid state in given volume down to the tiniest whirl and eddy. However limits on processing power make using full bore Navier-Stokes impossibly impractical so assumptions are made and the equations used are simplified for for actual aeronautical work. But it’s still good enough to replace wind tunnels.

    I have the impression that political systems are even more complex than the earth’s climate. Being able to make timely Navier-Stokes level predictions when the system making the predictions includes itself seems impossible. However assumptions and simplifications could bring the complexity down to a manageable size while still being able to make solid predictions (The difficulties in constructing working climate models suggest this is probably a fool’s errand, but the whole history of civilization is essentially about pushing a boulder uphill). It would be a manhattan project.


    Erebus Reply:

    I’d compare what you’re suggesting not to Navier-Stokes, but to the ongoing efforts to simulate the brain of c.elegans in silico. Political systems aren’t perfectly rational, and I don’t believe that they can be predicted mathematically — if for no other reason than the fact that one loose cannon can bring a painstakingly-modeled set of predictions down like a row of dominoes. It’s also very difficult to anticipate in advance the impact of technological progress.

    …At best, I’d imagine that your Machine Oracle would give either vague prophesy or an unwieldy ‘set of sets’ in an attempt to lay out various different potential futures.

    Fundamentally, I think that when looking at political systems, we’re looking at something more akin to biology (writ large) than to physics, and much of biology is still a poorly-understood black box.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    For the most part I agree with you. Political theory is built on top of sociology which is built on top of psychology, then biology, then chemistry, then physics. There’s the whole reductionist debate to factor in. It is a black box and psychohistory is science fiction, but that doesn’t mean we can’t build crude models or are completely incapable of making predictions. Like the practice of medicine, dissecting cadavers or mapping DNA never gave us complete knowledge but they certainly improved the models and methods of doctors. Political science is at the level of bloodletting, I’m wondering if we can advance it to the level of being able to make useful predictions, we won’t be developing drugs but we might be able to develop the equivalent of hygiene.

    Hurlock Reply:

    People have been trying to ‘elevate’ the social sciences to a quantitative level for decades. The result is tragic. Trying to turn the social sciences into quantitative sciences just like the natural one is just a misguided fetish. I call it ‘scientism’ (no relation to the regular commenter here of course) and it has ruined the field.

    Treating the social sciences as the quantitative natural sciences is just a giant category error.


    John Reply:

    I agree with everything you’ve said, but it isn’t an error. It’s a strategy for legitimating political power. This the heart of prog power, all believers and the uniformed are convinced it is truly backed by “science”. Only an ignorant redneck or evil white supremacist would argue with science.

    When you convince people that the recommendations of economists and social scientists are standing on ground as firm chemistry and physics, then you have a bottomless supply of appeal to authority. Then all that’s necessary if making sure the “scientists” you parade in front of the public are loyal party members.

    Nyan Sandwich Reply:

    Developing a solid psychohistory would be huge.

    Some predictions do seem possible, but it’s going to have to be done with some interesting techniques. As Hurlock says, the usual quantitative techniques used of social science are a bunch of crap, though I disagree that they are fundamentally unmodelable.


    dantealiegri Reply:

    I agree with Hurlock – attempting to model human societies with quantitative methods is a category error.

    It it ultimately like quantum states – when you go to measure it, the act of measuring changes the environment.


    Yes, progs are singularly attunded to sources of power. I think Hurlock and Aeroguy are debating if there is any true value in the system.


    I would say that there are useful techniques in psychology. Sociology is, imo, a giant pit of confirmation bias. For social behavior, I would start with the Milgram experiment.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    *That could make this an opportunity to observe the hierarchy of real power that they work so hard to conceal.*

    More realistically, it will be an opportunity to establish the hierarchies, which elites usually try hard to avoid doing. War or war by other means is as much as truth-making thing as it is a truth-telling thing.


    ||||| Reply:

    “Political science is at the level of bloodletting, I’m wondering if we can advance it to the level of being able to make useful predictions, we won’t be developing drugs but we might be able to develop the equivalent of hygiene.”

    Yeah, just developing a better intuition of how some of these things work is good enough for me. Prediction isn’t entirely necessary for control though, think of how you have to correct things on a flight instead of perfectly plotting the trajectory. But I think I know what you mean.

    “Fundamentally, I think that when looking at political systems, we’re looking at something more akin to biology (writ large) than to physics, and much of biology is still a poorly-understood black box.”

    One thing to remember is that biological systems also have to learn how to deal with their own complexity, so things could be a lot worse. They’re more constrained in some senses but much more difficult in others.

    Resource dump at varying levels of relatedness, overall network science shows quite a bit of promise in increasing formalization, statistical mechanics finds applications everywhere there:

    The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations.

    Empirical Confirmation of Creative Destruction from World Trade Data

    Universal Patterns in Human Urban Mobility

    Distance Matters: Geo-Social Metrics for Online Social Networks

    Games, Actions and Social Software

    A Theory of the Emergence, Persistence, and Expression of Geographic Variation in Psychological Characteristics

    Elementary Processes Governing the Evolution of Road Networks

    Small Worlds and Cultural Polarization

    Three Psychological Regions of the United States

    Governments, Civilians and the Evolution of Insurgency

    Inheritance Patterns in Citation Networks Reveal Scientific memes

    Information Geometry (in particular, Part 8 – information geometry and evolution: how natural selection resembles Bayesian inference[!!!], and how it’s related to relative entropy. A lot of the other stuff there is excellent too)

    Brain Theory

    Self-similarity of complex networks and hidden metric spaces

    Network Cosmology (an easier treatment)

    A Renormalization Group Theory of Cultural Evolution

    An exact mapping between the Variational Renormalization Group and Deep Learning

    Topological Isomorphisms of Human Brain and Financial Market Networks


    Off-topic: The Experience of Mathematical Beauty and its Neural Correlates



    admin Reply:

    This is going to take some getting through …

    (I’ll meta-link it in the next Chaos Patch.)


    ||||| Reply:

    An exact mapping between the Variational Renormalization Group and Deep Learning

    Topological isomorphisms of human brain and financial market networks

    Always seem to get one or two wrong, ffs.


    The gist of it is that there are scale-free properties and growth dynamics which can be used as leverage to understand a particular class of superficially distinct phenomena, including many of social relevance. Evolution, Learning, Trade, Ecology, Neurology and others all might fundamentally be seen as information processing networks under constrained evolutionary regimes. It’s not so much being the same process as much as sharing a leitmotif. Mainly one of non-euclidean geometry, least action principles and mathematical optimization (plus a whole bunch of other things but these are more primary IMO).

    The argument in Network Cosmology is that the structure of spacetime has an impact on networks of causal events which is asymptotically mirrored by the growth dynamics of several kinds of complex networks and this seems to me corroborated by some peculiar correspondences, like the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence and now this mapping between the renormalization group, a very important idea in modern physics and deep learning in AI/ML and this other connection between bayesian inference and natural selection, information geometry and evolutionary game theory, makes cutting edge stuff like neural turing machines seem even more interesting. Lots and lots of interfaces. So instead of thinking biology reduces to physics, for example, it might be more profitable to think physics and biology as disciplines have common conceptual ancestors and are themselves consequences of a kind of speciation. How Deleuzian is this? Been thinking of reading some of his works but don’t know if I would get anything out of that.

    Furthermore, assuming the characterization of many kinds of complex networks as possessing an underlying hyperbolic geometry is true, there are certain properties of navigability and flow optimization (resource allocation, in general) that cement things like hierarchy as not only natural but nearly optimal (and certainly winning) developments (this obviously not being a sanctification of everything the status quo does, but an aid to more concrete and rigorous establishment and definition of proper role and function) and possibly help understand some other developments such as how more “open” societies tend toward the top of the heap (also financial institutions, it has to do with configuring a network such that resource routing is efficient and robust without knowledge of the global topology and that’s where hierarchy comes in) and how this is related not only to the development but possibly also the very structure of intelligence (part of why I usually like making a distinction between intelligence and intellect), how linguistics, logic and social structure interact and so on. Overall I think some of these developments more or less slice the throats of many sacred cows out there but I’m not sure which ones exactly. They won’t provide a panacea but might dispel some conceptual miasma and provide a more structured, sane and rigorous common framework.

    Networks are obviously at the core of cladistic analysis, for example (indeed hyperbolic geometry has a precisely tree-like, i.e., taxonomic, structure), so hope that makes it a little clearer how some of these instruments can be of aid in other tasks. Also applications to institutional analysis and the propagation/diffusion of information and evolution of cultural narratives/ideologies/identities, I’d guess. It also makes me interpret ancient religions in very different ways but I don’t know how anachronistic that would be. Keep in mind most of this is above my qualifications and is more an investigation of the work of others than independent verification. Still building the mathematical skills to speak of this with any real confidence but thought would be an interesting perspective for some of you since lots of it can be understood conceptually without requiring that much mathematical maturity. There are other conceptual correspondences I’d like to talk about (which might help make this more orderly and comprehensible, it’s one of those things that’s natural after you figure out where the wires go but before it seems like a total mess and me being an awful communicator doesn’t help) but perhaps that’s best left to another thread.

    It’s some kind of weird shamanistic axis mundi katabasis shit though. As above, so below and whatnot. I’ll leave the teleology and other philosophical consequences of it to you.


    Chris B Reply:

    @ hurlock @ Nyansandwich This is why I’m trying to pwn complexity theory. Step one – point that things are not simple, and that one model does not work at all levels at all times. It flows from Hayek.
    @IIIII – keep the good stuff coming.


    Posted on December 4th, 2014 at 6:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Iran needs $140 per oil barrel…unless it pumps more oil. Then it needs less. Also, given oil is apparently around $70, clearly Iran, like most countries, has no need to balance its budget.

    Looks like the cartel is breaking down. In this case, the market has the ratchet on its side. Once high prices last long enough to work out new tech (is fracking enough?) the political clutch only has to slip once and the resulting uncontrolled forces will destroy it. The trade friction can only slow the collapse not, ultimately, stop it.

    If the Saudis are smart they’ll be prepared for their new end-user overlords. Unfortunately you need philosophically correct mind-habits to do that…

    At least this time everyone gets to enjoy the popcorn.

    Manic Keynesians? Not really. Keynes merely justified what states are fond of doing anyway. He was a shill, it’s a mistake to think of him as an economist or theorist. Given that states do it anyway, in context and comparison, the oil entropy thing is just something markets do anyway.


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Perhaps it’s a mistake to think of Shills as anything but Shills.


    Posted on December 4th, 2014 at 8:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:

    Russia could just end up doing what other resource-laden states have done in recent years that has thrown commodity markets into havoc- sell untapped resources to the Chinese at irrational prices, letting them lock up needed reserves in advance.

    This wouldn’t surprise me one bit, and seems more likely than war.


    Posted on December 4th, 2014 at 9:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Oil War | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on December 4th, 2014 at 9:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:


    There are other forces at work in this world and in the West, and some of them aren’t in motion by money, nor do they factor it into their calculations. Some of those forces have negligible money and yet they move.


    Posted on December 4th, 2014 at 9:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Are the Saudis consciously trying to crush the shale producers — or just bowing to the inevitable realities of a world with more oil supply than demand? That seems to me the fundamental question. Cars have been getting more fuel efficient, global growth has slowed a bit, and technology tends to make commodity production cheaper over time in real terms. (Just look at corn — the NOMINAL price of corn hasn’t moved much in 100 years due to relentless onslaught of new technologies.)

    The baseline assumption everyone seem to be making is that the Saudis are willing to invite WWIII to put the higher-cost half of North Dakota production out of business for 5-10 years. Seems like a leap, though of course not impossible.


    Posted on December 4th, 2014 at 10:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • sobl Says:

    Dollar recycling down to 0 as USG still runs deficits… Must be an excuse for QE4.


    Posted on December 5th, 2014 at 12:03 am Reply | Quote
  • blogospheroid Says:

    The inexplicable forces of history have given Narendra Modi a golden opportunity. This is THE time to build up Indian infrastructure. India also has another imperative – its huge unskilled youth population to employ. However, the managerial mechanism to do that in India is not really in place.

    On the positive side, if India grows properly, it alone can make up for all the demand loss from the other countries.


    Nyan Sandwich Reply:

    >grows properly
    >average IQ of ~85

    I’ll be interested to see what they do with the dalits. If they can keep the dalits under control and keep elite fertility up, they could potentially do quite well.


    blogospheroid Reply:

    Mauritius could act as a good comparison. Human stock is basically similar. Pure institutional difference. India becoming as rich as mauritius on a per-capita basis would entail the indian economy getting to 6 times its current size. Even assuming the Indian economy gets to 5 times its current size, that would vacuum away practically any natural resource production in the world.


    Kgaard Reply:

    One key point on India: IQs are not static. Pakistan’s IQ is rising more than 0.5 points/year due to better education, better health, reduced inbreeding and better access to technology. Pakistan has had one of the best stock markets in the world in recent years. India’s economy could go bananas, at least in theory. That said, the place is an absolute dump now.

    Posted on December 5th, 2014 at 4:35 am Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    I could be wrong but that first article referenced seems to be a bunch of hot air—some of the projects mentioned could be complete dogs that won’t make it past the pilot stage, especially at these prices. Pump n’ dump baby…pump n’ dump.


    Posted on December 5th, 2014 at 8:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Lord Auch Says:

    It’s funny. They’ve been beating the crap out of us about this for years, but no mention of peak oil here . . . Hello? Hello?


    Lord Auch Reply:

    Actually, the abiogenic theory on the origin of oil is my favorite “crackpot” theory.


    dantealiegri Reply:

    Well, it’s at least better than ignoring that some wells are refilling, which peak oil dooms-dayers do.

    I personally imagine a future where we have modified algae which produces oil, which we use for all the delicious things that oil gives us – plastics, lubricants and an nice quality store of energy.

    Peak oil prophets again make the key mistake of making linear trends out of a non-linear system.


    R. Reply:

    I personally imagine a future where we have modified algae which produces oil, which we use for all the delicious things that oil gives us – plastics, lubricants and an nice quality store of energy.

    Efficiency of photosynthesis is pretty low, IIRC.

    Posted on December 5th, 2014 at 9:37 am Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    Further to my previous post; some Chinese state-controlled companies are now coming to the realization that they should have done more homework before making acquisitions. In some cases they may even have Beijing plants/insiders lobbying to bring in armies of cheap labor to reduce inflated costs to make some of their acquisitions more viable:


    At one time this sort of thing was countered via a head-tax but with the west under progressive hegemony I couldn’t ever see it happening again…..it’s “racist”. The Chinese have resource rich, low population density western nations, by the balls—neocolonization is in the cards.


    dantealiegri Reply:

    The inevitable rejoinder to “by the balls” is, “yeah and with what army?”

    China has all this interest in Africa, but if there are revolts, all their money is down the drain. And that is just the tip of that iceberg.


    blogospheroid Reply:

    China is sending troops to Africe to “protect its investment and interests”



    Posted on December 5th, 2014 at 10:22 am Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    dantealiegri said:

    “Well, it’s at least better than ignoring that some wells are refilling….”

    Simple reservoir dynamics—many reservoirs are in hydraulic communication. What do you suppose happens when you induce a pressure gradient via production?

    dantealiegri said:

    “Peak oil prophets again make the key mistake of making linear trends out of a non-linear system.”

    Wrong, systems dynamics ain’t linear…

    dantealiegri said:

    “yeah and with what army?”

    Australia + Canada = 60 million
    China = 1.4 billion
    CPC Membership = 86.7 million


    Posted on December 5th, 2014 at 2:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ryan Says:

    Dumping supply into a market to bankrupt competitors is one of those strategies which works wonders in the minds of critics of capitalism but usually fails miserably in the real world. The most this can accomplish is deterring some new investment in shale because “those ass hole Saudis might pull this crap again.”


    Posted on December 11th, 2014 at 5:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Randall Parker Says:

    I find this argument implausible for a number of reasons:

    – The Saudis do not have the production capacity to be swing producers. They had much more idled capacity in the 1980s. So the Saudis as causal agents of the global oil price drop seems unlikely.

    – The Saudis are consuming more of their own oil due to population growth and more cars. They’ve probably already peaked as oil exporters..

    – North Dakota oil producers will turn up exploration when prices go up again.

    – Offshore probably has higher marginal cost than tight oil. So

    – The oil price drop in 2009 was bigger than the one happening now. Yet oil prices recovered and exploration rebounded soon after. It should be different this time why?


    Posted on December 23rd, 2014 at 5:21 am Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    So, is it excess supply or a problem with demand? The arguments I’ve seen for either seem just as plausible.


    Posted on December 23rd, 2014 at 1:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bob Says:

    The Saudis are still the swing producers:


    “The Saudis are the ‘supplier of last resort’/swing producer. Every day the world buys all the crude the other producers sell to the highest bidder and then go to the Saudis for the last 9-10 million barrels that are getting consumed. They either pay the Saudis price or shut the lights off, rendering the Saudis price setter/swing producer.

    Specifically, the Saudis don’t sell at spot price in the market place, but instead simply post prices for their customers/refiners and let them buy all they want at those prices.

    And most recently the prices they have posted have been fixed spreads from various benchmarks, like Brent.

    Saudi spread pricing works like this:
    Assume, for purposes of illustration, Saudi crude would sell at a discount of $1 vs Brent (due to higher refining costs etc.) if they let ‘the market’ decide the spread by selling a specific quantity at ‘market prices’/to the highest bidder. Instead, however, they announce they will sell at a $2 discount to Brent and let the refiners buy all they want.

    So what happens?
    The answer first- this sets a downward price spiral in motion. Refiners see the lower price available from the Saudis and lower the price they are willing to pay everyone else. And everyone else is a ‘price taker’ selling to the highest bidder, which is now $1 lower than ‘indifference levels’. When the other suppliers sell $1 lower than before the Saudi price cut/larger discount of $1, the Brent price drops by $1. Saudi crude is then available for $1 less than before, as the $2 discount remains in place. Etc. etc. with no end until either:
    1) The Saudis change the discount/raise their price
    2) Physical demand goes up beyond the Saudis capacity to increase production

    And setting the spread north of ‘neutral’ causes prices to rise, etc.

    Bottom line is the Saudis set price, and have engineered the latest decline. There was no shift in net global supply/demand as evidenced by Saudi output remaining relatively stable throughout.”


    Posted on December 24th, 2014 at 8:35 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    “How is it possible that a world run by manic Keynesians gets to quaff on this deflationary tonic? It should hide a lot of structural ruin, at least in the short term.”

    The collapse in oil is a strong hint that the world is NOT being run by manic Keynesians. Monetary base soared in the wake of the crash, but that was panic demand for money. M2 growth today is the same as before the crash (mid single digits) despite the US monetary base being several times higher. That’s why CPI is still sub-2%.

    The irony for neoreaction is that it’s precisely the FEAR of manic Keynesianism that has been driving the Germanic Bilderbergers at the ECB to be too tight with monetary policy — thereby inciting precisely the sort of social chaos they sought to avoid. And, in fact, it’s growing grass roots backlash (Dresden being the latest example) that is helping push the ECB away from manic austerity toward a more rational policy. Look for QE at the January 22 ECB board meeting.


    Posted on December 24th, 2014 at 6:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRx_N00B Says:

    Speaking of “oil-price chicken” (..and deep-state games??), no doubt reminiscent of Peter Schweizer’s Victory: “The Reagan Administration’s Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union” http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Administrations-Strategy-Hastened Collapse/dp/0871136333


    Posted on December 24th, 2014 at 8:29 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment