Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran War now? Yea or nay?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dr. Gonzo
    replied
    Originally posted by cualltaigh View Post
    The link I posted was not in evidence of anything but in explanation of a complex topic you are seemingly qualified to answer but too disinterested to explain.
    Again, I gave some high level bullet points on the market side,

    And was hoping BKR would address the fossil fuel extraction technology side,

    as he is a trained geologist who used to work doing applied research,

    and doing applied science, in the fossil fuel extraction industries.

    The cool thing about environments like these forums is you actually get to hear from people with hands on expertise, as posters, and discourse with them.

    Anybody can google links without these forums, or the opportunity they provide, to actually discourse with people who have expertise in various areas themselves.

    And in fact, it is when the links start being posted that you have a fair signal that the person posting the links probably not only does not know about what is being discussed themselves, but just often did not even bother to read, thoroughly read, or fact check the contents of the link they are posting themselves.

    Especially not in this age of over marketing, click bait headlines, fake news, and the Interweb.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Gonzo
    replied
    Originally posted by cualltaigh View Post
    Because it is incredibly vague and immensely incomplete, enough to be misleading.
    Their paper was crap.

    The issue is much simpler in reality.

    There is an artificial perception of scarcity regarding oil put out by the suppliers,

    and also oil use is demonized by the radical environmentalists.

    And gasoline at the pump is often heavily taxed.

    Oil has transportation costs, and has transportation risk.

    But, outside of the artificial perception of scarcity which is used to inflate price,

    oil more naturally has the potential to be very cheap indeed, in fact much cheaper than it currently is.

    Other than that, it comes down to simple supply and demand, as with all commodity market traded goods.
    Originally posted by cualltaigh View Post
    Nope. Both have Masters in Economics. Nice attempted appeal to authority there, which you continue here:
    They are bank analysts that write crap papers for a living, for banks.

    And not just any bank, but the Reserve Bank of Australia, which is the bank you can really, really count on when you need Foreign Officials bribed and then you need that covered up poorly.

    If the people at banks really knew anything about speculation or investment success,

    then they would not need to be soliciting money in the form of consumer deposits, outside investment, or begging for money to lend at the government discount windows.

    They would be managing their own money privately.

    Most people who work at banks as analysts, junior traders, loan officers, managers, or even junior executives

    are usually actually mortgaged to the hilt, living beyond their means, and in essence, broke with a nice set of suits, a nice leased car, and a nice watch, but little or no actual net worth.

    Which brings us to you.

    Originally posted by cualltaigh View Post
    That's nice. Amongst other finance roles I managed a $1.6billion commercial property REIT portfolio (both listed and unlisted) for over 10,000 investors (both retail and institutional), a roughly $800m loan book and over $500m in deriviative hedges under three ISDA's. Your appeal to authority is still a fallacy.
    I know why I don't work at a hedge fund anymore, the 24 hour trading and its effect on my personality almost ruined my marriage, and over time, I discovered that I really don't like trading or betting with other people's money.

    I notice that you did not say that you "traded" or made trading decisions on the vehicles you listed above.

    Which makes me guess that you perhaps were part of the accounting team bean counting on them, or perhaps in compliance, or you were in a finance department logistical role.

    And I notice your language indicates that periphery involvement for you was in the past, not the present.

    Which makes me really think you were in accounting or a finance logistical role.

    Unless you are a cancer survivor, a heart attack survivor, a father of very sick child or a widower, etc.

    But I am going to assign that a low probability, and just go with the probably good guess that you were and are a bean counter who used to help bean count and report or do logistical finance work but you were not in charge of the investment or trading decisions on those vehicles.

    Originally posted by cualltaigh View Post
    rather than "perceived value, marketing and supply side manipulation".
    Why does everyone with a sunk philosophical investment always get their panties in such a fucking wad when I bring up that manipulation occurs?

    From convincing young athletes that wearing the same brand basketball shoe as their heros will make them play better,

    to making the public think margarine was better for you than butter,

    manipulation is at the heart of marketing, or affecting purchase decisions.

    Again, the Reserve Bank of Australia was caught manipulating by bribing foreign officials, and then covering it up.

    So the bank associated with the link you provided manipulates, the oil suppliers manipulate, academics both manipulate and are easy to manipulate, and so are members of the press, politicians, your doctor, etc, etc.

    Not every conspiracy is a tin foil hat event, many conspiracies are in fact called doing business, or the colluding players arranging for an optimal Nash equilibrium for themselves.
    Last edited by Dr. Gonzo; 1/09/2020 7:57am, .

    Leave a comment:


  • W. Rabbit
    replied
    "I believe based on what I saw and what I know that they were intended to cause structural damage destroy vehicles and equipment and aircraft, and to kill personnel. That's my own personal assessment," said Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when speaking to reporters on Wednesday,"

    Army Gen. Mark Milley
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    Leave a comment:


  • W. Rabbit
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Yeah and Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq all still claim that they won every war with Israel. You are thinking too much like a Westerner. Iran also reports that there are no Iranian gay people and never had been because of the purity of their belief. They just disappear them. Spend more time watching Middle Eastern media and you will be ready to give Alex Jones a Pulitzer prize.
    Haha no thanks. I already get too many briefings on Iran in any given week. No need or desire for 3rd hand opinions and religious propaganda. Saves me a shitload of time and concern. My daily routine is much cleaner since I stopped listening to Al-Jazeera et al.

    Leave a comment:


  • It is Fake
    replied
    Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    I'm gonna go out on a limb and disagree with the theory that Iran didn't intend casualties. Not only does it not fit with the last 41 years of aggression, it also conflicts with reporting inside Iran.

    Iran is telling their own citizens there were American casualties.
    That’s fine. We will all pretend that somehow the missiles were so slow and obvious that EVERYONE was able to perfectly hide to avoid injuries or casualties. I mean, no government lies to the public.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/78927...in-afghanistan

    Leave a comment:


  • W. Rabbit
    replied
    Originally posted by goodlun View Post
    https://www.npr.org/2020/01/08/79451...assad-air-base
    Some interesting photos in there, and interesting conjecture that the Irians might have specifically targets equipment instead of people.
    Not sure how much I buy that given the equipment used to attack the base.
    However it would have been a very wise move on their part.
    Conjecture is right. Or as I call it, radio ga ga.

    You don't launch ballistic missiles inside an airbase, crossing your fingers that nobody gets hurt. It just does not compute.

    Far more likely is the Iranian military was hoping for some bad optics for the US in the form of dead soldiers, because that's what state media reported anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Tzadok
    replied
    Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    I'm gonna go out on a limb and disagree with the theory that Iran didn't intend casualties. Not only does it not fit with the last 41 years of aggression, it also conflicts with reporting inside Iran.

    Iran is telling their own citizens there were American casualties.
    Yeah and Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq all still claim that they won every war with Israel. You are thinking too much like a Westerner. Iran also reports that there are no Iranian gay people and never had been because of the purity of their belief. They just disappear them. Spend more time watching Middle Eastern media and you will be ready to give Alex Jones a Pulitzer prize.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Tzadok
    replied
    Originally posted by PDA View Post
    They most likely warned the Iraqis to both prevent any Iraqi's getting injured and also knowing the Iraqis would tell the US and they would get out of harms way too.
    CNN reported that US intelligence in Nevada saw the heat blooms, and then started tracking the missiles. Once they figured out probable targets they called the bases and warned them, giving them "minutes" to take shelter.

    I know the US has bomb and rocket tracking radar, they codeveloped with Israel as part of the Iron Dome project. Why it wasn't deployed in theater baffles me. However "minutes" is a long flight path. Longer than it needed to be.

    Considering how few casualties Hamas, Hezbollah and Irsnian Revolutionary Guards have been able to pull off in Israel with as little as 18sec warning, they had to know that conventional missiles with "minutes" of flight time wasn't going to result in casualties.

    Leave a comment:


  • W. Rabbit
    replied
    I'm gonna go out on a limb and disagree with the theory that Iran didn't intend casualties. Not only does it not fit with the last 41 years of aggression, it also conflicts with reporting inside Iran.

    Iran is telling their own citizens there were American casualties.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDA
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Replying to the bold:
    You do understand that this means that they are not willing to spend on their own militaries. That is what NATO "spending" is. An agreed upon percentage of GDP is supposed to go to military spending. So, I don't really see how having their own underfunded military will help.



    Benghazi pissed me off, but not just at Obama/Clinton. I was pissed at the Republican part for sequester that meant the QRF in region couldn't actually respond within their advertised Time limit. Anywhere in the Africa or the Middle-East within 18 hours but not Benghazi in 13 because, well, no money.



    I'm starting to think from the reporting, and some of the details that Iran really didn't want to hit anything important. They could have aimed at closer bases, and if they wanted casualties they should have. As it was they targeted bases that for whatever reason didn't have their own early warning system of incoming rocket/missiles. NORAD had to call over, and even with that, the troops had minutes to get to shelter. Old people in the south of Israel have 18, seconds. In the center of the nation we have 45-60 seconds. Minutes... Iran must have fired from as far away as possible.

    I don't think the missile are accurate enough to target structures, but that they fired off from far enough away that there was more than reasonable expectation that everyone would be under cover.
    They most likely warned the Iraqis to both prevent any Iraqi's getting injured and also knowing the Iraqis would tell the US and they would get out of harms way too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Tzadok
    replied
    Originally posted by PDA View Post
    The problem is not that the EU isnt paying its way it is that NATO members do not pay their way or pull their weight.

    The solution therefore is not to create a new army but simply to pay what they have committed.

    If they have an EU army they are effectively saying that they are unwilling to pay into their own military for their individual nations defense and to satisfy NATO obligations but will put it into this other thing that they can then use whenever bypassing their domestic parliaments is necessary.
    Replying to the bold:
    You do understand that this means that they are not willing to spend on their own militaries. That is what NATO "spending" is. An agreed upon percentage of GDP is supposed to go to military spending. So, I don't really see how having their own underfunded military will help.

    Benghazi pissed me off, but not just at Obama/Clinton. I was pissed at the Republican part for sequester that meant the QRF in region couldn't actually respond within their advertised Time limit. Anywhere in the Africa or the Middle-East within 18 hours but not Benghazi in 13 because, well, no money.

    Originally posted by goodlun View Post
    https://www.npr.org/2020/01/08/79451...assad-air-base
    Some interesting photos in there, and interesting conjecture that the Irians might have specifically targets equipment instead of people.
    Not sure how much I buy that given the equipment used to attack the base.
    However it would have been a very wise move on their part.
    I'm starting to think from the reporting, and some of the details that Iran really didn't want to hit anything important. They could have aimed at closer bases, and if they wanted casualties they should have. As it was they targeted bases that for whatever reason didn't have their own early warning system of incoming rocket/missiles. NORAD had to call over, and even with that, the troops had minutes to get to shelter. Old people in the south of Israel have 18, seconds. In the center of the nation we have 45-60 seconds. Minutes... Iran must have fired from as far away as possible.

    I don't think the missile are accurate enough to target structures, but that they fired off from far enough away that there was more than reasonable expectation that everyone would be under cover.

    Leave a comment:


  • cualltaigh
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
    And hopefully some of you are getting the drift why I detest the idiocy that posting "links" are proof or evidence of any kind,
    The link I posted was not in evidence of anything but in explanation of a complex topic you are seemingly qualified to answer but too disinterested to explain.

    Leave a comment:


  • cualltaigh
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
    Why should it not be?
    Because it is incredibly vague and immensely incomplete, enough to be misleading.

    Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
    What do you know of Michelle Cunningham and Emma Smith?

    Did you even think to know their names before I mentioned them?

    They are line level staff in an the economic analysis department and international analysis department respectively.

    Probably both junior analysts with bachelor's degrees.
    Nope. Both have Masters in Economics. Nice attempted appeal to authority there, which you continue here:
    Spoiler:

    Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
    I have a Masters degree in Applied Economics, another Masters degree in Risk Management,

    and I used to trade currencies, commodities, equities, and bonds in ten million dollar lots

    (which is nothing, the large banks trade them in half billion, or billion dollar lots, called yards).

    And I co-managed a $100 million private investment,

    and I co-managed $60 million in second positions behind $300 million in real estate first positions that churned twice or thrice or more a year in new deals,

    and I was the guy that programmed the risk management models.

    And sure we did not take a loss in the several years I was there playing the 2 points and 12% model.

    Which actually meant we were not taking enough risk, so that is nothing to brag about.

    But, I am definitely still a fool in many ways.
    That's nice. Amongst other finance roles I managed a $1.6billion commercial property REIT portfolio (both listed and unlisted) for over 10,000 investors (both retail and institutional), a roughly $800m loan book and over $500m in deriviative hedges under three ISDA's. Your appeal to authority is still a fallacy.


    Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
    I am sure the junior analysts, Michelle Cunningham and Emma Smith, with no letters behind their name, who wrote that paper are really on the ball.

    In any case, I am still more interested in what BKR has to say about oil and shale extraction potential than your paper link, seemingly written by two junior analysts. Since he actually worked in that industry.
    Shall we count that as an ad-hominem as well? Senior Analysts, with plenty of post-nominals. And relevant, current experience in international commodity markets. And who have gone to more lengths to try and explain a super complex system, rather than "perceived value, marketing and supply side manipulation".

    You'll also notice I said "until BKR responds".
    Last edited by cualltaigh; 1/09/2020 12:50am, .

    Leave a comment:


  • BKR
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
    Why should it not be?

    What do you know of Michelle Cunningham and Emma Smith?

    Did you even think to know their names before I mentioned them?

    They are line level staff in an the economic analysis department and international analysis department respectively.

    Probably both junior analysts with bachelor's degrees.

    One of things that shocked me when I was a member of the press is how many of the press not only do not have much credential, but are on shoe string budgets.

    They often act mystified when I tell them to pull an academic article.

    They do not have the access, unless they buy them personally.

    And they are too poorly paid to do that.

    Likewise, many staff writers in government agencies are new, and green, and naive.

    So, sure maybe I am a fool.

    I have a Masters degree in Applied Economics, another Masters degree in Risk Management,

    and I used to trade currencies, commodities, equities, and bonds in ten million dollar lots

    (which is nothing, the large banks trade them in half billion, or billion dollar lots, called yards).

    And I co-managed a $100 million private investment,

    and I co-managed $60 million in second positions behind $300 million in real estate first positions that churned twice or thrice or more a year in new deals,

    and I was the guy that programmed the risk management models.

    And sure we did not take a loss in the several years I was there playing the 2 points and 12% model.

    Which actually meant we were not taking enough risk, so that is nothing to brag about.

    But, I am definitely still a fool in many ways.

    I am sure the junior analysts, Michelle Cunningham and Emma Smith, with no letters behind their name, who wrote that paper are really on the ball.

    In any case, I am still more interested in what BKR has to say about oil and shale extraction potential than your paper link, seemingly written by two junior analysts. Since he actually worked in that industry.
    It is huge. YUGE! Just in USA. Same thing is immature outside US and Klanadia,

    That is a oil industry technical term.

    OPEC still has enough to open spickets and drop prices to where the oil shale/FRACKING/horizontal drilling boom slowed down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Gonzo
    replied
    Originally posted by BKR View Post
    Wut?

    Am not racist so on Discord with Sub. Getting nostalgic about the good old days.

    So, yeah, US has plenty of oil and gas. Need more refineries, tho.

    Diamonds, well, Debeers, monopoly and marketing.

    Its fucking Carbon...
    Well, we all have the potential to be made into diamonds, don't we.

    Not that many of us these days have any appetite, or tolerance, or grit enough for idle stress, or mildly painful transformation, let alone...

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X