Iran War now? Yea or nay?

[cualltaigh]

I am not sure that is the best use of time, or at least, the ideas to start with.

Right. The summarised version of the Dynamic Factor Model of commodity prices in a paper written by an economist titled "Exploring the Supply and Demand Drivers of Commodity Prices" is way less useful in understanding how the price of oil is determined than:

Perceived value.

Marketing campaigns.

Oligopoly collusion.

[goodlun]

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.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Right. The summarised version of the Dynamic Factor Model of commodity prices in a paper written by an economist titled "Exploring the Supply and Demand Drivers of Commodity Prices" is way less useful in understanding how the price of oil is determined than:

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.

[Dr. Gonzo]

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.

And hopefully some of you are getting the drift why I detest the idiocy that posting "links" are proof or evidence of any kind,

unless the sausage is dug into, and can be verified by "us", or really me, in my own case.

I remember once when I was giving shit to Refco, about something or other regarding their claims of safety to hold our money.

Their response was, which they said so many times I got sick of it quickly,

"we are a billion dollar company, we have been in business for X years".

Well, those fuckers went belly up a few years after that.

Acting like links or appeals to institutional authority is proof or evidence, is a lotta booshit.

PS - I did not put our, or our client's money, with those fuckers.

Even though they were claiming confidence by consensus out that wazoo.

[BKR]

Perhaps BKR will chime in...

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...

[Dr. Gonzo]

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...

[BKR]

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.

[cualltaigh]

Why should it not be?

Because it is incredibly vague and immensely incomplete, enough to be misleading.

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:

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.

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".

[cualltaigh]

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.

[Michael Tzadok]

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.

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.

[PDA]

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.

[W. Rabbit]

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.

[Michael Tzadok]

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.

[Michael Tzadok]

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.

[W. Rabbit]

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.