WAR!!
Comments
-
All seriousness aside, does anyone else giggle when Bush says "Putin"?
"So I says to Poot'n, 'Poot'n, knock it off' I was really firm with him." -
I giggle when Bush or anyone else from that administration says they’re going to pursue ‘diplomatic solutions’.
Bush official: Surrender!
Enemy: No.
Bush official: well, we tried. -
Boygabriel wrote: Very interesting article from Slate, talking about how Bush & Cheney recklessly encouraged Georgia to stand up to Russia, without any intent of actually coming to Georgia's aid.
Kind of like his dad did with the Chinese dissidents at Tiananmen and the Iraqis after Gulf I. -
Condi's been on vacation -- give the girl a break!
-
Drano wrote: [quote=sweet tea]sounds like south ossetia hasn't wanted to be part of georgia at least since the 1800s.
Typically in history, nation states haven't been much in the habit of letting ethnic minorities set up their own seperate countries with their borders. "Opt-out" hasn't usually gone over very well either, as the CSA found out.
.
yeah, but it makes all the talk of defending democracy a bit much. these people voted overwhelmingly (like 98% or something) that they don't want to be part of georgia. so whatever if we still want to back georgia over russia, but it's not exactly a clean-cut moral cause, as i read it. -
More (somewhat harsh, controversial and sadistic enjoyment of war itself) thoughts on what the hell Georgia was thinking by attacking territory that they knew Russia cared about protecting.
Some quotes:The Georgians bided their time, then went on the offensive, Caucasian style, by pretending to make peace and all the time planning a sneak attack on South Ossetia. They just signed a treaty granting autonomy to South Ossetia this week, and then they attacked, Corleone style. Georgian MLRS units barraged Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia; Georgian troops swarmed over Ossetian roadblocks; and all in all, it was a great, whiz-bang start, but like Petraeus asked about Iraq way back in 2003, what’s the ending to this story? As in: how do you invade territory that the Russians have staked out for protection without thinking about how they’ll react?
Saakashvili just didn’t think it through.Most likely the Georgians just thought the Russians wouldn’t react. They were doing something they learned from Bush and Cheney: sticking to best-case scenarios, positive thinking. The Georgian plan was classic shock’n’awe with no hard, grown-up thinking about the long term. Their shiny new army would go in, zap the South Ossetians while they were on a peace hangover (the worst kind), and then…uh, they’d be welcomed as liberators? Sure, just like we were in Iraq. Man, you pay a price for believing in Bush. The Georgians did.
For lots of reasons, starting with the fact that Bush is weak and they know it; that the US is all tied up in that crap Iraq war and can’t do shit; and most of all, because Kosovo just declared independence from Serbia, an old Russian ally. It’s tit for tat time, with Kosovo as the tit and South Ossetia as the tat. The way Putin sees it, if we can mess with his allies and let little ethnic enclaves like Kosovo declare independence, then the Russians can do the same with our allies, especially naïve idiotic allies like Georgia.
-
^^^Blogs are fun and all, but this is just lot of thinking out loud and speculation. For my own (admitted) speculation, I offer that there is no way Georgia doesn't block the very few entry points capable of permitting armored vehicles into the country if they were going to start any sort of coordinated assault. Come to think of it, if Georgia is instigating, better to do it when you have 1,000 U.S. troops in the country, no? That changes the game a bit. And if Russia is, better to wait until they leave. I feel it will come out that Georgia was responding to a calculated provocation; the Russians were suspiciously quick to "react."
And to this:yeah, but it makes all the talk of defending democracy a bit much. these people voted overwhelmingly (like 98% or something) that they don't want to be part of georgia. so whatever if we still want to back georgia over russia, but it's not exactly a clean-cut moral cause, as i read it.
Quite the contrary. Here's why: It is (for the moment) a fact that the region in question is part of Georgia. It is a fact that Georgia is a state. It is a fact that the fundamental principle of democracy is majority rule. Therefore, 100% of the region could vote to secede from Georgia; but if 51% of the country as a whole decided to block it, that would be a democratic outcome. Prominent historical example: The U.S. Civil War. Fun way to think about it: If, say, Brighton Beach for whatever reason decided that they wanted to be part of Russia and had some local ballot confirming the massive popularity of that notion, would the government say, "LOL see ya later then!" Of course not - and that area isn't even of any strategic importance to us. -
^i see your point, but if you look at my user name and make an educated guess, you may see why my gut reaction is a bit different.
-
It looks like Saakashvili's provocations stirred the Russian bear, with entirely predictable consequences. Unfortunately, Georgians are suffering the consequences of his irresponsible leadership. It's simultaneously risible and tragic when something like this happens and some fearless leader cries out for help from the international community. 'Thinking like a state' is not rocket science:
First rule of sovereignty: don't pick a fight you can't win by yourself.
Second rule of sovereignty: don't expose your civilian population to external attacks unnecessarily. -
sweet tea wrote: are ossetians ethnically russian? my impression is that there are ethnic ossetians in both georgia (s. ossetia) and russia (n. ossetia). and that, whatever their allegiances, they are not ethnically russian. correct?
So I expect there were somewhat separate indigenous Ossetian-speaking North Ossetians and South Ossetians, while over the last century or so Russia has been trying to Russianize its borders in various ways, including volunteering people for relocation, making sure Russian was the first language as far as possible, and so on. Just like there are an awful lot of ethnic Russians in the Baltic republics, in the East and so on. With more or less success depending on the locale. Same strategy the Javanese have been using to quell unrest in the outlying provinces of Indonesia since Dutch decolonization.
To really mix it up nicely, Ossetian-hating Ingushetia and especially Tjetjenia are right next door, and the Russians are still smarting from 2-3 failed wars to get them to tow the line. Now'd be a great time for them to start another revolt. -
doctorj wrote: and especially Tjetjenia are right next door, and the Russians are still smarting from 2-3 failed wars to get them to tow the line. Now'd be a great time for them to start another revolt.
^ aka Chechnya, to us 'Muricans. -
doctorj wrote: Same strategy the Javanese have been using to quell unrest in the outlying provinces of Indonesia since Dutch decolonization.
Or the Israelis have been using with their settlements in Palestinian territories. Or the Chinese have been doing in Western China and Tibet. -
you know who the biggest loser is in all of this? Poor Condi Rice. She had to cut her vacation short.
-
Boygabriel wrote: you know who the biggest loser is in all of this? Poor Condi Rice. She had to cut her vacation short.
My thoughts are with her... -
Some great context:
-
Except that it has had absolutely zero effect on the price of oil, oddly enough.
-
jeffrey wrote: Except that it has had absolutely zero effect on the price of oil, oddly enough.
I don't think that's what the cartoon was saying. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=jeffrey]Except that it has had absolutely zero effect on the price of oil, oddly enough.
I don't think that's what the cartoon was saying.
I suggest you have another look at the cartoon. That's precisely what it (rather inaccurately) implies.
Specifically:
The cartoon showed Russia stomping its boot down on an oil pipeline (one that happens to supply 1% of the world's oil, btw...) choking the pipeline down to a mere trickle.
That implied supply shock should technically impact oil prices upward in the same way that prices are when flows are disrupted elsewhere (by rebels in Nigeria, etc.).
But as I mentioned in my comment, this has not been the case, in reality.
Instead, oil prices have continued their steady plummet from record high of $147.27 on July 11 all the way down to $112.17 yesterday, based on a diminishing global demand picture through at least the next year or so (based on downward-trending overall economic production worldwide, therefore lower demand and prices for oil on the whole, speculators and otherwise-accurate CIBC forecasters be damned).
One would think that at least the speculators might jump to trade on whatever supply shock the cartoon [thus far incorrectly] implies to at least resist that further downward slide in prices, but my point was that no, this whole Georgia / S. Ossetia thing has had absolutely zero effect on oil prices, contrary to the cartoon implying that there has been a significant choke of supply.
Capisce?
***edited to add link to recently upward-revised CIBC oil prices forecast -
I love Gorbachev videos.
-
12 year-old and mother tell it straight on Fox...watch how Fox handles it, hah...
Caveat: guy who submitted video may be just a *tad* off his rocker, or at the very least has a flair for the dramatic (and bad techno, quite the stereotype), lol. -
Hey, I posted that video (with better sound) in the last page of this thread!
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=458793#458793 -
Hah. oops. Not sure how I missed that.
Durr...
:oops:
-
jeffrey wrote:
Hang on, how can you know it had zero effect, and that the price wouldn't have fallen even further if it weren't for the Georgia crisis?
The cartoon showed Russia stomping its boot down on an oil pipeline (one that happens to supply 1% of the world's oil, btw...) choking the pipeline down to a mere trickle.
That implied supply shock should technically impact oil prices upward in the same way that prices are when flows are disrupted elsewhere (by rebels in Nigeria, etc.).
But as I mentioned in my comment, this has not been the case, in reality.
Instead, oil prices have continued their steady plummet from record high of $147.27 on July 11 all the way down to $112.17 yesterday, based on a diminishing global demand picture through at least the next year or so (based on downward-trending overall economic production worldwide, therefore lower demand and prices for oil on the whole, speculators and otherwise-accurate CIBC forecasters be damned).
One would think that at least the speculators might jump to trade on whatever supply shock the cartoon [thus far incorrectly] implies to at least resist that further downward slide in prices, but my point was that no, this whole Georgia / S. Ossetia thing has had absolutely zero effect on oil prices, contrary to the cartoon implying that there has been a significant choke of supply.
You're also omitting an important factor: the US dollar strengthening suddenly and rapidly, due in part to unexpectedly bad growth figures in the EU, perceptions of the EUR being overvalued with rate cuts around the corner. Resource exporting nation's currencies have fallen even further. Pricing oil in USD is an illusion -- the US is not the only country that imports oil. If you look at the fall in terms of the prices the rest of the world's consumers pay in their local currency, it's been much less. What's happened is a large change in the perception of who will be able to afford the oil against a backdrop of slowdown/recession going global not just US. Against this repricing and realignment, Georgia could have contributed a 1-2% strengthening in price on supply fears that got lost in the noise. -
doctorj wrote: [quote=jeffrey]
Hang on, how can you know it had zero effect, and that the price wouldn't have fallen even further if it weren't for the Georgia crisis?
The cartoon showed Russia stomping its boot down on an oil pipeline (one that happens to supply 1% of the world's oil, btw...) choking the pipeline down to a mere trickle.
That implied supply shock should technically impact oil prices upward in the same way that prices are when flows are disrupted elsewhere (by rebels in Nigeria, etc.).
But as I mentioned in my comment, this has not been the case, in reality.
Instead, oil prices have continued their steady plummet from record high of $147.27 on July 11 all the way down to $112.17 yesterday, based on a diminishing global demand picture through at least the next year or so (based on downward-trending overall economic production worldwide, therefore lower demand and prices for oil on the whole, speculators and otherwise-accurate CIBC forecasters be damned).
One would think that at least the speculators might jump to trade on whatever supply shock the cartoon [thus far incorrectly] implies to at least resist that further downward slide in prices, but my point was that no, this whole Georgia / S. Ossetia thing has had absolutely zero effect on oil prices, contrary to the cartoon implying that there has been a significant choke of supply.
Because of the trading reported, as per daily reports on Bloomberg Radio. The trades simply weren't there to support your hypothesis. Guess I need to find a specific citation for that, but it's been a daily discussion point at the end of each day, when whatsisname does his evening show from Boston with various experts on.doctorj wrote: You're also omitting an important factor: the US dollar strengthening suddenly and rapidly, due in part to unexpectedly bad growth figures in the EU, perceptions of the EUR being overvalued with rate cuts around the corner.
You're omitting an important factor in your analysis:
I did not omit that factor in my analysis. In fact, I made specific reference to this exact phenomenon to support my point:
jeffrey wrote: ...based on a diminishing global demand picture through at least the next year or so (based on downward-trending overall economic production worldwide...
To further my point, it's not just the EU that has the bug.
...that combined with the fact that the US is widely projected to be the first to nose out of the current downward trend (relative to EU nations especially), which in turn makes US treasuries more attractive than those of other countries (with US as presenting less risk and less likely chance of cutting rates to deal with diminished growth), which is why you see the dollar making gains in the last few weeks.
On to the currency/fx issue...doctorj wrote: Resource exporting nation's currencies have fallen even further. Pricing oil in USD is an illusion -- the US is not the only country that imports oil. If you look at the fall in terms of the prices the rest of the world's consumers pay in their local currency, it's been much less. What's happened is a large change in the perception of who will be able to afford the oil against a backdrop of slowdown/recession going global not just US. Against this repricing and realignment, Georgia could have contributed a 1-2% strengthening in price on supply fears that got lost in the noise
Yes, absolutely, what we are seeing here in the US is certainly a double-whammy of oil price slippage *and* the dynamic exchange rates factor. No argument there, and perhaps my mention of specific $US prices (containing that amplified effect) led to fair criticism there. Fair enough.
But a decent chunk of the very speculation on prices I referred to would have come out in that same $US market, and to my point, that simply has not materialized (at least as per Bloomberg LP's daily reports) in spite of significant geopolitical events as in other cases. That's all I was getting at.
And in terms of your suggestion that oil is mostly just falling in dollars, which may be a mere illusion as compared to the case of oil prices in other currencies...this from Bloomberg, as of yesterday:The euro-dollar exchange rate and oil have had a correlation of 0.9 in the past year, according to Bloomberg calculations. A reading of 1 would mean they move in lockstep.
So although oil prices may not be falling as rapidly in the EU as in the US (due to fx amplification reasons mentioned above), the fall in EU oil prices are still very much trending closely with $US oil prices.
Again, no perception of demand shock or price spike suddenly discounted into the overall trend. There simply has not been any news of the fall in oil prices being buffered by new concerns in Georgia. EU and Japan's economic woes (and US's prospects in the context of those) have been the discussion of the day, not new shocks due to geopolitical threats.
So to get back to my original point about the cartoon...
My original point was that I actually found it odd that it did not pose any notable shock to prices, or perceptions of supply in general. It hasn't even come up in these conversations (in terms of notable impact on supply or price), in spite of reports of attempts to attack the pipeline and the port city at its terminus.
I have yet to see evidence to the contrary, on that account.
Perhaps someone might provide some, if they have seen it. -
(heading out to cyclones game, back later...) :P
-
Ahh, baseball beer and a beautiful day.
Oh, and one more "b"...
A baby alligator crossing the street in front of our house just after we walked back in with the kids. Ha.
As to your question, this definitely isn't my field, and trading the vagueries of Putin/Bush election-year politics may definitely amount to stepping in front of a freight train depending on how things continue to play out, but what the heck, I will take a stab.
(Especially in my present state of liquid courage, hah. :drunken: :shaking2: )
First, the last item....hedged or unhedged for USD/GEL.
Definitely NOT hedged.
Dollar has totally bottomed out pretty much across the boards IMHO and has nowhere to go but up across the same boards. Definitely no earth-shattering news there, as recent weeks of news and market movement have already priced in a corner being turned here. But yeah, USD is on its way back through the near term (out of its most precipitous hole, in other words...), so there's no way I'd want to hedge against it when all the arrows point to those hedges as both unnecessary and lost from the get-go.
On to other factors of the question...I like the concept of an ETF for obvious reasons as opposed to a single or smaller-basket securities play (duh, diversification) but I have to say that I do think that...
1) certain areas of US growth will be better
and
2) areas of GSE-represented industrial growth will be limited by...
a) less access to growth/investment capital
b) more expensive access to growth/investment capital
c) less confidence in risk factors and ability to meet and deliver upon business contracts overall, and local govt's potentially diminished ability to enforce contracts and covenants when executed
d) potential decline in available labor force (due to some manner of increase in military/security service, and some -- albeit perhaps low -- increased rates of injury, death or other debilitating factors) may lead to higher cost of labor, as the remaining available pool of industrial and service workers have more choices and better negotiating power for rate and benefits
...all due to the onset of these new insecurity and instabilty factors stemming from what's already on the table, before we get into the diplomatic (for starters...) nightmares coming up regarding these various autonomous regions that both Georgia and Russia refuse to let go (some of which have, as it has been noted in this thread, voted overwhelmingly for secession anyway).
And, of course...
e) the occasional sh_t actually blowing up (if you will pardon the technical term, lol)
So, uh..not sure how many banks and firms are gonna wanna send new money in there (other than Russian ones, but wait, they HATE Georgians, hah), and at what price if they do.
So, that points me to the third part. Short position.
In summary, as a result of my inebriated ruminations on this fair evening, you may have full confidence in and feel free to...
SHORT GSE ETFs, UNHEDGED
And if you lose anything, I will totally buy you a drink.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds