oil tied economies - the gift that keeps giving
September 17, 2008 5:51 AM Subscribe
As many peoples eyes will be elsewhere the readers of the blue may not have seen the red flowing in the streets of Mother Russia.
Russia’s two main bourses, RTS and MICEX, said on Wednesday they were suspending trade until further notice. How bad? Russian shares suffered their steepest one-day fall in more than a decade on Tuesday, losing up to 20 per cent, as a sharp slide in oil prices and difficult money market conditions triggered a rush to sell.
Perhaps the Russian readers will keep the American's up to date with the list of Russian firms bailed out by the Russian government?
Perhaps the Russian readers will keep the American's up to date with the list of Russian firms bailed out by the Russian government?
Let's not forget that the Yukos and TNK-BP tussles would have far more impact on those calculations, athenian. And I say this as someone who missed a bomb in Gori market by two hours, so don't think I don't have an opinion on the Georgia situation.
posted by jaduncan at 6:12 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by jaduncan at 6:12 AM on September 17, 2008
Another link about the matter I missed
"There's only one kind of paper that can be sold now. Toilet paper," wrote another.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:17 AM on September 17, 2008
"There's only one kind of paper that can be sold now. Toilet paper," wrote another.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:17 AM on September 17, 2008
Personally, I think this is more about things like the TNK-BP fight. The debacle in Georgia certainly doesn't help, but I think the main reason for capital flight has been the realization that all of your investments could be nullified if someone in the Kremlin decided his buddy wanted that asset for himself.
posted by aramaic at 6:24 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by aramaic at 6:24 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
Thanks for this post, and I hope knowledgeable MeFites will keep adding links to update the thread. If Russia's oil-powered economy collapses, it's going to have serious consequences.
posted by languagehat at 6:30 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by languagehat at 6:30 AM on September 17, 2008
Russia needs a strong leader. Like Stalin. Except it occurs to me that they already have one, so there's probably nothing they can do.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:36 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:36 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
capital flight has been the realization that all of your investments could be nullified if someone in the Kremlin decided his buddy wanted that asset for himself.
Still trying to figure out that whole property ownership deal. Actually, im sure they figured it out but realized that any capital protection hurts their little mafia/FSB kleptocracy they have running the entire country.
posted by damn dirty ape at 6:37 AM on September 17, 2008
Still trying to figure out that whole property ownership deal. Actually, im sure they figured it out but realized that any capital protection hurts their little mafia/FSB kleptocracy they have running the entire country.
posted by damn dirty ape at 6:37 AM on September 17, 2008
The only thing that is surprising about this to me is that it hasn't happened sooner. Russia's oil wealth is specifically because of this kind of expropriation in the recent past.
posted by dobie at 6:46 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by dobie at 6:46 AM on September 17, 2008
If Russia's oil-powered economy collapses, it's going to have serious consequences.
posted by languagehat at 9:30 AM on September 17
Actually, no it won't. Russia's economy already collapsed once before in the late 90's, and most people didn't notice. Russia's economy is very much dependent on oil and gas, both for exports, investment, and to drive the domestic economy. The only reason Russia was emerging as an economic powerhouse is because speculation worldwide drove up commodity prices. Oil went from 80-140 in less than six months, and then Russia started to position itself on the basis that 120-140 is the equilibrium price. This wasn't merely arrogance, it reflects a complete lack of sophistication in the market on which their national economy depends.
Saudi Arabia, by contrast, has been spending the years of the oil boom trying to move away from being a pure raw material supplier to becoming a supplier of value-added petroleum-derivative products. Saudi Arabia bought GE Plastics years ago. They are buying chemical companies. Why ship the oil to someone else who is going to turn it into something more valuable, when that can be done right in S.A.? More efficient to ship the plastics and chemicals straight to the factories.
In China. Which will also reduce their dependence on the U.S. as their primary trading partner, and enable them to access more varied sources of capital for investment. Anyone in Russia doing this kind of thinking?
Instead, they got ahead of themselves and fought a war that did nothing but alienate the world. They wanted to stage a Cold War rematch. Smart move. How eager do you think the world will be to invest in Russia now?
posted by Pastabagel at 6:48 AM on September 17, 2008 [21 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 9:30 AM on September 17
Actually, no it won't. Russia's economy already collapsed once before in the late 90's, and most people didn't notice. Russia's economy is very much dependent on oil and gas, both for exports, investment, and to drive the domestic economy. The only reason Russia was emerging as an economic powerhouse is because speculation worldwide drove up commodity prices. Oil went from 80-140 in less than six months, and then Russia started to position itself on the basis that 120-140 is the equilibrium price. This wasn't merely arrogance, it reflects a complete lack of sophistication in the market on which their national economy depends.
Saudi Arabia, by contrast, has been spending the years of the oil boom trying to move away from being a pure raw material supplier to becoming a supplier of value-added petroleum-derivative products. Saudi Arabia bought GE Plastics years ago. They are buying chemical companies. Why ship the oil to someone else who is going to turn it into something more valuable, when that can be done right in S.A.? More efficient to ship the plastics and chemicals straight to the factories.
In China. Which will also reduce their dependence on the U.S. as their primary trading partner, and enable them to access more varied sources of capital for investment. Anyone in Russia doing this kind of thinking?
Instead, they got ahead of themselves and fought a war that did nothing but alienate the world. They wanted to stage a Cold War rematch. Smart move. How eager do you think the world will be to invest in Russia now?
posted by Pastabagel at 6:48 AM on September 17, 2008 [21 favorites]
This, all this. When crude is $120-140 then Russia can do what it wants. When it's $90 less. On NPR they said there's a floor somewhere around $75 because at that point the more expensive new production starts to turn off. A few weeks ago people were saying it could go to $200.
Also hilarious: the DRILL BABY DRILL morons are going to have trouble finding explorers who want to do that drilling now.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:57 AM on September 17, 2008
Also hilarious: the DRILL BABY DRILL morons are going to have trouble finding explorers who want to do that drilling now.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:57 AM on September 17, 2008
I'm kind of hesitant to take financial information from a site who's header is "News - Analysis - Conspiracies"
posted by a robot made out of meat at 7:04 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by a robot made out of meat at 7:04 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
yeah, the collapse of oil prices in the late 80s had just as much to do with the failure of Gorbachev's government as St Reagan's moral and military challenges, if not more.
posted by troy at 7:08 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by troy at 7:08 AM on September 17, 2008
Pastabagel, not to bring up Godwin's law but wasn't Germany in the same kind of desperate financial straits when they went all Nazi and decided they could invade their way out of a tough situation? Hell, wasn't George W. Bush in the same situation in 2002 when Dick Cheney figured out invading Iraq would be a great way to take America's mind off the economy (and his wholesale rape of the treasury)? The big difference between the Soviet Union collapse in the 90's and now is that back then they didn't have a dictator bent on world domination like my two previous examples. Heck, didn't Putin actually use that collapse to ascend to power and move his country toward dictatorship much like Hitler? Please tell me I'm reaching because I'd really really like to be reaching on this one, but long range Russian bombers flying maneuvers in the Caribbean tell me I'm not.
posted by any major dude at 7:14 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by any major dude at 7:14 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
This wasn't merely arrogance, it reflects a complete lack of sophistication in the market on which their national economy depends.
Hmm, I don't think that's quite true. Russia has (supposedly) been putting much of the extra income from the high oil prices (anything over $27/barrel, technically) into a stabilization fund to prop up the economy in times like these. I don't know whether it's been activated yet, but there is an emergency fallback measure in place.
What I'm reading on Russian business sites is cautiously optimistic. Apparently the head of the World Bank said that the fundamentals of the Russian economy are strong (hopefully not as blatant a lie as it is when John McCain says that), and people seem to be predicting that the market will start gradually rebounding when it reopens--they say this is rock bottom, or close to it. The government appears to be using US-style liquidity injections to prop up the situation.
Hopefully this won't be a repeat of 1998, but I doubt it will be. The economy is more diversified and fundamentally stable than it was in the '90s. How fragile that stability is remains to be seen, of course, but my guess is that by the end of the year we'll see some recovery. I doubt oil prices will fall much further, given the limited growth in supply and unlimited growth in demand.
I agree that this has little to do with the Georgia situation, although people do love to moralize about Russia getting its comeuppance or something. Markets worldwide are closing way down--it's a domino effect from the US financial crisis. From a global investment point of view, Russia is very much a developing country, and so it's much more vulnerable to these kinds of shocks than many other countries, especially in the EU.
posted by nasreddin at 7:20 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
Hmm, I don't think that's quite true. Russia has (supposedly) been putting much of the extra income from the high oil prices (anything over $27/barrel, technically) into a stabilization fund to prop up the economy in times like these. I don't know whether it's been activated yet, but there is an emergency fallback measure in place.
What I'm reading on Russian business sites is cautiously optimistic. Apparently the head of the World Bank said that the fundamentals of the Russian economy are strong (hopefully not as blatant a lie as it is when John McCain says that), and people seem to be predicting that the market will start gradually rebounding when it reopens--they say this is rock bottom, or close to it. The government appears to be using US-style liquidity injections to prop up the situation.
Hopefully this won't be a repeat of 1998, but I doubt it will be. The economy is more diversified and fundamentally stable than it was in the '90s. How fragile that stability is remains to be seen, of course, but my guess is that by the end of the year we'll see some recovery. I doubt oil prices will fall much further, given the limited growth in supply and unlimited growth in demand.
I agree that this has little to do with the Georgia situation, although people do love to moralize about Russia getting its comeuppance or something. Markets worldwide are closing way down--it's a domino effect from the US financial crisis. From a global investment point of view, Russia is very much a developing country, and so it's much more vulnerable to these kinds of shocks than many other countries, especially in the EU.
posted by nasreddin at 7:20 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
Heck, didn't Putin actually use that collapse to ascend to power and move his country toward dictatorship much like Hitler? Please tell me I'm reaching because I'd really really like to be reaching on this one, but long range Russian bombers flying maneuvers in the Caribbean tell me I'm not.
This kind of facile historical analogy is profoundly unhelpful, and is, in fact, the reason Godwin's Law is often used to police discussion. Bombers in the Caribbean are Russia's response to American escalation in Poland and are nothing more than a tit-for-tat demonstration of power. People like you, who eternally want to re-fight the Cold War or World War II (it doesn't matter which, as long as there's an evil comic book villain intent on TAKING OVER THE WORLD!), are precisely the unthinking militaristic swine that lead countries to war and take millions of innocent lives. If you can make Russia into an incomprehensible, mindlessly destructive Other, that makes it ever so much easier to beat the drum of slaughter.
posted by nasreddin at 7:26 AM on September 17, 2008 [5 favorites]
This kind of facile historical analogy is profoundly unhelpful, and is, in fact, the reason Godwin's Law is often used to police discussion. Bombers in the Caribbean are Russia's response to American escalation in Poland and are nothing more than a tit-for-tat demonstration of power. People like you, who eternally want to re-fight the Cold War or World War II (it doesn't matter which, as long as there's an evil comic book villain intent on TAKING OVER THE WORLD!), are precisely the unthinking militaristic swine that lead countries to war and take millions of innocent lives. If you can make Russia into an incomprehensible, mindlessly destructive Other, that makes it ever so much easier to beat the drum of slaughter.
posted by nasreddin at 7:26 AM on September 17, 2008 [5 favorites]
How legitimate is the Russian stock market to begin with? On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is a transparent, fairly run and adequately regulated stock market and 10 is an obvious mafia front where all the "market makers" are packing heat and settle disputes with tire irons, where does Russia sit?
posted by The Straightener at 7:27 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by The Straightener at 7:27 AM on September 17, 2008
How legitimate is the Russian stock market to begin with? On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is a transparent, fairly run and adequately regulated stock market and 10 is an obvious mafia front where all the "market makers" are packing heat and settle disputes with tire irons, where does Russia sit?
Since TNK-BP? Well, market participants are fairly civilized but if you annoy the government they are apparently still prepared mess you up in a quasi-extrajudicial manner. 6, maybe?
But it's an economy where most of the money being made is being made from oil and gas, so it's also hard to find a sector where you don't run up into the government and Gazprom. Bear in mind Gazprom also increasingly has investments unrelated to the core business so they have power in many areas. Imagine what it was like working in a fascist (and I use this in the union of state and corporate power sense) market and you'll get the idea. Plus point: now they have working contract law so far fewer mafia contracts are taken out on people. You just might have connected people call up a surprising tax inspection etc.
posted by jaduncan at 7:42 AM on September 17, 2008
George W. Bush in the same situation in 2002 when Dick Cheney figured out invading Iraq
hey man, it was less an invasion than a hostile takeover. We even parachuted their new CEO, Paul Bremer, to run things. To bad he lost support of the board.
posted by troy at 7:44 AM on September 17, 2008
hey man, it was less an invasion than a hostile takeover. We even parachuted their new CEO, Paul Bremer, to run things. To bad he lost support of the board.
posted by troy at 7:44 AM on September 17, 2008
Perhaps the Russian readers will keep the American's up to date with the list of Russian firms bailed out by the Russian government?
OK, most importantly, stop using apostrophes to pluralize. Also, isn't the Russian oil industry a state-owned monopoly? Haven't they been 'bailing it out' from day one?
posted by mattholomew at 7:51 AM on September 17, 2008
OK, most importantly, stop using apostrophes to pluralize. Also, isn't the Russian oil industry a state-owned monopoly? Haven't they been 'bailing it out' from day one?
posted by mattholomew at 7:51 AM on September 17, 2008
nasreddin wrote:
Bombers in the Caribbean are Russia's response to American escalation in Poland and are nothing more than a tit-for-tat demonstration of power
That might be part of it but I think it's more of a response to Chavez' charge that the US is trying to destabilize his government (again). Did you not read about how he (and Bolivia) expelled the US ambassadors last week? Could he do such a thing if Russia didn't have his back? I think we seriously have to think about retiring Godwin's law as world economic conditions re-approach those of the great depression. History repeats doesn't it, doesn't it?
posted by any major dude at 8:12 AM on September 17, 2008
Bombers in the Caribbean are Russia's response to American escalation in Poland and are nothing more than a tit-for-tat demonstration of power
That might be part of it but I think it's more of a response to Chavez' charge that the US is trying to destabilize his government (again). Did you not read about how he (and Bolivia) expelled the US ambassadors last week? Could he do such a thing if Russia didn't have his back? I think we seriously have to think about retiring Godwin's law as world economic conditions re-approach those of the great depression. History repeats doesn't it, doesn't it?
posted by any major dude at 8:12 AM on September 17, 2008
Russia's economy already collapsed once before in the late 90's, and most people didn't notice.
Maybe you didn't notice, but that doesn't mean "most people" didn't. Specifically, I'm pretty sure most Russians did. What, are consequences only "serious" when they happen to you? Or are Russians not real human beings because their leaders are assholes?
posted by languagehat at 8:18 AM on September 17, 2008 [7 favorites]
Maybe you didn't notice, but that doesn't mean "most people" didn't. Specifically, I'm pretty sure most Russians did. What, are consequences only "serious" when they happen to you? Or are Russians not real human beings because their leaders are assholes?
posted by languagehat at 8:18 AM on September 17, 2008 [7 favorites]
History repeats doesn't it, doesn't it?
No. History does not repeat itself. I have never seen a demonstration of this canard that wasn't an ideological deployment of some myth or other, generally about Hitler or the Romans. Unless you're talking about Marx's use of the phrase, which was a polemical joke at the expense of Napoleon III.
Could he do such a thing if Russia didn't have his back? I think we seriously have to think about retiring Godwin's law as world economic conditions re-approach those of the great depression.
Yes, Russia is joining a growing worldwide anti-US bloc that includes Syria, Venezuela (and other South American countries) as well as some others. None of this has anything to do with Hitler, and none of it proves anything with regard to the continuing validity of Godwin's Law (except maybe its usefulness in counteracting ludicrous and idiotic historical analogies).
posted by nasreddin at 8:19 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
No. History does not repeat itself. I have never seen a demonstration of this canard that wasn't an ideological deployment of some myth or other, generally about Hitler or the Romans. Unless you're talking about Marx's use of the phrase, which was a polemical joke at the expense of Napoleon III.
Could he do such a thing if Russia didn't have his back? I think we seriously have to think about retiring Godwin's law as world economic conditions re-approach those of the great depression.
Yes, Russia is joining a growing worldwide anti-US bloc that includes Syria, Venezuela (and other South American countries) as well as some others. None of this has anything to do with Hitler, and none of it proves anything with regard to the continuing validity of Godwin's Law (except maybe its usefulness in counteracting ludicrous and idiotic historical analogies).
posted by nasreddin at 8:19 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Speaking of Venezuela, how's ol' Hugo faring through all of this?
posted by mattholomew at 8:22 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by mattholomew at 8:22 AM on September 17, 2008
Languagehat, you have a valid point but I think the intent of the original statement was to say that the rest of the world economy chugged along just fine after the Russian economy collapsed; In other words, that the Russian economy collapsing doesn't necessarily start a domino effect in other markets. I have no idea whether that's true or not, just clarifying what I think the actual point was.
posted by mattholomew at 8:30 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by mattholomew at 8:30 AM on September 17, 2008
nasreddin wrote:
Bombers in the Caribbean are Russia's response to American escalation in Poland and are nothing more than a tit-for-tat demonstration of power
The problem with this is that it isn't 1983. Theses tit-for-tat demonstrations of power are completely pointless. The US has been advancing its military technology at a feverish pace since the end of the cold war. Russia hasn't. It isn't a numbers game anymore, where we match tanks for tanks and planes for planes. The U.S. has a small airforce of robotic killer drones. The army has laser cannons. Putin is engaging in classic "strong man" PR stunts and bluffs to try to show the world that Russia is what the Soviet Union was in the 80's. Great. The US military is an order of magnitude more powerful than it was in the 80's and not because of numbers, but because of their ability to leverage massive amounts of information to control horrifying technology with stunning speed.
Also, the U.S. can barely afford to do this. Russia absolutely cannot afford to do this. Russia needs a forward thinker who realizes that Russia's future lies in being an fully engaged trading partner with Europe and the US, not in trying to establish their own sphere of influence.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:31 AM on September 17, 2008 [4 favorites]
Bombers in the Caribbean are Russia's response to American escalation in Poland and are nothing more than a tit-for-tat demonstration of power
The problem with this is that it isn't 1983. Theses tit-for-tat demonstrations of power are completely pointless. The US has been advancing its military technology at a feverish pace since the end of the cold war. Russia hasn't. It isn't a numbers game anymore, where we match tanks for tanks and planes for planes. The U.S. has a small airforce of robotic killer drones. The army has laser cannons. Putin is engaging in classic "strong man" PR stunts and bluffs to try to show the world that Russia is what the Soviet Union was in the 80's. Great. The US military is an order of magnitude more powerful than it was in the 80's and not because of numbers, but because of their ability to leverage massive amounts of information to control horrifying technology with stunning speed.
Also, the U.S. can barely afford to do this. Russia absolutely cannot afford to do this. Russia needs a forward thinker who realizes that Russia's future lies in being an fully engaged trading partner with Europe and the US, not in trying to establish their own sphere of influence.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:31 AM on September 17, 2008 [4 favorites]
Maybe you didn't notice, but that doesn't mean "most people" didn't. Specifically, I'm pretty sure most Russians did. What, are consequences only "serious" when they happen to you? Or are Russians not real human beings because their leaders are assholes?
posted by languagehat at 11:18 AM on September 17
Actually, languagehat, I did notice. I watched it crack and crumble, just like I saw Argentina's, Indonesia's, Korea's, and the others at that time. Obviously it will have serious consequences to the domestic economy, but when you wrote "serious consequences", you seemed to imply that the consequences would be serious for us.
Yes, Russians are real human beings. Perhaps they should remind their leaders of that.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:36 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Okaayyy, so, back to economics: is anyone else vaguely worried about Gazprom? I keep having this weird sense of foreboding about them, but I can't put my finger on the reason.
posted by aramaic at 8:39 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by aramaic at 8:39 AM on September 17, 2008
Pastabagel, Russia is not getting into a shooting war with the US or any modern military. Their military stance is exactly like N.Korea's. Their threat is to their own people via starvation if their economy fails and blowing up a neighbor or two on their way down.
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:42 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:42 AM on September 17, 2008
Theses tit-for-tat demonstrations of power are completely pointless.
I don't disagree with you. But if you think Putin or anyone else would survive as a Russian leader if he didn't take steps to "stand up to the West," you're wrong. Russian politics is a lot less about effective policies and a lot more about demonstrations of power, which Putin is a master at.
posted by nasreddin at 8:48 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
I don't disagree with you. But if you think Putin or anyone else would survive as a Russian leader if he didn't take steps to "stand up to the West," you're wrong. Russian politics is a lot less about effective policies and a lot more about demonstrations of power, which Putin is a master at.
posted by nasreddin at 8:48 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Hugo is being Hugo. "Go ahead and squeal, Yankees". Leading the Russian force will be the Petr Velikiy, a 26,000-ton, nuclear-propelled "battle cruiser."
posted by adamvasco at 9:08 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by adamvasco at 9:08 AM on September 17, 2008
that Russia's future lies in being an fully engaged trading partner with Europe and the US, not in trying to establish their own sphere of influence.
Yes, HOWEVER, the West and the US need to realize that this will never happen until we stop fucking with their borders by enticing their neighbors into NATO so we can build deployment bases.
posted by spicynuts at 9:12 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yes, HOWEVER, the West and the US need to realize that this will never happen until we stop fucking with their borders by enticing their neighbors into NATO so we can build deployment bases.
posted by spicynuts at 9:12 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Russian Central Bank has reportedly lowered reserve requirements for banks by 4%, making an estimated 300 billion rubles (11 billion dollars) available to the banks. Some larger banks will also be offered the chance to place federal funds on their deposits.
posted by daniel_charms at 9:13 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by daniel_charms at 9:13 AM on September 17, 2008
Their threat is to their own people via starvation if their economy fails and blowing up a neighbor or two on their way down.
A few thousand ICBMs make everybody their neighbor.
posted by theclaw at 9:28 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
A few thousand ICBMs make everybody their neighbor.
posted by theclaw at 9:28 AM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
Venezuela just recently expelled the US ambassador after Bolivia did the same, after some more noise from the US about drugs and with Chavez claiming another US-backed coup attempt.
On the one hand, Chavez seems like the sort of guy to make up a coup attempt by a foreign power, but on the other hand, the U.S. is the sort of foreign power that does coup attempts, so who knows...
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:31 AM on September 17, 2008
On the one hand, Chavez seems like the sort of guy to make up a coup attempt by a foreign power, but on the other hand, the U.S. is the sort of foreign power that does coup attempts, so who knows...
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:31 AM on September 17, 2008
The US has been advancing its military technology at a feverish pace since the end of the cold war. Russia hasn't.
You know who else underestimated the military power of the Russians?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:35 AM on September 17, 2008 [3 favorites]
You know who else underestimated the military power of the Russians?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:35 AM on September 17, 2008 [3 favorites]
TheOnlyCoolTim wrote:
On the one hand, Chavez seems like the sort of guy to make up a coup attempt by a foreign power, but on the other hand, the U.S. is the sort of foreign power that does coup attempts, so who knows...
It's not like they haven't tried already...
posted by any major dude at 9:45 AM on September 17, 2008
On the one hand, Chavez seems like the sort of guy to make up a coup attempt by a foreign power, but on the other hand, the U.S. is the sort of foreign power that does coup attempts, so who knows...
It's not like they haven't tried already...
posted by any major dude at 9:45 AM on September 17, 2008
Pastabagel, Russia is not getting into a shooting war with the US or any modern military. Their military stance is exactly like N.Korea's.
Russia can stand upon functional hydrogen bombs and delivery systems, not to mention the land and equipment to actually feed its people.
So, sure, why not - exactly like N. Korea.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:54 AM on September 17, 2008
Russia can stand upon functional hydrogen bombs and delivery systems, not to mention the land and equipment to actually feed its people.
So, sure, why not - exactly like N. Korea.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:54 AM on September 17, 2008
I doubt the U.S. is involved in any coup attempt in Venezuela this time (although I'd bet they were behind the first one that happened before 9/11)
posted by delmoi at 9:59 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by delmoi at 9:59 AM on September 17, 2008
when you wrote "serious consequences", you seemed to imply that the consequences would be serious for us.
Wow, this is like that joke where the patient tells the shrink: "You're the one who keeps showing me the dirty pictures!" Exactly how does "it's going to have serious consequences" imply "...for us"? You made that assumption, don't put it on me. I happen to think the consequences of the economic meltdown of Russia in the '90s were pretty damn serious even if they had no effect whatever on "us" (whoever that is), and I don't want to see a repeat.
posted by languagehat at 10:01 AM on September 17, 2008
Wow, this is like that joke where the patient tells the shrink: "You're the one who keeps showing me the dirty pictures!" Exactly how does "it's going to have serious consequences" imply "...for us"? You made that assumption, don't put it on me. I happen to think the consequences of the economic meltdown of Russia in the '90s were pretty damn serious even if they had no effect whatever on "us" (whoever that is), and I don't want to see a repeat.
posted by languagehat at 10:01 AM on September 17, 2008
Languagehat I think the disconnect may be that he is responding within the context of the post, which is about the interconnected oil economies and the implications to them of Russia's meltdown. Looked at that way, the assumption is that a comment about 'serious consequences' means 'throught the oil dependent economies of the world' rather than 'in Russia'. Not sure, but that's how I read it.
posted by spicynuts at 10:41 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by spicynuts at 10:41 AM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
OK, fair enough. I withdraw my irritation.
posted by languagehat at 10:59 AM on September 17, 2008
posted by languagehat at 10:59 AM on September 17, 2008
If Russia really were to completely collapse for some reason, it certainly would have serious consequences for the oil-dependant economies of the world. They were among the select few countries that have contributed the most to the recent increase in global oil production, though not so much this year. The world can't really afford for their oil industry to suffer like it did in the 90's.
If the economic situation is really so fragile there that a single year of oil prices below $100 is enough to cause serious trouble, that does seem problematic. I don't know, personally I've no interest in investing there, the political risk is not the kind I can understand.
The only reason Russia was emerging as an economic powerhouse is because speculation worldwide drove up commodity prices.
Speculation plays a large role in the markets of course, but that's far from the "only" thing that drove up oil prices (though with other commodities, well it varies I suppose). And it's far from the only thing that's sending them down now. It was not because of a speculative bubble that I looked for the possibility of $90 oil this year, back when prices were still above $120. I don't think it can go too much lower, at least not for long. The last $15 or so down was thanks in no small part to the confusion surrounding the massive GOM refinery outages, other hurricane-related damage, and perceived and actual financial instability. Seems to me those speculators were not around this time to anticipate the refineries buying oil in futrue weeks to make up for the 50 million bbl of oil and product that will have gone missing by the time things are back to anything like normal. Leaving all the speculation to me I guess, and I just can't handle it alone. Perhaps they all decided to go trade precious metals instead, as it looks like gold taking the lead today, to put it mildly. So anyway, when petroleum inventory bottoms out and refiners start buying again, the price will make a moderate jump upwards, maybe even it's already started today, and we can expect this to be widely interpreted as a short-covering bounce triggered by the market being over-sold or some such nonsense. Or maybe not, but at any rate the price will be back above $100 before too many moths have passed, though I wouldn't expect it to go back up anywhere near as quickly as it came down, and of course I do not mean to imply that today was exactly the low point; just that I'd not be surprised if it's close to it. So yeah, hang in there Russia.
posted by sfenders at 12:06 PM on September 17, 2008
If the economic situation is really so fragile there that a single year of oil prices below $100 is enough to cause serious trouble, that does seem problematic. I don't know, personally I've no interest in investing there, the political risk is not the kind I can understand.
The only reason Russia was emerging as an economic powerhouse is because speculation worldwide drove up commodity prices.
Speculation plays a large role in the markets of course, but that's far from the "only" thing that drove up oil prices (though with other commodities, well it varies I suppose). And it's far from the only thing that's sending them down now. It was not because of a speculative bubble that I looked for the possibility of $90 oil this year, back when prices were still above $120. I don't think it can go too much lower, at least not for long. The last $15 or so down was thanks in no small part to the confusion surrounding the massive GOM refinery outages, other hurricane-related damage, and perceived and actual financial instability. Seems to me those speculators were not around this time to anticipate the refineries buying oil in futrue weeks to make up for the 50 million bbl of oil and product that will have gone missing by the time things are back to anything like normal. Leaving all the speculation to me I guess, and I just can't handle it alone. Perhaps they all decided to go trade precious metals instead, as it looks like gold taking the lead today, to put it mildly. So anyway, when petroleum inventory bottoms out and refiners start buying again, the price will make a moderate jump upwards, maybe even it's already started today, and we can expect this to be widely interpreted as a short-covering bounce triggered by the market being over-sold or some such nonsense. Or maybe not, but at any rate the price will be back above $100 before too many moths have passed, though I wouldn't expect it to go back up anywhere near as quickly as it came down, and of course I do not mean to imply that today was exactly the low point; just that I'd not be surprised if it's close to it. So yeah, hang in there Russia.
posted by sfenders at 12:06 PM on September 17, 2008
Huh. Damn moths. They're eating my brain. It was a fun day on the financial markets around the world, that's for sure.
posted by sfenders at 12:09 PM on September 17, 2008
posted by sfenders at 12:09 PM on September 17, 2008
The commodities bubble is imploding, and quicker than any of the previous bubbles.
A rational price with the onset of peak oil is between $75 and $80bbl - but the markets, at the moment, are not rational, with a dip south of $60 possible before all is said and done.
Hoorah, cheap gas! Not so fast. The big oil producers are in a panic as their economies slowly crumble. Iran and Venzuela want a price floor of $100, and the Saudis won't let it dip below $80 without a fight. So, they'll turn off the spigot - slash production to drive prices back up. Supply and demand, right? In a rational market, sure. In the one we've got?
Massive shortages. Gas at five bucks a gallon, and a three hour wait at the pump to get it.
Kids of today should defend themselves against the 70's, indeed.
posted by Slap*Happy at 1:01 PM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
A rational price with the onset of peak oil is between $75 and $80bbl - but the markets, at the moment, are not rational, with a dip south of $60 possible before all is said and done.
Hoorah, cheap gas! Not so fast. The big oil producers are in a panic as their economies slowly crumble. Iran and Venzuela want a price floor of $100, and the Saudis won't let it dip below $80 without a fight. So, they'll turn off the spigot - slash production to drive prices back up. Supply and demand, right? In a rational market, sure. In the one we've got?
Massive shortages. Gas at five bucks a gallon, and a three hour wait at the pump to get it.
Kids of today should defend themselves against the 70's, indeed.
posted by Slap*Happy at 1:01 PM on September 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
not to mention the land and equipment to actually feed its people.
Bullshit. If they could they would. Instead they receive 8 BILLION (2007) in foreign aid from the US.
It still cannot feed itself and imports 27 BILLION dollars of food annually.
Look, outside Moscow and Petersburg its practically a 3rd world nation. A major economic event or crash leads to mass starvation and military aggression. Thats why the west props them up and lets them act like tough guys who shoot at their neighbors, the way I let my old bird dog chase squirrels in the yard. Russia may become a responsible and self-suficient state, but probably not in our lifetimes.
Its food insecure. That's completely not debatable. Sadly, they have the land, just not the national will to act like a responsible nation. They are closer to N.Korea than most people care to admit.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:18 PM on September 17, 2008
Bullshit. If they could they would. Instead they receive 8 BILLION (2007) in foreign aid from the US.
It still cannot feed itself and imports 27 BILLION dollars of food annually.
Look, outside Moscow and Petersburg its practically a 3rd world nation. A major economic event or crash leads to mass starvation and military aggression. Thats why the west props them up and lets them act like tough guys who shoot at their neighbors, the way I let my old bird dog chase squirrels in the yard. Russia may become a responsible and self-suficient state, but probably not in our lifetimes.
Its food insecure. That's completely not debatable. Sadly, they have the land, just not the national will to act like a responsible nation. They are closer to N.Korea than most people care to admit.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:18 PM on September 17, 2008
Look, outside Moscow and Petersburg its practically a 3rd world nation.
That's ridiculous. Have you ever been to Russia?
posted by ssg at 1:24 PM on September 17, 2008
That's ridiculous. Have you ever been to Russia?
posted by ssg at 1:24 PM on September 17, 2008
Isn't it fascinating that a combination of a very destructive hurricane in the American oil and refinery patch, turmoil in Russia and the countries its pipelines must cross, unrest in the Niger delta, continuing threats of attacks on Iran (the big bunker-buster deal), and the prospect of civil war in one of S. America's major energy energy suppliers (Bolivia) which would almost certainly pull in the other (Venezuela) can all take place at once and we can get a sharp fall in oil prices at the same time?
How is this even conceivable when all experts and their media have been telling us for more than a year that any one of these factors by itself is enough to explain the enormous run-up in oil prices we've seen?
Well, wielding Occam's razor with Reservoir Dogs-like abandon, the difference is the collapse of the big financial institutions. Now they can't speculate in the oil markets as they have been doing, and prices are now sinking as a result.
I would go as far as to say regulators may have been consciously allowing them to do this in order to keep them afloat and avoid the bailouts that are now necessary. But with the elections looming, Republicans' fear that they could not win with oil prices so high led them to curb the speculation a bit to make them fall, and so we have this disastrous collapse.
posted by jamjam at 1:28 PM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
How is this even conceivable when all experts and their media have been telling us for more than a year that any one of these factors by itself is enough to explain the enormous run-up in oil prices we've seen?
Well, wielding Occam's razor with Reservoir Dogs-like abandon, the difference is the collapse of the big financial institutions. Now they can't speculate in the oil markets as they have been doing, and prices are now sinking as a result.
I would go as far as to say regulators may have been consciously allowing them to do this in order to keep them afloat and avoid the bailouts that are now necessary. But with the elections looming, Republicans' fear that they could not win with oil prices so high led them to curb the speculation a bit to make them fall, and so we have this disastrous collapse.
posted by jamjam at 1:28 PM on September 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Are you fucking kidding me dude?
At least 20% of their population is below the poverty line. The life expectancy for men is at 61. They are in the middle of an AIDS epidemic. They have a low reproduction rate and a high abortion rate, because a 2nd child knocks most people straight into poverty. Their infant mortality rate is in the toilet. These are not western standards, this is developing 3rd world shit right here.
The only thing they have going for them is oil and gas and lots of nukes. If the oil and gas racket dries up then a lot of people are going to die.
Oh, and the food insecurity starts to kick in.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:34 PM on September 17, 2008
At least 20% of their population is below the poverty line. The life expectancy for men is at 61. They are in the middle of an AIDS epidemic. They have a low reproduction rate and a high abortion rate, because a 2nd child knocks most people straight into poverty. Their infant mortality rate is in the toilet. These are not western standards, this is developing 3rd world shit right here.
The only thing they have going for them is oil and gas and lots of nukes. If the oil and gas racket dries up then a lot of people are going to die.
Oh, and the food insecurity starts to kick in.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:34 PM on September 17, 2008
Oh, 2 million alcoholics and 40k alcohol poisoning deaths annually. Thats just ridiculous for a "developed nation." This is 3rd world stuff here.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:36 PM on September 17, 2008
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:36 PM on September 17, 2008
Wow, damn dirty ape sure has a chip on his shoulder about Russia. What's the matter, did you try to buy a wife and she dumped you?
posted by nasreddin at 1:47 PM on September 17, 2008
posted by nasreddin at 1:47 PM on September 17, 2008
Those are all facts. Please tell me which one is wrong. Thanks!
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:48 PM on September 17, 2008
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:48 PM on September 17, 2008
did you try to buy a wife and she dumped you?
Don't quit your day job, Henny Youngman.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:52 PM on September 17, 2008
Don't quit your day job, Henny Youngman.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:52 PM on September 17, 2008
The statistics are true, but "third world shit" isn't an objective definition, and it sure isn't loaded with the kind of sneering pejorative meaning you want it to have. Russia is officially listed as an "emerging nation," albeit one with more military and resource clout than normal. Your fixation with the "comrades" on MeFi who try to deny the EVIL SOVIET NATURE of the NASTY DIRTY RUSSIAN ALCOHOLIC BRUTES is actually pretty funny. Do you have in your hand a list?
posted by nasreddin at 1:53 PM on September 17, 2008
posted by nasreddin at 1:53 PM on September 17, 2008
Emerging Nation is politically correct for poor. Semantics doesnt magically fix the alcoholism and poverty. Pretending that they are wealthy, food secure, non-aggressive, non-kleptocracy, non-mafia ruled, and democractic is ridiculous and mefi has so many Russia bullshitters I have to step in and lay down the facts.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:56 PM on September 17, 2008
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:56 PM on September 17, 2008
DIRTY NASTY RUSSIAN CRIMINALS EVERYWHERE! AUGH! MUST FIGHT RUSSIAN HORDE ON MEFI!
posted by nasreddin at 1:58 PM on September 17, 2008
posted by nasreddin at 1:58 PM on September 17, 2008
Seriously, youre not remotely funny.
Then again you have a way with semantics yourself. 2k dead in georgia? nasreddin: Don't let me interrupt your regularly scheduled weeping for the poor dears "Poor dears" indeed! Those orphans must be hilarious to a "wit" like yourself.
posted by damn dirty ape at 2:02 PM on September 17, 2008
Then again you have a way with semantics yourself. 2k dead in georgia? nasreddin: Don't let me interrupt your regularly scheduled weeping for the poor dears "Poor dears" indeed! Those orphans must be hilarious to a "wit" like yourself.
posted by damn dirty ape at 2:02 PM on September 17, 2008
Oh, 2 million alcoholics and 40k alcohol poisoning deaths annually. Thats just ridiculous for a "developed nation." This is 3rd world stuff here.
Leave England out of it!
posted by srboisvert at 2:02 PM on September 17, 2008 [3 favorites]
Leave England out of it!
posted by srboisvert at 2:02 PM on September 17, 2008 [3 favorites]
How is this even conceivable when all experts and their media have been telling us for more than a year that any one of these factors by itself is enough to explain the enormous run-up in oil prices we've seen?
There's no shortage of people (myself among them of course) with ready and completely ridiculous reasons to explain every movement in the price of oil. These hurricanes, the one thing among those recent events you list with the largest immediate impact, are no exception. This is no ordinary refinery outage you're talking about here, this is a *huge* amount of refinery capacity offline for weeks, an amount of refinery capacity that greatly exceeds the shut-in crude production, an amount of refinery capacity shut-down for now that cannot possibly be compensated for, in the very short-term, with increased utilization elsewhere. Plus, a bunch of crude oil turned away from LOOP for a week or two and presumably sent elsewhere. So like I said, in the very short term it drives down the price of crude momentarily, in the absence of the traditional kind of speculation that would smooth it out... and gasoline you'd think would go up, but that's another story. Spot gasoline shortages that could get worse before they get better particularly if prices do stay low, wholesale prices in some places double the futures prices. Wild stuff, for sure. The other things you mention are pretty much "normal" for the past few years.
Of course the more important thing is that there's been a larger boost in supply to world oil markets than had been expected thanks in part to Saudi Arabia finishing some big new projects ahead of expectations, and a larger drop in demand growth thanks to all the general panic and chaos going around.
The commodities bubble is imploding
You did see the price of gold today, right? Or is it more of a currency than a commodity? Ah well, *something* is imploding, that's for sure.
posted by sfenders at 2:06 PM on September 17, 2008
There's no shortage of people (myself among them of course) with ready and completely ridiculous reasons to explain every movement in the price of oil. These hurricanes, the one thing among those recent events you list with the largest immediate impact, are no exception. This is no ordinary refinery outage you're talking about here, this is a *huge* amount of refinery capacity offline for weeks, an amount of refinery capacity that greatly exceeds the shut-in crude production, an amount of refinery capacity shut-down for now that cannot possibly be compensated for, in the very short-term, with increased utilization elsewhere. Plus, a bunch of crude oil turned away from LOOP for a week or two and presumably sent elsewhere. So like I said, in the very short term it drives down the price of crude momentarily, in the absence of the traditional kind of speculation that would smooth it out... and gasoline you'd think would go up, but that's another story. Spot gasoline shortages that could get worse before they get better particularly if prices do stay low, wholesale prices in some places double the futures prices. Wild stuff, for sure. The other things you mention are pretty much "normal" for the past few years.
Of course the more important thing is that there's been a larger boost in supply to world oil markets than had been expected thanks in part to Saudi Arabia finishing some big new projects ahead of expectations, and a larger drop in demand growth thanks to all the general panic and chaos going around.
The commodities bubble is imploding
You did see the price of gold today, right? Or is it more of a currency than a commodity? Ah well, *something* is imploding, that's for sure.
posted by sfenders at 2:06 PM on September 17, 2008
@damn dirty ape
And it isn't just Russia, its the whole eastern block in the same position. I wonder who they should say thanks to.
/hides
posted by Darkbird at 2:09 PM on September 17, 2008
And it isn't just Russia, its the whole eastern block in the same position. I wonder who they should say thanks to.
/hides
posted by Darkbird at 2:09 PM on September 17, 2008
You did see the price of gold today, right? Or is it more of a currency than a commodity? Ah well, *something* is imploding, that's for sure.
Gold (companies) lost 30-40% recently, still a lot to go.
posted by Darkbird at 2:18 PM on September 17, 2008
Those are all facts. Please tell me which one is wrong. Thanks!
If you think that Russia's infant mortality rate is bad on a global scale or that Russia is poor in comparison to real third world countries, you are off your rocker.
posted by ssg at 2:22 PM on September 17, 2008
If you think that Russia's infant mortality rate is bad on a global scale or that Russia is poor in comparison to real third world countries, you are off your rocker.
posted by ssg at 2:22 PM on September 17, 2008
Perhaps they can add the phrase "Better than Zimbabwe" into the national anthem, eh?
The only impressive statistic about Russia is its number of billionares and GDP per capita, until you realize that the wealth distribution is unbelievably out of whack that these are meaningless numbers. Russia's concentration of wealth is akin to the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with a handful of oligarchs and kleptogarchs owning everything and having all the money. That's why there's no real middle class and once you leave the two big city centers you are looking at near undeveloped agrarian 3rd world-like conditions. Oh sure, its not India but its sure as aint the west or anything near the west.
Its like the economy of Saudi Arabia (a few people owning all the wonderful natural resources) with the political situation of N.Korea. Sexy!
14k GDP per capita is useless without distribution of that money. And like I've written above without oil and gas; bad things happen.
posted by damn dirty ape at 2:37 PM on September 17, 2008
The only impressive statistic about Russia is its number of billionares and GDP per capita, until you realize that the wealth distribution is unbelievably out of whack that these are meaningless numbers. Russia's concentration of wealth is akin to the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with a handful of oligarchs and kleptogarchs owning everything and having all the money. That's why there's no real middle class and once you leave the two big city centers you are looking at near undeveloped agrarian 3rd world-like conditions. Oh sure, its not India but its sure as aint the west or anything near the west.
Its like the economy of Saudi Arabia (a few people owning all the wonderful natural resources) with the political situation of N.Korea. Sexy!
14k GDP per capita is useless without distribution of that money. And like I've written above without oil and gas; bad things happen.
posted by damn dirty ape at 2:37 PM on September 17, 2008
Interesting thing about TNK-BP: When BP was trading near $70 was when the whole TNK kerfuffle started. BP's been underwhelming for a couple years now, but it was showing signs of life. That's when the millionaires started complaining in earnest.
The TNK-BP situation was settled at the first of the month with the firing of the English CEO of TNK-BP and only a couple of small concessions by BP. No Gazprom takeover, no Kremlin backroom move invoking some bizzare law to get BP out. Just the head of the CEO and a board reshuffle.
The price of BP on that day? $54.
It set a 4 1/2 year interday low today ($50.08).
Clearly, the Russians are losing their swagger with the commodities bubble popping.
posted by dw at 2:58 PM on September 17, 2008
The TNK-BP situation was settled at the first of the month with the firing of the English CEO of TNK-BP and only a couple of small concessions by BP. No Gazprom takeover, no Kremlin backroom move invoking some bizzare law to get BP out. Just the head of the CEO and a board reshuffle.
The price of BP on that day? $54.
It set a 4 1/2 year interday low today ($50.08).
Clearly, the Russians are losing their swagger with the commodities bubble popping.
posted by dw at 2:58 PM on September 17, 2008
“If you can make Russia into an incomprehensible, mindlessly destructive Other, that makes it ever so much easier to beat the drum of slaughter.”
Yeah!
...oh, you mean like a bad thing....
Well, less folks = more oil for the rest of us, right? *coughs, adjusts tie*
“is anyone else vaguely worried about Gazprom?”
You know what killed the most people last century? Democide. Countries killing its own people within its own borders. *cough*
“Pretending that they are wealthy, food secure, non-aggressive, non-kleptocracy, non-mafia ruled, and democractic is ridiculous”
Yeah. I’ve been there. It’s like Chicago noir on acid.
I mean, nice services and stuff some places. But yeah, the corruption is thrillingly incomprehensible and quality of life completely unpredictable from place to place. Fantastic one minute, utterly downtrodden another.
The disparity of interests and how strong they are, I’d suspect, could become even more of a problem.
I’m reminded of Three Days of the Condor “Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold...They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em”
Anyone who can meet the need can rise to power. Could be some bloody chaos in the interim.
Could happen here too, with a little work. But hell, we’re already in Iraq.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:00 PM on September 17, 2008 [3 favorites]
Yeah!
...oh, you mean like a bad thing....
Well, less folks = more oil for the rest of us, right? *coughs, adjusts tie*
“is anyone else vaguely worried about Gazprom?”
You know what killed the most people last century? Democide. Countries killing its own people within its own borders. *cough*
“Pretending that they are wealthy, food secure, non-aggressive, non-kleptocracy, non-mafia ruled, and democractic is ridiculous”
Yeah. I’ve been there. It’s like Chicago noir on acid.
I mean, nice services and stuff some places. But yeah, the corruption is thrillingly incomprehensible and quality of life completely unpredictable from place to place. Fantastic one minute, utterly downtrodden another.
The disparity of interests and how strong they are, I’d suspect, could become even more of a problem.
I’m reminded of Three Days of the Condor “Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold...They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em”
Anyone who can meet the need can rise to power. Could be some bloody chaos in the interim.
Could happen here too, with a little work. But hell, we’re already in Iraq.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:00 PM on September 17, 2008 [3 favorites]
The failure of debt is deflationary, so it's possible that this is just a little bounce for gold. It's unwise to assume that the failure of a couple of companies will result in a financial cataclysm of the magnitude that some suggest.
posted by dolphin917 at 3:19 PM on September 17, 2008
posted by dolphin917 at 3:19 PM on September 17, 2008
I bet people who bought into the whole "BRIC" thing, buying indexes comprising only Brazil, Russia, India and China are feeling pretty silly right now.
They were a stupid idea from their inception actually: Thick as a BRIC by William Bernstein
posted by Mokusatsu at 12:19 AM on September 18, 2008
They were a stupid idea from their inception actually: Thick as a BRIC by William Bernstein
posted by Mokusatsu at 12:19 AM on September 18, 2008
« Older F1 + F2 | Dance like an indian Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by athenian at 6:03 AM on September 17, 2008