# Talk:Petrodollar recycling

I disagree with the premise presented in the secong paragraph of this article:

To acquire these dollars, Japan must sell goods and services to the U.S. economy. The Japanese build a Honda to sell to the U.S. The U.S. federal reserve prints a certain amount of dollars and gives these to the Japanese in exchange for the Honda. The Japanese buy oil from Saudi Arabia using these dollars. The Saudis take the dollars and reinvest them in the Federal Reserve Bank of the U.S., and from then on they will only be used as a reserve currency. Therefore, all the U.S. had to do to acquire a Honda, was to print dollars. In essence, it has its very own money tree. The result of this is that the total debt of the United States is somewhere in the region of $8.4 trillion and increasing by $80 million per hour.

Honda does not sell products to the U.S. economy -- it sells to individual consumers.  These consumers exchanged hours of labor, financial risk, or other appreciable capital (represented by U.S. dollars) to Honda for their product.
131.6.84.67 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks. The nonsensical paragraph no longer appears in the article. —Patrug (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Canada, or has Canada become(ing) like a Petrodollar country as seen by the huge drop in the CAD$ value along with the drop in oil prices?
It is a generally reoccurring sentiment around fellow Canadians. Just wondering if this is worth exploring and expanding to include other than the OPEC countries. --Skippingrock (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Good question. Oil exports are certainly important for Canada, but its economy is more diverse and better balanced than the OPEC members. So, Canada doesn't need to invest large amounts of oil surpluses into other countries. The "Petrodollar Profusion" reference, http://www.economist.com/node/21553424 , indicates that in the last big petrodollar wave, the most-important surpluses were from OPEC & Norway & Russia. I've added this information to our article, along with a sentence about Soviet foreign aid and a photo highlighting Russian petrodollar recycling. Thanks for reminding everyone that it's not just OPEC. —Patrug (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Petrodollar recycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/OPEC_Revenues/OPEC.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://web-docs.stern.nyu.edu/old_web/emplibrary/Leonid_Smolyar_honors_2006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@N0n3up:: As confirmed in the BBC reference, Britain's Chelsea Football Club was purchased in 2003 by the businessman whose fortune came primarily from the Sibneft oil company. This is a classic, notable, and photogenic example of petrodollar recycling from Russia (the leading non-OPEC oil producer), added in response to Skippingrock's recent helpful comment on this page. The current (expanded) caption makes clear that the image isn't "unrelated to the article" as you indicated in your edit summary. If you have a better photo to illustrate Russian petrodollar recycling, or an improved caption for the Chelsea FC photo, please feel free to propose it. If not, please let this photo continue.
Also, to minimize the risk of earning your fifth block for edit-warring, please don't WP:Wikihound by reverting my edits to completely unrelated articles. —Patrug (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Patrug Please stop the personal attacks, please comment on edit, not editors. The reason I deleted the image was because it seemed that the length of images in the page exceeded that of the article itself. I planned to place the information in one of the article sections as an example. I plan to do the same for some images, or simply reduce the size instead, something might as well work on a personal sandbox before making the change if you will. And regarding the edits on Tan line, I have left you a message here. (N0n3up (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC))
I've commented only on your problematic edits, not made personal attacks.
"Overflow of images" is quite a different reason than your previously stated "image unrelated to article." As a simple way to address the overflow, I just shrank & moved most of the images to a separate section below the article text, trying to follow WP:Balancing aspects and WP:PIC#Galleries and WP:Gallery guidelines and "avoiding similar or repetitive images". Petrodollars are a difficult topic that's consistently getting thousands of page views per month, and very few of our readers (or our fellow editors, for that matter) understand international payment balances or currency markets or reserve banking. For example, see the "Faulty premise" discussion above, or the goldbug conspiracy theories that dominated WP's petrodollar material until recently. So, a variety of real-world photos help readers develop some intuition for a concept that would otherwise seem too abstract and vaguely sinister & Nixonian. If you think adding a bit more text would help improve the article's WP:Understandability further, then give it a shot.
I also added two mainstream press reports that explicitly describe Chelsea FC as a "petrodollar" sports club, to prove it's an important example that I didn't invent.
I hope these revisions address your concerns as you've stated them. Further suggestions are welcome, especially if they involve adding encyclopedic content rather than removing it. Thanks. —Patrug (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This is perfect. Thanks Patrug. (N0n3up (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC))

This review is transcluded from Talk:Petrodollar recycling/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Sagecandor (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


### Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 22, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Short article. Yes, short article, but short and sweet and well cited. Nice and concise and succinct writing style, I like it. Very encyclopedic topic, highly educational for our readers. And that is globally too, the article does not come across with a focus on any one locality which is good.
2. Verifiable?: Very well cited to good reliable sources for every statement in the article.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article covers major aspects well. Including good intro, capital flows, background, 1974–1981 period, 2005–2014 period, and Foreign aid. Foreign aid can probably be expanded a bit more, and also obviously post 2014, but it is good enough for "good", as of this point in time.
4. Neutral point of view?: Article presents its subject with a neutral style and therefore satisfies WP:NPOV policies.
5. Stable? Aside from minor vandalism, quickly addressed, article edit history stable going back to February 2016. Article talk page shows some troubling conflicts -- but those go back to August 2016 and seem resolved now.
6. Images?: Nine images used in the article. All hosted over at Wikimedia Commons. I looked at the individual image pages for all of them, and they all look just fine.
Just want to say, once again, good job on the concise and succinct writing style. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor and 7&6=thirteen: Thank you both for the efficient "Good Article" and "Did You Know" reviews and helpful feedback. Special thanks also to:

Ibrahim Oweiss, for pioneering the topic in 1973;
User:Capitalistroadster, for creating the first solid version of this article and rescuing it from deletion in 2005;
User:Agamemnus, for launching the 2016 improvement effort with pivotal edits at the old PetrodollarPetrodollar & Talk:Petrodollar pages.
I think we've ended up with a quite respectable article for this important topic in the global economy, helping to educate thousands of readers every month. Thanks again. -Patrug (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Petrodollar recycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202053053/http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/oger-telecom-signs-655-bln-turk-telekom-deal.aspx?pageID=438&n=oger-telecom-signs-6.55-bln-turk-telekom-deal-2005-11-15 to http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/oger-telecom-signs-655-bln-turk-telekom-deal.aspx?pageID=438&n=oger-telecom-signs-6.55-bln-turk-telekom-deal-2005-11-15
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

CollageDubai.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is interesting, but it's a bit dense, and misses most of the crucial points about the petrodollar. I'd like to open a conversation about how to improve the article.
It does not mention the 1974 agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia, in which Saudi Arabia agreed to sell their oil in US dollars and invest their surplus oil revenue in US treasuries, in exchange for US security guarantees for the House of Saud. This is what most people have in mind when they talk about the "petrodollar system". This was related to the 1971 suspension of the US dollar's interchangeability with gold and the 1973 oil crisis. 
There is evidence that preservation of the petrodollar system was one of the key reasons for the invasion of Iraq (Saddam Hussein threatened to begin trading oil for euros instead of dollars) and the destruction of Libya (Gaddafi proposed a gold-backed pan-African currency, the afro, and suggested that it could be used for oil transactions instead of the dollar). Understanding the petrodollar system, then, is a key piece of the puzzle for understanding geopolitics over the past 50 years, but you would not know that by reading the current article.
Furthermore, the 1974 agreement was recently allowed to expire.
This article either fails to mention any of this, or vaguely alludes to it in passing. I do not think this article can be regarded as "GA" until the article is expanded to cover these critical facts in more detail. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Your link refers to MSN's syndicated copy of an article on "TipRanks.com", which TipRanks seems to have silently deleted. A PolitiFact analysis of similar headlines deemed them fake news. Ditto regarding the existence of a 1974 agreement on oil pricing. At best, PolitiFact found a 1974 agreement for a Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation, but not any petrodollar system directly. I can't speak as to the Iraq or Libya aspects of your comment. Cybercobra (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Your politifact (what does politics have to do with this, btw) start with this lie. That alone makes that source useless. "Experts in the global oil market told PolitiFact they knew of no evidence that Saudi Arabia plans to stop using the U.S. dollar for oil sales." Debubked in multiple articles: https://www.ledgerinsights.com/brics-bridge-digital-currency-payments/  https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-makes-first-crude-oil-payment-uae-indian-rupees-2023-08-14/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroyuan https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202310/1300726.shtml https://tass.com/economy/1740527
Valery Zapolodov (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Your 1st link is a random blockchain new site, which doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Even then, it also says "However, reports that Saudi is a member have been disputed.". And it only covers the future possibility of a "BRICS Bridge", with few details on its usage. Its author conjectures about usage of the bridge for Russia-India oil trade.
Your 2nd link doesn't even mention Saudi Arabia! Your 3rd link is...another Wikipedia article; we cannot cite ourselves. Your 4th link is potentially relevant, but only vaguely refers to "Gulf Cooperation Council members", not clarifying which/all specific countries are involved. And it's from a publication (Global Times) owned by a political party, and whose Wikipedia article gives reasons to question its reliability. Your 5th link mentions neither hydrocarbons, nor Saudi Arabia. Given the slapdash quality of your reply, I'm having difficulty assuming good-faith on your part. Cybercobra (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)