Talk:Petrodollar warfare

message: Tehran (Iran) dumps dollar for euro
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/tehran-dumps-dollar-for-euro-12598.html
Syria Switches To Euro Amid Confrontation With US
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11894.htm
Libya Gold news report (Libya attempts to switch off USD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc&feature=player_embedded
U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros, not dollars (2000)
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/
North Korea embraces the euro
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2531833.stm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.215.89 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New References

message: The facts in this article need to be linked to the hypothesis. The M3 section and its connection to the petrodollar warfare hypothesis need to be explained. To be honest the whole thing smells of a crank page. I'm wary of publishing the theory of one individual, published or not, but since he's a prof at Johns Hopkins at least he's not a crank. Or at least not an obvious one.
--Mmx1 22:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be deleted.  Professor or no, this theory only gets 859 google hits, and little of it is notable.  I don't think it's a "crank" theory but I don't think it's especially notable. This seems like a vanity page to showcase someone's research (though it is so poorly written as to suggest it probably wasn't the work of the author showcased).  Anyone think of any reason this shouldn't be AfD'd?--csloat 10:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, can you point to where Rep. Paul uses the phrase "petrodollar warfare"?-csloat 21:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: From the facts section, I removed this controversial, theoretical statement:
: the only thing backing it is faith and the fact that key energy commodities are denominated in it.
I replaced it with a statement that there is no explicit connection between the dollar's value and that of any commodity.
AdamRetchless 15:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  basis of fiat currency 

message: If you try "petrodollar warfare" you get 29 700 hits:
[]
:That is more substantial, but most seem to be ads for the book and blog mentions.  Hits on google web searches can be misleading because discussions among bloggers are seen as significant as peer reviewed scientific research and articles published in actual news sources.  I went to lexis/nexis and did the same search -- I searched full text for all available dates for "petrodollar warfare" in major papers, then in all news transcripts, then in all wire reports, for all available dates, and did not come up with a single citation for an article mentioning that phrase.  Not one.  A search of EBSCOHost for academic journals found not a single use of the phrase.  A google search of books mentioning the phrase returns nothing.  The only result on Google scholar is a link to an essay by Clark posted to a site called "ratville times."  This looks like a vanity page for a young scholar, pure and simple.  I have a friend at Emory who wrote a book that included the phrase "stochastic hiccoughs" -- should I get started on the stochastic hiccoughs page?--csloat 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Hits 

message: List of different names this theory has been called in medias, that we could rename article to:  A human 03:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate names 

message: In my opinion, the point about fiat money is largely a platitude, nor important in substantiating the theory. 
Most if not all currencies are in the form of fiat money (whether they be convertible or not to a commodity). Even in the century from 1800 to 1900, Triffin identified that 95% of new money creation on the European continent was in the form of credit or fiat money - a period largely claimed to be dominated by the Gold or Bi-metallic standard and exchange rate stability.
The principle of accepting the value of fiat money is now engrained in our culture, and moreover backed up by the fact that the currency is "legal tender". I.e. it is illegal not to accept the money in settlement of a debt or other contract.
My point is, that this article is misleading in how it presents the link between the physical fiat money and its value as being weak, when in fact it very strong, nor would it be any stronger if it were convertible to a commodity.
If anything this article should focus on whether the currency is MIS-valued, or will receive a SHOCK to its value as a result of exogenous impacts. To play devil's advocate, if the dollar were freely convertible to gold or some other commodity, and the dollar took a hit in value (say to a fall in international reserve holdings), the dollar would still suffer. The economy would shift from the dollar to gold, in an exact parrellel of a shift from the dollar to another currency. 
If we went even further to suggest that the US issue actual gold coins, the theory states that in order to maintain parity, the money supply must vary with the balance of payments. If gold is over-valued at the mint (i.e. there is a reduction in demand for the gold dollar, and the nominal value of gold is greater than that of the domestic currency exchange value) then you will still get a flight of capital from the US, and instead of a shift in currency values (since the gold price is essentially fixed) it would be prices of good that went through the roof instead.
Ultimately, this argument that the a currency is somehow flimsy, and more vulnerable as a result of being a fiat currency is ridiculous. No system of currency could protect against the shocks described in this article.
A GLARING OMMISSION in the argument
A signification topic for debate among American economists is the issue of China's currency dealings. Greenspan himself has critisized China's maintainance of an undervalued currency versus the dollar.
How do they achieve this? By buying as many dollars as they can get their hands on, and selling their domestic currency. 
Ultimately....why would an administration hell bent on protecting its domestic currency from losing its value through a fall in foriegn holdings, so openly critisize and condemn the policy which results in the largest foriegn, non-utilised stock of dollars on the planet.
This theory is....largely, rubbish in my opinion, poorly argued, lacking in decent evidence, with extremely tenuous links and furthermore is incredibly short sighted.
It is unencyclopedic, and more importantly, actively misleading and should be removed.
84.9.110.163 10:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Fiat Money and A Glaring Ommission

message: I would suggest to retitle this article to something like Petrocurrency wars,  and change its contents accordingly to focuse on the possible competition between petrocurrencies. There are already two more petrocurrency candidates, these are: the petroeuro and the petroruble.
--tequendamia 11:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change 

message: There is no way this article should be deleted. If it is true - and I believe it is - then we are on a cusp of a big economic change comparable to that of 1945 when the $ became the world's currency. If or when the Euro replaces the $ in the same way the implications are huge. The USA is only able to run at such a collosal defecit because the world wants $s to buy oil. Price oil in Euros and everything changes. I believe that that USA has already invaded one country - Iraq - because they were pricing oil in Euros. I will add some links on this later.SmokeyTheCat 11:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important subject 

message: I don't think it can be said that the pricing of oil in dollars implies that dollar oil prices must necessarily be more stable than oil prices in another currency. In the last few years, for example, the rising value of the euro has partially offset the rising oil price (in US dollars), so we have actually had more stable oil prices in Europe than there have been in the USA, or in countries whose exchange rates are tied to the US dollar.
Another point in this theory which is quite strange is the notion that having persistent trade and balance-of-payments deficits is something the US government actually strives for, rather than a problem, which is how most see it. Moreover, both the UK and Australia (amongst others) have tended to run rather large current account deficits, despite the fact that oil is not priced in sterling or Australian dollars. This goes against the idea that it is the 'petrocurrency' nature of the US dollar which allows its persistent current account deficits to exist, which also ignores a potential causal link from the capital account (the direction of this relationship is a matter of some debate).
Finally, the entire theory is in many respects backwards. The dollar has been the most important global reserve currency because the American economy has been the largest and most important. The economy of the euro zone, as the world's second largest (the EU economy is the world's largest, but not all member states have adopted the euro), is now a viable alternative, hence there is a possibility of using the euro as a reserve currency, or to price commodities, which did not exist before 1999. (China's economy is very large in PPP terms, but in exchange rate terms, which is what matters here, it is still smaller than the economy of Germany alone.) --Shalineth 14:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its true that the euro's rise has somewhat insulated euroland from oilprice increases, but it could just as well work in reverse, as it did for example in the year 2000. In theory, the US should see more stable oil prices because they don't need to worry about a "double" hit of a falling currency and rising oil prices, whereas everyone else does. Does not always work out, but averaging over time it should be true. As to the rest of your argument, I think that its a matter of degree... the US can sustain a larger deficit than they otherwise could. Also, I think that many economists agree with you. This theory overstates the benefits of "petrocurrency". Peregrine981 03:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The risk of a 'double hit', as you say, is accompanied by the risk of a 'half hit', i.e. that a rise in oil prices will be accompanied by an appreciation of the currency. Any claim of greater price stability for US buyers of oil rests on the assumption that there is positive covariance between the oil price and the value of the US dollar. --Shalineth 03:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil price stability 

message: --Dedwolfen (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is not right is it? 

message: The merchandise trade deficit is bigger then the petroleum trade deficit.  Petro is just a piece of the pie destroying the dollar, trade deficits.  Petrodollar is simply a word free traders use for propaganda, to misdirect people's attention to the failure of free trade itself.98.165.6.225 (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is dumb 

message: ::This view is controversial. Opponents dispute virtually every economic claim underpinning the hypothesis, including claims that the U.S. finances its current-account deficit by printing dollars.  Opponents also sometimes point out that the Bush administration has repeatedly called for China to stop propping up the dollar by holding very large dollar reserves, a stance seemingly at odds with the administration's supposed overriding interest in maintaining a strong dollar...unless you consider the original problem...having large amounts of currency flooding back into America. 
The second sentence is baited.  Some opponents dispute the facts put forth by proponents.  Some dispute the validity of the economics but agree on a subset of facts.  The logical dissection is that "opponents dispute A,B,C,D, and E, including E.  Opponents also sometimes point out D.  D seems like a contradiction.  E seems like a contradiction."
The way it sounds now, is that the Opponents are stupid.  This violates WP:NPOV and if the article wishes to include the viewpoints of the opponents, then it MUST be done in a neutral tone, not a tone that makes us look like we're contradicting ourselves in parallel arguments.  One obvious flaw, is that the word "some" should precede Opponents dispute virtually... as it reads now, its as if all opponents agree among each other, which is absolutely not the case. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This paragraph has been temporariliy removed.   

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17988142 – Kaihsu (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  China buying oil from Iran with yuan