Talk:Oil prices surge over $75 a barrel to a record high
hey. just a question: by saying "political instability is to blame"... can you back that up, yo?
Tom12384 06:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)clarence 13x
Political instability is to blame
I seem to be going through this more often now that wikinews has grown a bit. I don't write business articles in a scholastic essay sort of way, such as how wikipedia is written. I tend to write them toward a business style. This occasionally rouses the anticorporate wikiuser into a frenzy. I wrote Political instability is to blame because that is what the analysts are saying, if you want proof of that read any article on the subject. The idea behind it is that if the government or general organization of the country in question goes chaotic it'll make transporting oil out of the country problematic, such as priates (yes they do exist), sabotage to keep the opositing political party from profiting, sabotage to get the world's attention, lack of drivers willing to risk their lives to drive the necessary trucks, lack of workers to pump the oil, pipeline mayhem, etc. --Sfullenwider 19:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The title on the article is misleading. It says that prices surge $75 (e.g. increase by $75) per gallon and 'prices surge to record high of $75' would be clearer. I'd change it but I don't know if that would affect the link on the main page. 18.104.22.168 22:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the title....Let me know if its better :) Jason Safoutin 22:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
oil prices are surging because iran may be or is being attacked by USA
- 19:58, 21 April 2006 DragonFire1024 (related story has nothing to do with current story...if you disagree...revert.)
The text of the story says that the reason for the surge is:
- Political instability in oil-producing countries is seen as a major cause of this rise. The standoff over Iran's nuclear program has led to strong words being exchanged and a possibility of sanctions being imposed on Iran, the world's fourth largest producer of oil. ... The current shoot up we are experiencing is as a result of the Iran problems and it's not helped by the flare up between Israel and the Palestinians. But mainly it's the threatening statements being made against Iran as a result of its nuclear program.
So the claims that US is involved in and/or supporting terrorist groups (POV of US-State-Department) in killing people in Iran is surely related to the surge in petrol prices. Surely violation of territorial sovereignty by people with guns is related to "threats against" Iran.
You could argue that there's no externally documented claim that the oil market is aware of the claims of territorial sovereignty infringement. Sure: that's why it's only a related story, not part of the article itself. On the other hand, the claims of the attacks having already started are being made by many different sources - even a member of Congress has publicly written to Bush - so it's hard to believe that the oil market people are not aware of this.
So yes, i'm reverting:
- "Kucinich asks Bush about alleged US support for armed insurgency in Iran" — Wikinews, April 21, 2006
PS: Using Sfullenwider's terminology of political instability: armed opposition groups/freedom fighters/terrorists running around killing government soldiers/regime defenders is not exactly political stability. Boud 22:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Who makes the money off of expensive oil?
Saudis and Bush Family and pals have made money off of high oil prices I think.
Who were the 2 groups that created the hostile environment leading up to the 9/11 attacks? Saudi monarchs who financed and encouraged extremists like bin Laden; and oil men like Bush and Cheney who did everything possible to insult and antagonize the other side like keeping US bases on Saudi Arabian holy ground. Scotland Yard says to find out who is really behind any crime, you have to "Follow the Money".
Neutralizer 23:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)