I really don't want to go over it again here, but there were three main points that struck me in the discussion.
Firstly was that the amounts discussed in the article, e.g. $10 billion a year, were miniscule compared to the amount in circulation. Even the USA national budget is $2.2
trillion a year. Secondly, that one shock, such as oil, would have minimal effect, it would need repeated shocks in many areas. Thirdly, that all the countries concerned have all their funds hedged years ahead to reduce risk and provide stability. Not only haven't the financial markets reflected the case made in the article, but hedging renders the whole thing pointless as the those who'd win or lose would be the financial institutions and speculators who took the business - not the OPEC nations or the USA.
I'll leave it there on this thread. You can see above why it will get rolled into the one in JetBlast. You might mean to keep it focussed, but within 10 posts it's been hijacked. See you in the thread on JetBlast, because I think this will be there shortly.
