Russian Oil Sanctions To Kick In Potentially Disturbing Markets Greatly

[DEFCON Warning System]

But it is deeply hypocritical for staunch open-market proponents to try and set up their own cartel when it suits them.

As I said, fair open markets when it suits me, not for thee.

But it is free market. (Open market means anyone can get into it.)

A free market allows people to band together to negotiate a better price. And it allows people to band together to demand a certain price.

That is true free market.

 

[New Colour]

But it is free market. (Open market means anyone can get into it.)

A free market allows people to band together to negotiate a better price. And it allows people to band together to demand a certain price.

That is true free market.

Well a 'true' libertarian free market has no rules, so yeah, robber barons are free to do their thing.

But note that the US is often the first to bitch and moan about illegal memory chip price dumping and whatever, so it's really irrelevant, the west want to collude in this case, but punishes 'illegal' collusion when it doesn't suite them.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

But note that the US is often the first to bitch and moan about illegal memory chip price dumping and whatever, so it's really irrelevant

IIRC, there are treaties or agreements which prohibit this kind of action.

So the US is right to complain. It was negotiated. So this point is irrelevant.

, the west want to collude in this case, but punishes 'illegal' collusion when it doesn't suite them.

How is the West punishing "illegal" collusion? They are banding together to form a buying block. That is not illegal. They don't want to pay Russia's price. That also is not illegal.

You don't like that they are doing this. Fine. But don't make stuff up that it is illegal or hypocritical or anything like that, because it isn't.

 

[New Colour]

IIRC, there are treaties or agreements which prohibit this kind of action.

So the US is right to complain. It was negotiated. So this point is irrelevant.

How is the West punishing "illegal" collusion? They are banding together to form a buying block. That is not illegal. They don't want to pay Russia's price. That also is not illegal.

You don't like that they are doing this. Fine. But don't make stuff up that it is illegal or hypocritical or anything like that, because it isn't.

Yes they are colluding to fix prices on the buyer side.

Russia are rightly rejecting it.

The west would certainly have something to say if Russia fixed their prices at $200bbl, and we have certainly had much to say in the past when other nations try to fix prices or engage in 'unfair' trade practices.

Is it illegal, I don't know I'm not a lawyer, but it's certainly hypocrisy.

And it highlights how 'true' or feral free markets are in fact not free in any practical sense at all, as they get captured my monopoly etc.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Yes they are colluding to fix prices on the buyer side.

No one is saying they aren't. You have been arguing that it is wrong. It isn't.

Russia are rightly rejecting it.

That is their prerogative.

The west would certainly have something to say if Russia fixed their prices at $200bbl,

And that would be their right. And it would also be their right to refuse to pay for it.

and we have certainly had much to say in the past when other nations try to fix prices or engage in 'unfair' trade practices.

Anyone can complain. There is a chasm of difference between complaining about something and something being illegal.

Is it illegal, I don't know I'm not a lawyer, but it's certainly hypocrisy.

It isn't even hypocrisy. Groups band together all the time to negotiate a better price.

And it highlights how 'true' or feral free markets are in fact not free in any practical sense at all, as they get captured my monopoly etc.

You are mistaking a "free" market with an "open" market. An open market is a market anyone can participate in. A free market is a market that can set whatever price it wants to sell or pay.

A monopoly is free to be formed in a free market. A "closed" market (as opposed to an "open" market) is a market that someone is unable to participate in for whatever reason.

For example: If the actor's union made a contract with all Hollywood studios that says that those studios can only hire actors from the actor's union, that is a closed market. If the studios are free to hire actors from anywhere, that is an open market.

For example: If I can set the price of a good for any price I want, that is a free market. If the government came in and said I have to price my good a certain way, that is a non-free market.

See the difference?

 

[New Colour]

No one is saying they aren't. You have been arguing that it is wrong. It isn't.

Yes, it is, which is why it is illegal in many markets.

It isn't even hypocrisy. Groups band together all the time to negotiate a better price.

This isn't a negotiation. Governments are attempting to impose a price on markets. Just as your example of 'non-free' markets.

And I don't know why you're confusing open and free markets. I didn't say anything about open markets, but that completely free markets are not actually free in any meaningful way in the end, because they allow monopolies, cartels, unfar trade practices etc.

 

[Irag8er]

Russian oil selling at $79/barrel in Asia on Monday, well above price cap http://reut.rs/3Vy7ZVE

https://twitter.com/x/status/1599770990208229376

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Yes, it is, which is why it is illegal in many markets.

Local markets. Not international markets unless governed by a treaty or agreement, which in this case is not. You are making up laws that don't exist.

This isn't a negotiation. Governments are attempting to impose a price on markets. Just as your example of 'non-free' markets.

Governments, in this case, are the consumer. The governments themselves have no power to force Russia to accept a price. So this is not a case of a non-free market. If it was a non-free market, the consumer government would have the power to force Russia to accept the price. They do not.

And I don't know why you're confusing open and free markets. I didn't say anything about open markets

Yes you did. You keep confusing open market with free market. I am merely correcting you.

, but that completely free markets are not actually free in any meaningful way in the end, because they allow monopolies, cartels, unfar trade practices etc.

That is the definition of a free market. Just because you don't like the results doesn't change what it is.

The bottom line to this whole conversation is that Russia can not dictate the people pay a certain price for their oil any more than another country demand that Russia sell their oil for a certain price.

 

[New Colour]

Local markets. Not international markets unless governed by a treaty or agreement, which in this case is not. You are making up laws that don't exist.


Governments, in this case, are the consumer. The governments themselves have no power to force Russia to accept a price. So this is not a case of a non-free market. If it was a non-free market, the consumer government would have the power to force Russia to accept the price. They do not.


Yes you did. You keep confusing open market with free market. I am merely correcting you.

That is the definition of a free market. Just because you don't like the results doesn't change what it is.

The bottom line to this whole conversation is that Russia can not dictate the people pay a certain price for their oil any more than another country demand that Russia sell their oil for a certain price.

Just rhetoric.

I mentioned open markets once earlier, and you're spinning that into some kind misunderstanding, I'm not confusing them, I'm arguing that 'true' free (and open) markets end up not being free in any practical sense.

And governments aren't the consumer here, they are trying to set price controls on their national market participants, the very definition of a non-free market according to you. Obviously that's hypocrisy coming from free-market advocates.

If your argument is that anything goes in a free market, and governments colluding etc is an example, then I refer to my point above, the market ceases to be free meaningfully.

But if you insist on characterizing this as merely a 'group buy' or some such, there's probably not much to be learned.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Just rhetoric.

I mentioned open markets once earlier, and you're twisting that into some kind misunderstanding, I'm not confusing them,

Yeah you are. But I can't force you to accept that, so we'll let it go.

I'm arguing that 'true' free markets end up not being free in any practical sense.

There is some truth to that. That is why governments impose controls on free markets.

And governments aren't the consumer here

Yeah, they totally are. Governments like the US buy oil.

hey are trying to set price controls on their national market participants, the very definition of a non-free market according to you

That is true. By limiting companies, that is not a free market. But it is a free market for a country to decide how much it is willing to pay.

I notice you don't seem to complain that Russia is threatening to cut off oil from the G7. So it is bad for the G7 to demand that its oil companies limit their price, but it is good that Russia demands that their own oil companies not accept a lower price.

Hipocracy, thy name is New Colour.

 

[Peace]

Between Russia drafting a decree banning selling to countries that join price-cap.
Now the big question is will Saudi Arabia announce the long awaited Petro-Yuan?

The first China Arab Summit will be held in Saudi Arabia

• For the China Arab Summit, the biggest opportunity that everyone expects is undoubtedly the oil RMB settlement

The first China Arab Summit will be held in Saudi Arabia--Seetao

For the China Arab Summit, the biggest opportunity that everyone expects is undoubtedly the oil RMB settlement

www.seetao.com

China and Arab states: Sharing a common future, moving forward hand in hand

China and Arab states: Sharing a common future, moving forward hand in hand-

english.news.cn

 

[New Colour]

Yeah you are. But I can't force you to accept that, so we'll let it go.

I'm really not, but as you say...

I notice you don't seem to complain that Russia is threatening to cut off oil from the G7. So it is bad for the G7 to demand that its oil companies limit their price, but it is good that Russia demands that their own oil companies not accept a lower price.

Hipocracy, thy name is New Colour.

LOL.

Of course Russia are also wrong to threaten cutoff, but we know they're baduns already, and two wrongs don't make right.

Any self-respecting villain should counter this attempt to selectively impose price controls, with equal and opposite measures. Western customers pay $200 for Russian oil, take it or leave it, those from 'friendly' nations get it for market rate, or a discount.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

and two wrongs don't make right.

The world isn't black and white. To think things are so simple is naive.

 

[New Colour]

The world isn't black and white. To think things are so simple is naive.

LOL, coming from you guys, I'll take that comment with the bucket of salt it deserves.