What planet are these people from!!! What a bunch of thugs.

"...stop looking at the Chinese market for the export of our forest products and look to other countries that we may be able to develop..."

Like anyone can wave their magic wand and have a new market for BC wood.

- Solution - tenure ......???

That is no short term (0 to 10 years) solution to anything. We have capacity to manage the stands, harvest them, bring them into processing plants and replenish the stands in the field. That capacity cannot be torn to shreds throughout the province without prolonging the current situation even further.

We need product and market diversification. Pulp appears to be relatively secure for a while. Maybe there is some value added product we can move in on in the world market place from that source as a part option.

Bioenergy, both as a solid fuel and as a liquid fuel appears to be a short to medium term option. So why have more companies and government not moved on this?

To me it looks like everyone is stunned. They just cannot fathom that this is happening. Everyone is grasping at straws.

It is as if someone has just discovered vinyl and the bottom has dropped out of the world leather market as a result.

It would be nice to see some action.

The last thing this province needs is Carol James and the NDP. The people on welfare might appreciate them but I can't imagine any sane, rational, thinking person wanting the socialists back in power.

As long as she only *looks at it* we are safe! The NDP always had the words *corporation* and *profit* on its black list! Anything that is privately owned and actually makes a profit must be viewed as bad and exploitative. Never mind what the rest of the world is doing and that Canada is part of global trading, manufacturing and finance/banking. A doctrine is a doctrine and it must be implemented and followed no matter what the consequences. Once back in power they would go about undoing anything that doesn't fit the doctrine. Scary prospects!

I agree with what everyone has said thus far. The problem right now is that nobody is buying the product we make. It's either too expensive or they don't need it.

It doesn't help that for all of our "expertise" in forestry, we only really create a handful of products from that resource, products that are for all intents and purposes, similar to what we were churning out 50 years ago.

Why hasn't the industry evloved to develop NEW products? If not new, then why not try and diversify the products that we do offer? We're stuck in the belief that "we make widget X" and that any other type of widget is stupid.

It seems that most of the comments are from people who do not work in the forest industries .The ones that have not lost anything and probably will not its easy from that side of the street . Forest tenure is the only thing that will stop forest companies from raping small towns such as Mackenzie .
MACKBC

It seems that most of the comments are from people who do not work in the forest industries .The ones that have not lost anything and probably will not its easy from that side of the street . Forest tenure is the only thing that will stop forest companies from raping small towns such as Mackenzie .
MACKBC

Shes right.. Say for example your a log home builder or you have a sencondary manufacturing plant with a market lined up. Now the problem is feeding your plant because the majors have a majority of the cut control in this area. If you think for one second that "we" own the trees think again..

"Why hasn't the industry evloved to develop NEW products?"

That is a very good question. I asked it a few years ago at a Canfor meeting and an example was given. Canfor produces the highest quality virgin pulp and exports that product to Europe. There it is made into fine legal document paper by a specialty mill. The value of a ton of pulp is thereby increased by a factor of 2 or 3 or 4. (I am guessing, it could be a lot more). Now, if Canfor would establish such a specialty mill here in Canada it would be in competition with one of its longtime valued customers and it may lose that customer. Net gain? Net loss?

I can't see how the government could influence private industry to invest in new approaches except by giving private industry tax breaks, gifts of R&D money and other financial *bribes* - something that the NDP (and others) would oppose at every step of the way.

Good example diplomat. I suspect the more Canfor and people like them keep losing millions of dollars per year, the more they may re-evaluate how they could capture some of that market (and profit) on their own. Continuing with the status quo would be mind boggling.

Yeah, you can bet the NDP would be all over the govt if they gave tax breaks to industries looking to set up shop here or invest in new technologies or products. I guess it's okay to give millions to a prop up a failing mill, but it's not okay to give it to one that can actually stay in business long-term, employ people and have them pay union dues for the rest of their working lives :)

Good point NMG!

It seems that Carole James just wants to sell the same goods to a different customer. I'm not so sure that is the solution. I believe we need to diversify the product lines to utilize the different products we now have available to us. Like Dead trees? Let's get creative to see what we can produce from using these trees. The demand for our products have always been up and down, ever since I worked in the forest industry back in the early 70's. Nothing's really changed. We just haven't really prepared for this kind of an extended downturn in the demand for our lumber products.

Until the housing market bottoms out in the U.S. nothing is going to change. You have a seller asking 60 cents on the dollar and a buyer offering 20 cents. Too much of a spread to agree on a value. On the other hand, the bank will not lend a nickel until these folks agree on a value. So, even though money has been poured into this market, it's still stuck within the financial system. The bottom line is when the value of a house is determined in the U.S., things will begin to turn around. May be posponed until 2009 or 2010. Chester

The last thing this province and the forest industry needs or wants is Carol James. If the NDP get into power we can kiss most industries good bye, no more mining, oil patch and sianara to most of the sawmills. We are taxed to much now, if the ndp get in we are all in serious trouble. I can remember the time when the NDP chased the majority of the oil patch out of the province, the NDP got in the oil companies left for Alberta and didn't come back till the ndp were voted out. There was next to no mining then either.
It would be a mistake to vote NDP. Just my oppinion.

Could it be possible that we have a few Liberal spin doctors active on this board? It's becoming more apparent as the next election appraoches. All politicians are the same and we don't need spin to know it.

Mackbc
"It seems that most of the comments are from people who do not work in the forest industries. The ones that have not lost anything and probably will not its easy from that side of the street."

When a high percentage of a community's income comes from one industry, in this case forestry, many of the other jobs in the community serve that industry and are there primarily because of that industry. The direct layoffs will eventually move through the service sector.

Most will be affected in one way or another.

To think that just because one is not in the forest industry one cannot have opinions, or even good ideas of wath can and should be done is quite wrong.

You say: "Forest tenure is the only thing that will stop forest companies from raping small towns" ....

Tell that to communities in New Brunswick. There the split of ownership is 50/50 between private and public, while it is 4/96 in BC.

MPB don't care who owns the trees. Neither does the marketplace. Neither do those who affect the value of the Canadian $. Neither do those who want to protect the forest industry in the USA. Neither do those who build housing in the USA.

A different tenure system would not have protected itself from the events of the past years.

The people have a resource which belongs to them. The government is the caretaker of that resource.

New Brunswick is as hard hit as BC, if not harder.

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1959

Mackbc, so if you work in the forest industry, how would you have set up a tenure system so that those who get access to the resource would not have been affected by MPP, housing collapse in the USA, protectionism increase in the USA, and parity between the USA and Canuck $?

Could it be possible that we have a few Liberal and NDP spin doctors active on this board?

I think it's highly possible diplomat!
I would be suprised if there wasn't, given the fact that our political wonder boys do read this blog!
I would expect that to get worse the closer we get to the provincial election in 2009!

Of course it will get worse. The NDP will ramp up their flow of dumb ideas, which usually means anything good they have to say gets lost in the manure.

There will be plenty of posts that will rise to the defense of the NDP that are solely based on principle rather than content of the NDP's message.

Should be fun baiting those boys! Heehee!

Someone will always get the "Red Book" out for all the socialist slogans and catch phrases. I love being called names like a running dog capitalist oiker. There are good things about the coming scrap as we will learn to spell words like corprite, multi-nationel, comraide, unitificition, soverenty and other big words in the Red Book.

After decades of exposure to BC-NDP shenanigans (and Liberal spin, too) I have come to the conclusion that some of the BC-NDP ideas are outright dumb, some are o.k. and basically well-intended but most of them are just completely impractical and out of touch with what goes on in the real world.

Nothing is perfect and almost anything can be improved but not by dumping the baby out with the bath water or by killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I for one am not interested in any class struggle involving socialism vs. capitalism as I think we can solve our problems by simply keeping to the middle of the spectrum. We already have a pretty good society with proper education and healthcare systems in place and some form of protection for every Canadian citizen.

Let's build on what we have in place already without creating unnecessary fear and strife just for the sake of political expediency.

Cheers!

The biggest problem with the NDP, and all 'socialists' for that matter, is that their rank and file membership has never really understood 'finance'.

They talk endlessly about 're-distribution' of wealth. Forest tenure, in the case above. But has anyone ever heard ANY socialist, anywhere, ever call for a 're-distribution' of the National Debt? Has Carol James ever called for a 'redistribution' of the Provincial Debt?

Surely it must be obvious to a Party that identifies 'government' with 'the people' as the NDP does, (since its traditional call for "common ownership of the means of production" translates into a call for "government" ownership of the same), that if the 'government' is, say, $ 450 billion POORER Federally, or $ 50 billion POORER Provincially by the amount of their respective debts, then whoever holds that debt must be commensurately RICHER by the same amounts.

Yet a Party that believes so steadfastly that the "poor are poor because the rich are rich" NEVER says a word about WHO HOLDS THOSE DEBTS. Or HOW, or by WHOM, they were 'created' in the first place. Or calls for THE 're-distribution' of that holding to 'the people'. Now why do you suppose that is? Could it be, as it was suggested many years ago, that 'socialsism' is really no more than "monopoly State capitalism with control by finance."?

Socredible, yours is an awesome post, in my opinion!

"...then whoever holds that debt must be commensurately RICHER by the same amounts."

Actually, you are just touching on the greater issue, which is the one of compound interest due to be paid annually on the debts that you mentioned!

THAT is were the RICHNESS comes from, a bleeding off from the federal and provincial budget totals big enough to cover the interest due! Or, of course simply add the amount of interest due to the already existing debt, the *easy* way out!

The lending corporations create the money that the governments borrow from that out of thin air! But the interest payments are real tax money and not some fictitious coin created out of thin air! It must be paid now or it must be paid later, but it definitely must be paid! The banks love it, because an entity such as a province or country can't declare bankruptcy to get out from under the obligation to pay!

The BC-NDP during its ten years in office doubled the provincial debt. The money was borrowed from the banking corporations, a strange thing to do for a party which expresses disdain and contempt for corporations which make a profit! One would expect from socialist parties that they would treat the tax dollars which are collected from the working class as a precious commodity! Why do I say that? Because the NDP always declares that corporations and rich people either pay no taxes or not their fair share! Ipso ergo the majority of the taxes comes from working middle class people - so why give so willingly a large share of that money to the lending corporations to pay the compound interest on the national and provincial debts?

If questioned about this obvious contradiction they will rant on and on about borrowing being an investment and that no one really expects that these debts will ever have to be repaid. Of course, that is completely untrue.

I argued this with a BC-NDP finance minister by mail. His staff (I'd hate to think it was actually him) sent such low quality arguments to me that I finally gave up in utter disbelief.

Thanks, diplomat. The whole issue of government finance is perpetually shrouded in mystery. As is the overall workings of our entire financial system.

When it is said that "money is created out of thin air", or essentially "nothing", by the Banking system, many people are either likely to go into a state of denial that such a thing could be possible, even though the Banks themselves admit that it is.

Or alternately, they'll ascribe to the process itself a notion of the ultimate evil. And insist that the 'government' should create all money instead. Whether it should, or shouldn't, (in my opinion, it shouldn't), is really a moot point however. Since what's really at fault is the 'accounting' that surrounds the whole process. And unless that's corrected, it doesn't really matter who creates the money ~ nothing will change for the better.

What's missed in most cases, is that the system is nearly entirely 'creditary' now. And the true origin of all 'money' is in the nature of a contractual arrangement.

It is created out of 'nothing' in the sense that the terms of the 'loan' agreement that created it didn't exist before they were entered into by the Bank and its customer. Through the exchange of the customer's personal, (or corporate), creditary instrument, his Promissory Note, or "promise to pay", for access to the Bank's creditary instruments, which are more generally acceptable as 'money'. This is done by means of a deposit opened in his name on which he can draw by means of cheque, electronic transfer, etc. Or, if he wants, even by cash.

Essentially, and looked at on a transaction by transaction basis, it is simply a matter of bookkeeping. Loans create deposits, the repayment of those loans cancel them.

The overlapping of loan maturities and dynamic nature of the whole process allows interest, profit, and savings to continually accrue to the various particpants in the economy ~ Banks, Firms, and Consumers.

Interest, of itself, cannot compound nor increase overall debt SO LONG AS THE TERMS OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT ARE BEING ADHERED TO. In other words, so long as the re-payments of principal and interest are being made as contracted.

The problem is primarily that the Banking system, as well as being the term makers, are also in an exclusive position to be the deal breakers. Since their refusal to grant new loans, (in a situation like what's been happening in the USA, when they feel their chances of re-payment are imperiled) puts Firms in a position where, as a whole, they cannot remain profitable enough to service their existing loans.

Much more could be said, particularly as to how that could be rectified, but I've probably said enough already to get everyone totally confused!

Cheers.

Thats only a part of the problem...

The real problem is with the unregulated international futures market, which is now the price setter for commodities like oil to wheat and rice. They say as much as 70% of the price of a barrel of oil today is the result of the ICE (International Exchange) market that opened up to trading in 2005. The bankers are the ones manipulating the market and making all the profits.

They manufacture asset bubbles for profit-through banking finance policy and profit from the insider knowledge. Goldman Sachs recently announce they are calling for $200 a barrel of oil within the next few years... and yet they are one the biggest market manipulators through the derivative futures markets and a driving force behind the creation of a market that is unregulated for things such as insider trading and market manipulations.

The idea that we need more loans to pay for the free money made by the fake money market manipulators is ludicrous to me.

Why not instead throw those people in jail, close down their racket, and let real money pay for real commodities in a market regulated for market manipulation? It would seem the most logical, simplistic, and effect solution if not for the fact the guys running the bankster racket also finance our political parties.

If markets are not manipulated by these unregulated global commodities futures markets... than we could then have real supply and demand... and then the idea of loans driving the economy could become a more viable argument as the effect, or lack-there-of, would be more obvious for everyone to see.

I say stop giving away free money to the banksters in effect taxing the people on a fixed income through inflation and instead solve the real problem of unregulated bankster globalization.

"When it is said that "money is created out of thin air", or essentially "nothing", by the Banking system, many people are either likely to go into a state of denial that such a thing could be possible, even though the Banks themselves admit that it is."

The US government used to create its own money (the government was the only agency with the power to do so) until the private banking system of the Federal Reserve was created by British and American bankers.

Since then government borrows money from the bankers who create it on paper from nothing and charge the government annual interest.

The government could do it the same way it did in the beginning: Create interest free money and lend it to itself instead of asking the bankers to create it. All the interest payments that are now paid to the bankers can be used annually to retire the principal amount created once more into nothing, where it came from originally.

In Canada's situation it would mean that our federal debt would be eliminated in ten years, whereas under the present arrangement it will take several decades and suck almost half a trillion additional dollars out of the pockets of taxpayers.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, Eagle. We have a 'casino-capitalism' mentality that extends far beyond that of just the 'banksters', however.

It's penetrated and embedded in the minds of the millions engaged in 'day-trading' of stocks and commodities in the ever present hopes that they'll be able to "buy low and sell high", and get rich quick.

They're not, in any sense of the word, "investors". For the profits they hope to make will be in no way "earned" by any economic activity, but rather just a run up in "figures" instead.

It exists in the corridors of political power in Victoria, where we have a guy who interprets the constant rise in real estate prices, and consequent rise in all other prices, as a sign of 'prosperity'.

Who looks forward with such relish to more downtown Vancouver office towers being built by his land-pimping cohorts, to be filled with legions of 'carbon-credit traders', and having brother Michael egging the public on to speculate on, er, "invest" in, saving the environment. Just WHAT "environment" they REALLY have in mind, though, is likely something other than the general public does.

It could be changed, probably with minimal disruption and discomfort to all, except those at the top of the pyramid of financial power. But it's unlikely it will be, even after it collapses from the rot that's permeated its whole structure. Too many that would change it don't yet understand how it all 'works', and there's little common ground on just what the overall objective should be.

The government did that in Canada, too, Diplomat. It used the Bank of Canada to buy government bonds by having the Bank write a cheque on itself, since the B of C has an unlimited overdraft account for such a purpose.

It is, however, no less inflationary than borrowing from the private Banks. Primarily because the Government did not spend the money it raised to 'compensate' or lower consumer prices. But rather used it to fund capital projects, which increased them.

I don't have time this morning to go into this in the detail it deserves. The 'problem' ISN'T with interest paid to the Banks, however. Though WHAT HAPPENS TO that interest afterwards IS of primary importance.

The NDP refer to tenure reform as some sort of answer. It doesn't matter what kind of tenure is made available if there is no real intention/oversight to facilitate other companies, and smaller companies. The political attempts to lead the MOF towards small business and diversification has been a long and multi party disaster. I believe the problem lies in the senior MOF bureaucracy as no matter which party has been in power, the same results occur, bigger is better. Our cocky liberals have recently shown their dedication to facilitating further monopolising of the forest industry despite what they say in public.

The NDP refer to the need to review if we are "getting our share" from this crown resource. People have to realise that this usually means more stumpage, which is nothing more than a word for pre taxing an industry which doesn't need more taxes. The softwood export charge is another tax which we do not need, but government is happy to reel this money in. Add to that the provincial logging tax. These taxes simply translate into less industry and less benefits which it can provide, such as employment and capital investment towards diversification.

Each time a new era public issue arises, whether it be the logging practises of the 90s or global warming, the MOF seems to respond by "throwing the baby out in the bath water".

Small business and or diversification can only succeed if both the political and bureaucratic cooperation exist.

Former Prime Minister Joe Who became very annoyed and agitated during a TV interview when he was asked to explain why he ran up a deficit (which added to the federal debt, of course).

He stated with a straight face that he had a balanced budget - if one excludes the amount he had to borrow from the banks to pay the interest due on the federal debt!

His budget of course was not balanced at all, it was a deficit budget because he did not have enough money coming in to pay the interest due - so how can that not be a problem?

Flimflam...of course. The average Canadian is easily flimflammed because he/she doesn't know the difference between the terms *deficit* and *debt* and has never given it even the slightest attention.

Why worry? As long as the budget is *balanced* everything is just ducky.

As for tenure reform i always wonder how, exactly that would be achieved. YOu cant just TAKE away tenures from Canfor or anyone else for that matter. Keep in mind
that the tenure system we have was created to yield guaranteed timber supply to the industry (a must for them) and long term sustained yield for community stability. We ARE the land holders, selling our wood to the industry. THe fact that we have agreements designed to give both parties security (of sorts) doesnt change that fact.
The price we charge for the timber is the stumpage price. WHile it can be argued that price is too high or too low it must be acknowledged that the stumpage is adjusted continually over time. Suggesting a review of stumpage rates would qualify as non news in my view. With the forest industry temporarily in the dumps it is simple popularism to start calling for reviews of this and restructring of that. It gets votes from people who are in the habit of looking at a problem and declaring 'something must be done' without having any idea of what that 'something' might be or indeed of what the actual problem is.
THe fact that people write politically charged diatribes against the NDP should not be taken as the work of Liberal plants (in the absence of any evidence to that effect) any more than the many socialist leaning rants should be considered proof of a commie conspiracy. To accuse posters of such a thing is to avoid discussion of their posts by labelling the posts as mindless propaganda.

Diplomat:- "His (Joe Who's) budget of course was not balanced at all, it was a deficit budget because he did not have enough money coming in to pay the interest due - so how can that not be a problem?"

I believe he DID have enough money coming in to pay the INTEREST, Diplomat, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to borrow more. And our National Debt peaked during Mulroney's tenure, some time later. "First-world", including Canadian, governments always remain current on their INTEREST payments through taxes even if the Principal amount of their debts is ever increasing.

Even pre-oil, Depression-ruined, drought ridden, agricultural Alberta, the only Province to ever default on repaying its Provincial bonds, when they matured in 1936, kept paying interest on them until they were finally able to redeem them 10 years or so later. (Newfoundland defaulted, too, but it was an independent Dominion at the time, and was forced into reverting to colonial status with its government essentially made up of a Commission of Receivers acceptable to its foreign creditors.)

You have to realize something, though, to see why I say interest, even though it does amount to a huge part of every government's budget, isn't the main problem. It's in the nature of an 'effect' of something , rather than the 'cause' of anything.

A Balanced Budget of any government, one that is balanced strictly from taxes, not additional loans, can generally only come from 'unbalancing' the 'budgets' of Firms and Consumers within that country.

It is financed by what we might call "old money". Money which, on its journey FROM the Bank, has already been 'costed' into some production, somewhere in the country, and has not yet been recovered in PRICE from the sale of that production, and thence be able make its journey back TO the Bank to repay the loan.

We say money 'circulates', which it does, but more importantly it 'ebbs' and 'flows' as loans create deposits, and the repayment of those loans cancel them.

As it circulates it can transfer many goods, amongst various parties to various transactions, but it can only liquidate ONE debt. ONE that's equal to the one that created it.

When that money is removed in taxation it interupts its journey, and the only way the product it has been 'costed' into, and forms the 'price value' of, can SELL is if someone then borrows some more money to buy it.

Since Banks do not lend for the puposes of 'consumption', only 'production', (even so-called Consumer credit requires the borrower to have a "job" , or other "productive" source of income to repay the loan), the money that must be borrowed to enable the existing product to sell, has to become a 'cost' of some further production, to be recovered in the future in THAT production's PRICE. But if a portion of THAT money is removed in taxation too....? And on, and on, throughout the WHOLE ECONOMY? Can you see the problem? This is how debt grows. Not through interest, so long as the interest is being paid.

Balanced budgets through taxation are dearly loved by the Banks, because they keep the citizenry of the country permanently indebted to them for ever greater sums of money to carry on. And when those loans can't be repaid, the Banks are able to force consolidation of businesses into larger, and supposedly "more credit worthy" enterprises. And that's just about where we are today.

Don't think I'm advocating for "deficit financing" ala the NDP years with all that, Diplomat. I'm not. What's needed is a proper set of National (or Provincial) Accounts which accurately and completely record what is going on in our whole economy. A 'budget' alone just doesn't cut it.

It's really only an estimation of revenues and expenditures over some fiscal period. While it's a useful financial tool in any business, and government is often equated to a business in its supposed necessity to balance its 'budget' just as any business balances its books, there are very substantial differences. No business uses only a 'budget' to record and conduct it's financial activities.

It has a Balance Sheet, a Profit and Loss Account, and a Statement of Cash Flows. Where are these accounts found in government? Do we know whether our total 'net worth' as a Province, or nation, is increasing year by year? If it is, by how much? Where is the equivalent to the Capital Account, which records the Shareholder's (Citizen's, in the government's case )Equity? Are the 'money' Liabilities, large as they may be, that form the National Debt, equal to the total value of ALL the Assets of Canada on the opposite side of the ledger? What goes to make up the difference if the Assets are way larger?

These are all things a proper set of accounts should show. One thing is certain. If our 'wealth, our total 'net worth', IS increasing year by year there is absolutely no need to have a balanced budget.

socreble, I was going to agree with your last post up until the last sentence, then you had to go and ruin it... For a moment I thought there was hope that you've turned that corner. I like you ideas on government reporting of a Profit and Loss Account, and a Statement of Cash Flow reporting. That was good stuff.

You also wrote in a previous post, "the money that must be borrowed to enable the existing product to sell, has to become a 'cost' of some further production, to be recovered in the future in THAT production's PRICE."

Wrong. The money does not have to be borrowed it can also come from profits as a result of investments into further production that accrue benefits that are greater than the cost of production. In this way less dollar over time buy more goods, but with your notion of debt, over time it takes more money to buy less goods.

One concept is supply and demand and the other is trying to manage an economy through manipulation of finance policy.

As for any suggestions about what to do about the banksters. I say we hang them out to dry and finish them off once and for all.

Obviously the United States of America is a banana republic that we are tied to in a trade relationship... so we can not rely, as we have, on their corrupt political system to provide the necessary checks and balances in the liberal economy of finance that they facilitate.

The only solution for a sovereign and prosperous free Canada is to pop the derivative bubble built up by the banksters to fleece the world through their futures market manipulations of commodities like oil. Canada is in direct mortal threat from the international unregulated futures markets that are driving the prince and profits of things like the global spot rate for oil, lumber, food ect. Canada needs to crush that as only we can.

Canada needs to serve 6-months notice to the US that we are out of NAFTA unless the spot rate for Canadian exports (oil and gas) is controlled by a Canadian Wheat Board type of monopoly co-op with an acceptable arms length management board tasked with ensuring oil production in Canada is cost plus an acceptable and negotiated profit range for all domestic consumption with an export tax on American consumption of our exports for the difference between the global spot rate (that they allow through their ignorance to regulation of these markets for manipulation) and the Canadian spot rate.

Let the Americans pay if they want to elect a government that facilitate the kind of bankster thieving thats been going on. These people will destroy their economy with their current trends and I see no reason why Canada should allow ourselves to be taken down that same garden path when we have real power to stop the madness.

A 70% drop in the price of a barrel of oil is not factored into the bankster unregulated casino market computer programed algorithmic for market manipulation scenario. The international banks would suffer a serious set back and the world would again prosper.