Talk:Petrodollar

Direct Source of a "Founding Father" of the Petrodollar Getting Deleted as "Fantasy" by Bobrayner
Maybe the edits by Bobrayner can be explained? My position is simply that Jim Rickards was an official White House consultant involved in the forming of the petrodollar and his important and historic recent narration of the circumstances behind the creation of the deal with the Saudis creating the petrodollar is not "fantasy" as the editor in question would have us believe. Dear editor, are you an American or an American Ally, and is this possibly a conflict of interest that is causing you to delete this info? Your action seems like an emotional response, you just deleted the entire edit with a glib comment, "Removed fantasy". Before you insult, you might take the time to see the source documenting this. I humbly request you to desist from deleting this in the interest of the readers of Wikipedia, who should get this important info. Until you use logic to defend your edit, I will keep restoring it. Editorpublicas (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
lolz, McCain just said petrodollar in the debate just now. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Petrodollar Scam Breaking Down
Petrodollar Scam Breaking Down

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpJmk7Q_vw4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.23.254 (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Preparing for the Collapse of the Petrodollar System
Preparing for the Collapse of the Petrodollar System

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jerry-robinson/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.23.254 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrodollar Standard Petrodollar Warfare
Petrodollar Standard Petrodollar Warfare http://gold-wars.com/book/petrodollar-standard-part-standard/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.23.254 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened to all of the Talk and History for the Petrodollar_Warfare wikipedia entry from 2013-2014? They appear to have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.228.94 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nixon and petrodollars
Frequently, I've come across words to the effect of: "In an effort to prop up the value of the dollar Nixon negotiated a deal with Saudi Arabia that in exchange for arms and protection they would denominate all future oil sales in U.S. dollars. Subsequently, the other OPEC countries agreed to similar deals thus ensuring a global demand for U.S. dollars and allowing the U.S. to export some of its inflation." And, the proof to this assertion is to refer to other publications that say, in effect, no more than to make the same assertion, and often, in almost exactly the same words.

Please, can anyone come up with some evidence of what happened in fact, something solid regarding who was there, what was said, what was promised, et cetera, regarding this Nixonian replacement of oil for gold as the backing of the U.S. dollar? I'm not questioning the integrity of anyone or any source (save for that of Tricky Dick, natch!); I am, however, concerned that we not fall into the trap of repeating what we want to believe, what most likely and in all probability is correct, anyway, but to do that w/o any p-r-o-o-f that what we know to be fact is in fact, fact.

Please, any and all suggestions would be most welcome indeed. 189.245.155.28 (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Engdahl on petro$$$
This is the topic of Engdahl's book: "A century of War". The book can be found online. search for: "Engdahl__Century_of_War_book.pdf"

Chapter 9 (pp.127ff) deals with transition from Bretton Woods to Petro$. Engdahl cites a secret protocol from a Bilderberg meeting he supposedly aquired himself but: there seems to be only one copy ...

It seems the deal was that the Saudis recycle their Petro$ into the US economy (weapons deals) so that an increase in oil price - which was both forseeable and agreed upon - largely falls on the shoulders of non-US buyers. The selling of oil in other currencies than $$$ would threaten american hegemony and subsequently be met with intelligence ops, sanctions or brute force.

Recently Engdahl argues in a confusing manner that oil is not scarce. Search ISGP for his connections to get a broader view of his ties. The real question is at what profit oil can be sold. The peak of the profit margin is out of question and as a result oil becomes more scarce in the market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.174.253 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Crappy article
learned exactly nothing.Longinus876 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The article needs expansion
Whooo! This article is surprisingly short, considering how big impact the petrodollar has on the world. What's keeping it from growing? I'm not an expert on the petrodollar myself, but I mean, there has to be a lot of people who could add a lot more valuable information to this article. I think we should make an attempt to bring attention to this article in order to make it bigger and more informative. —Kri (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Very much agree. If you can help by bringing this article to the attention of experts (that also means no conspiracy theorists) on the subjects please do so! For example I'm still not sure how all of this relates to the Bretton Woods system and the Nixon Shock and all I get when googling it is unreliable conspiracy-crap. As you said, even though the subject has obvious significant economic implications nobody seems to be willing to edit this article even though it's a "current article for improvement". --Fixuture (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, also. I find it strange that this article mentions; "But, although oil sales prior to 1973 were denominated in U.S. dollars, nothing precluded settlement in local currency." (alluding to the fact that 'something' has precluded it since then, but giving no explanation of what 'that' is) AND "In October 1973, OPEC declared an oil embargo in response to the United States' and Western Europe's support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and this tension (and the new power of OPEC) led to fear that the dollar would become insignificant in the oil trade." (another statement with similar allusions and a similar lacking of any elaboration of what indeed happened over the subsequent four decades with respect to this concern, and why it apparently did not come to pass.) Many, would say that; together with privately controlled, for profit central banking (and currency manipulation), the existence and dynamics of the petrodollar are at the heart of nearly all conflict, subjacation, ecological disrepair, and wasteful (at best, only) military spending since (at least ca. 1973), and therefore such an incomplete, lacking, or minimal wikipedia article on such a pivotal and non-controversial (at least in terms of accepted facts, whether officially stated or not) subject is further evidence of a vast conspiracy regarding the use of wikipedia as a primary propaganda outlet of the so-called 'West' (i.e. petrodollar nations), largely by omittance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.97.19 (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree on that as well; just not on: "is further evidence of a vast conspiracy regarding the use of wikipedia as a primary propaganda outlet of the so-called 'West'" -> everybody could edit this article; yet nobody does it for some reason. Haven't seen any censorship or alike here; it's just nobody coming to edit it. If you want to help maybe ask some WikiProjects (or relevant Wikipedia users in general) for help...or mail some knowledgable people on the topic etc. --Fixuture (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Article should be deleted
I don't know how the deletion process works (gave it a try and my technical know how was lacking) but this article should definitely be deleted. It is factually inaccurate. It is propaganda from the ron paul cult who use it as an excuse for why the US dollar has not collapsed. Any country can accept any currency they want for their oil. Every attempt at sourcing the claim that OPEC accepts USD exclusively fails miserably. They, as the text of this article does, confuses the term denominated for accepts. The current one being used doesn't even try to make this claim. It really should just be deleted entirely as it is used to argue a false premise. This article has been quoted to me more than once and I'm getting sick of explaining that Wikipedia needs to be fact checked. This article's existence really does make Wiki look bad.Harmon titler (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Then why don't you edit it with correct info instead (if what you're saying is true)? Can't see why this article should be deleted as it's definitely a noteworthy topic - if there are errors in it or if there's missing info then please edit it or ask people knowledgeable on the topic to edit it. --Fixuture (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm reasonably knowledgeable, and this article's emphasis on gold is absurd – we're not in the 1970s anymore. The Petrodollar recycling article is much more realistic about the economics. If I get the time, I'll try to clean up and possibly merge the content. —Patrug (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think this article should stay, but most of the content should be deleted, and some rewritten as a myth along with debunking text. I also think it should just be redirected to "petrodollar myth". --Agamemnus (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I culled everything that didn't make sense, although I tried to keep some text that was plausible. Of course, now, after removing the nonsense, a lot of the text is just random single-line facts... --Agamemnus (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for hacking away at the myths & nonsense. Petrodollars are almost completely unexplained by the remaining text, but well explained at Petrodollar recycling. I recommend re-directing to that article. Take a look and see what you think? —Patrug (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did a quick overview and it looks good to me. I support a redirect, perhaps merging with some parts on this page. I can maybe help a bit during the weekend... --Agamemnus (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'll have the interest to help you merge it.... so if you want to merge anything or whatever, go ahead. --Agamemnus (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Done, finally putting this hopeless article out of its misery! —Patrug (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)