Where is all the stolen Iraqi oil ?

Well actually it did, and from 2000 when the petroeuro scheme was initiated, because of the relative strengths of the Euro vs the USD, Iraq benefited through having 10-15% higher oil revenues. Following a significant let’s say market intervention in 2003, Iraqi oil was returned to being traded in USD.

From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development as the EU imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the US, and the EU accounted for 45% of exports sold to the Middle East.

Same thing, really, all those invisible hands and shit.

China can pay Venezuela euros or lira or Australian dollars, as long as China has them and Venezuela will accept them. If Venezuela needs Brazilian reales, e.g., they could take USD from China and buy BRL from somebody else, or they could just ask China if they’ve got $x USD worth of reales, or for that matter $x USD worth of steel beams. The fact that the goods are denominated in USD doesn’t mean the transaction actually has to take place in USD.

Yeah “invade to take their oil” makes no economic or geopolitical sense at all. Obviously some will quickly retort that of course the invasion made no sense, but it’s at least plausible that Bush and Cheney had naive ideas about spreading democracy in the ME (FWIW I never personally supported the war).

There’s a similar thing with Syria right now; people scratching around for the real reason we’re getting involved. Obviously they don’t have oil, so this time it must be about building a pipeline, or a base, or something, right?!

The announcement of this pipeline, just prior to this ‘revolution’, is certainly just a coincidence.
Qatar and the Saudi’s being the main financers and suppliers of weapons is because they are so altruistic and such well-known supporters of democracy.

The Venn diagrams are not completely without overlap.

No, because Iran is financing and supplying the other side. Its Cold War 101.

This is a whoosh, right? You all know about petrodollars and the need to hold $US you ca’t use in the wider economy just in order to trade in oil?

For what its worth to our conspiritorially-minded posters, here is a paper from a respected source that concludes that the net benefit of the dollar being the principal (but not only) reserve currency ends up being between 0.3 percent and 0.5 percent of our GDP.

This calculation takes into account both the benefits of lower interest rates and seigniorage, as well as the impact on US exports and imports.

Increased demand for dollars by oil-buyers is balanced by the increased supply aof dollars among oil sellers. Only a secondary effect should be expected on the Dollar/Euro ratio. If the claim is that the Dollar is held at an inflated value relative to other strong currencies, I think a review of historical Purchasing Power is in order.

The Dollar’s special status as a reserve currency is favorable for the U.S. economy, but “[petro-]dollar hegemony is the basis on which dollars can just keep on being created out of nothing” goes beyond hyperbole.

You literally don’t know what you’re talking about, do you? Strike that, it’s not a question you’re qualified to answer.

Says the man who hasn’t given any cites in this thread.

I know that I’ve asked for cites from you and other posters, and you appeared to be shocked that you might have to back up your arguments. Which still has not occurred.

The idea that Iraq was a war for oil was always ludicrous to begin with. For the amount of money spent on the war in Iraq, the United States might as well have just drilled much more of its own oil in Alaska or gotten more stuff out of oil shale, or manufactured technology that would wean the US off of oil outright.

Right, just to get back to basics; the invasion went to plan. what the neo-cons got utterly wrong was the cost of occupation - they assumed Iraqis would rush for jobs at the nearest MickyD and embrace their mad-as-fuck philosophy.

That’s what cost half a million dead civilians - the USA clinging on in a culture and world it didn’t understand while it tried to own the land and what laid under it.

Sounds reasonable:

A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later it all adds up to real money …

In this articleEuropean Central Banks senior economist argues that over the period 1981 to 2008 that average returns on US net foreign assets realised more than 300 basis points per year larger than in other countries.

Apologies, but I’m not a good enough economist to critique either position.
It would seem the benefit to the US is less than the cost to the rest of the world, but who picks up the differential I’m unsure.

Cite for neo-cons estimating the cost of occupation at all? My impression was that there was no real planning at all, wrong or otherwise.