LyrArc Article Gist
Brent crude drops below $60 by Dec. 15, 2014.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. gasoline prices were below $2.06, adjusted for inflation, during 1986-2003, dropping to a low of $1.51 in 1998. U.S. gasoline prices at the pump dropped below $2.00 in Jan. 2015. Buyer behaviour responded quickly to the change for automobiles, with sport utility (SUV) sales rising to 34% market share in the U.S. in mid-Nov. 2014, according to Edmunds.com.

LyrArc Article Gist
The OPEC meeting in Qatar in April 2016 to stabilize oil prices with a freeze in production is not likely to affect supply and demand. Saudis and Russia are producing all out, and Iran plans to increase its production, making it difficult to reach an agreement. The International Energy Agency, IEA, predicts demand will rise by the end of 2016 from 94.8 million barrels a day to 95.9 million barrels a day. Production is at 96.4 million barrels a day, and this is expected to lead to narrowing the gap between supply and demand. Experts say cars are becoming more fuel effficient, and electric car technology is becoming commercially viable, leading to a lack of growth in demand in developed and middle income countries. This may have to be factored in for the intermediate and long run for demand growth.

LyrArc Article Gist
The OPEC meeting in Doha in April 2016 fails to lead to an agreement to freeze oil production at Jan. 2016 levels, with Iran staying away from the meeting.

LyrArc Article Gist
As expected Iran boycotts the talks in Doha of 16 major oil producers seeking to stabilize oil prices. Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar and Venezuela sought to stabilize oil production at January levels to support oil prices. Wth the Saudia and Russia producing all out, Iran seeks to do the same, effectively closing the door on any agreement to freeze production levels.

LyrArc Article Gist
Several factors make it likely that oil prices will remain low for an extended period of time into 2016 and beyond. As Ailworth points out nobody is blinking. The Saudis plan no change to their high production. U.S. oil producers in the Gulf of Mexico have already made investments for deep sea drilling wells following the end of the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. Many of these wells are producing at very low marginal cost as most of the investments have already been made. It makes economic sense to produce even in a low price environment, according to Andarko. Shell continues to invest in the deep waters of the Gulf. Its production is up 10% to 250,000 barrels a day. American shale oil drillers have not cut back as much as expected, partly because many companies with large debts need the cash flow to pay interest on debt. And some of the 1200 wells that were drilled but left untapped may also be brought on stream to slow production declines. As a result the overall production of American crude, according to monthly federal information, has declined by about 3% to 9.3 million barrels from the peak reached in April 2015. This helps the U.S., Europe, China and India, at a time when their economies are experiencing different problems. It hurts Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iran. Russia is coping as its exporters convert dollars into rubles after the sharp depreciation in the ruble, and helps local industry including steel producers, as well as wheat exports. Venezuela's economy is the worst hit. And Iran now has to produce at high levels in 2016 to improve its economy following the lifting of sanctions....

LyrArc Article Gist
Major decline in oil prices in Oct. 2014 as prices drop to $81 per barrel and are forecast to reach $70. U.S. oil production increased by about 56% or 3.1 million barrels a day since 2004. U.S. demand for gas and fuel declined 8% compared to 2004. Initially instability and wars in the Middle East sustained high oil prices in 2012-2013. Yet with growing output from shale and other sources in N. America and slowing economies of Europe and China, the situation reached a point in 2014 where supply exceeds demand. This shift more than offsets any instability in trouble spots. The situation affects the U.S. consumer favorably with an estimate of $1 billion in savings for American consumers with every one cent drop in price at the gas pump, by one estimate from Deutsche Bank analysts. Typical American families gained an extra $50 a month from the decline June to October 2014, according to analysts at Gasbuddy.com. The declines are a boost for the slowing economies of Europe, Japan, China, S, Korea and India. China's imports for 2015 are estimated at 61% of oil consumption, using official estimates. In the current slowdown the lower prices offer relief. India which imports 75% of its energy benefits signficantly, as this helps lower inflation and reduces cost of fuel subsidies for state run companies. Russia is adversely affected by the declines as it depends on oil and gas exports for 50% of the nation's budget. Estimates by AFK Sistema economists show the Russian economy contracting in 2015 with oil at near $90 per barrel (Brent crude is at about $85, and WTI at $81 in early Oct. 2014). Russia's former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin reflects opinion among Russian executives and politicians, when he told state television that Saudi Arabia may be pushing prices lower to target Russia's oil resource based economy and Mr. Putin, in an effort to broaden the effect of sanctions. (The Saudis have strongly protested the Putin intervention in Syria.) Venezuela has used $120 per barrel and Angola $98 for its budget, leading to a strong hit for the economy. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S consumer spending declines by 0.9% in Dec. 2014 over the prior month, according to the Commerce Department. Consumer spending was up in Nov. 2014 by 0.4%. Excluding auto sales and falling gas prices the Dec. 2014 decline in consumer spending was 0.3%. This shows that consumers are saving most of the money saved as a result of gasoline at about $2 a gallon, or using it to pay off debt. Analysts had estimated a significant increase in retail spending which turned out not to be happening.

LyrArc Article Gist
A slight shift in American opinion favoring a deal with Iran is shown in a WSJ/NBC poll in July 2015 compared to the poll in April 2015. Support for reaching a nuclear deal with Iran remains stable at 36% in both polls, the opposed drops by 6 percentage points to 17% from 23%, and the percentage of people who say they do not know enough to formulate an opinion goes up to 46% from 40%. The intricacies of a nuclear technology deal and the sites involved lead to a high percentage of don't know enough to give an opinion. Factors hindering a deal include inspection of military sites, and Iranian intentions. Factors favoring reaching a deal now is the risk that this would mean Iran would go back into isolation and the opportunity to work with moderates might be lost. The Rouhani administration was an effort by voters to elect a government that could ease or remove sanctions to improve the economy and living conditions- its failure would lead to Iran losing an opportunity to open up to the world. The pressure from the U.S. Congress and Israel served to push for a verifiable and effective agreement to control development of nuclear technology for weapons systems. Behavioural factors involved are the very young population in Iran which has no memories about the period before the revolution in 1979- 70% of the population of 74 million are people under the age of 35. This group is eager for ties to the outside and could change Iran's outlook and policies int the future towards moderation. Risks in not reaching a deal also include the possibility of the Saudis developing nuclear technology and nuclear proliferation. Winners from a deal because of the flow of Iranian oil to world markets and a period of extended low oil prices are the U.S., Europe, China and India. Germany gains new markets to replace the growth in the Russian market after sanctions. Lifting of an arms embargo, an added risk in the last days of the talks, would be mitigated by making the lifting of that embargo very gradual....

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama invited NYT's columnist Thomas Friedman to the White House for an interview on Saturday afternoon April 4, 2015. Here Friedman gives president Obama's response to his questions, and Obama's concerns about the heated rhetoric in the U.S. and Israel on the negotiations with Iran detracting and distracting from his key goals of protecting U.S. interests and Israel. On the Sunni states, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Obama points out that there are some tough conversations needed about changes inside their societies which pose a greater threat to the governments than Iran. Obama says he understands perfectly that Israel and the Jewish people after their experience of the last hundred years are determined to not let Iran develop a nuclear weapon, and their right to be concerned that the agreement could let Iran clandestinely develop one. Obama says the verification is extensive and covers any facility in Iran, any suspicion about secret facilities, yet it leaves the subsequent decisions if Iran created difficulties, to a international body over which the U.S., UK, France, have no control. This is a principal issue for critics of the negotiated agreement. No mention is made of why Iran simply discarded the option of sending the atomic material to Russia to be processed into nuclear rods for the Bushehr nuclear plant built by Russia only a few days before the final outline was developed. And why the U.S., with allies Germany, France, UK and Japan, did not offer the Iranians an economic aid package if needed in return for the billions Iranians invested for that atomic material, to ensure that the atomic materials are shipped out of the country- to create a nuclear agreement that would be credible to all parties. The economic aid would benefit Iran modernize its oil industry, including refining operations, meet basic import needs, and provide tangible proof to the Iranian people of our best intentions for the future, that president Obama strongly espouses in the interview. The interview does show the quandary president Obama faces in Iran for strong action, that is a result of failed policies with Iran since the Eisenhower administration's intervention 1953 during the Cold War that displaced the elected government of Mosaddegh in Iran and setup the Shah's regime in 1956, the support of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the war against Iran, which Obama mentions in this intervew. In the light of the repeated failures of the U.S. policies a Democratic party leader faces increasing reservations for taking strong action against Iran's development of nuclear weapons capabilities, preferring to exhaust every diplomatic channel, and take risks in the hope that time will give the Iranian people an opportunity to to reintegrate in the global community and pursue the peaceful development of nuclear energy. This strain in president Obama's thinking is evident throughout the interview with Friedman. Other aspects of president Obama's policy in the Middle East shared in the interview are about supporting the Sunni states in some areas, and Iran in some areas, at the same time as the nuclear issue is "put in a box" and separated from the regional conflicts. Friedman presents this as the Obama doctrine, yet it appears to be coming after a series of improvisations in foreign policy following a failure to act in 2011-2013, when the "once in a lifetime" opportunities presented by the Arab Spring were not taken up by the Obama administration, leading to the region's current disintegration....

LyrArc Article Gist
Critics of the nuclear agreement with Iran reached in April 2015 say the verification under a UN agency will be weak, and the "snap back" of sanctions in the event of failure may not work in the real world.

LyrArc Article Gist
In a shift from statements at earlier summits which focussed on fiscal restraint, the Camp David summit continued the "firm committment to fiscal consolidation," yet emphasized jobs and economic growth as "imperative." There is new flexibility to address needs for economic growth and no specific timetables for fiscal balance as in previous summits. Obama had many one to one encounters with the other leaders. He discussed the euro crisis with Cameron while working out on a treadmill, and watched the Champions League soccer final between Chelsea and Bayern Munich with Merkel and Cameron. Each leader of the G-8, Harper of Canada, Monti of Italy, Hollande of France, Medvedev of Russia, Cameron of Britain, Noda of Japan, Merkel of Germany, was assigned a cabin in the rustic wooded setting of Camp David's mountains. A special effort was made to see that Germany's Merkel did not feel isolated in the setting because of the growing sentiment that austerity policies pushed by Germany are not working. On Iran, Obama stated that he was "hopeful that we can resolve this issue in a peaceful fashion that recognizes their sovereignty, but also recognizes their responsibilities."...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ reminds readers of China's warning about North Korea's nuclear weapons in April 2015, and says the nuclear agreements with North Korea never worked. It sees a similiar situation with the nuclear agreement the Obama administration is working out with Iran.

LyrArc Article Gist
Hubbard and Erdbrink report on U.S. president Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia to begin a new chapter in relations with the Gulf nations and the Saudis. Under president Obama the U.S. distanced itself from the Saudis and the Gulf nations, preferring to pursue a policy of closer relations with Iran and signing the Iran nuclear deal. This included a policy of staying out of Syria to the point of turning down a decision to deploy U.S. airpower to maintain no-fly zones to protect refugees. Syrian government forces fighting rebels were supported by Iran. The new policy is dictated by the new conditions in the Middle East. The U.S. has sought since the presidency of Reagan to balance the power relations in the region. With the nuclear deal signed and Iran respecting the deal according to independent reports, the U.S. allied with Iran in the battle against Islamic State in Iraq,  a shift was needed to balance the support provided to Iran by Russia which worsened the refugee crisis in Syria. The Republican party and Mr. Trump were critical of the Obama Iran policy during the nuclear deal negotiations. The safety of Israel is also a factor as non-state actors were supported by Iran threatening Israeli security. For these reasons the shift is an effort to rebalance the relations in the region. The arms deal in its size and president Trump's statement that Iran had "fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror," can be seen as this rebalancing. A business aspect of the large arms deal is that it will promote job growth in the defense industry in the U.S.. Other countries including Germany have seen growth in their defense industry. This is not the best way forward for the Middle East, yet it is a way the U.S. and nations in the region are adjusting to realities- the collapse of the Arab Spring from within and without the help from outside, the sectarian conflict arising from the Shiite pushback from Iran following the Baathist and Sunni control of Iraq which collapsed with the U.S.invasion, where the majority of people are Shiite yet with a strong Sunni presence. Elections brought Shiites in power, leading to a Sunni response in the form of Islami State caliphate move into Mosul, Iraq's second largest city after Baghdad. A decade of conflict and the efforts by the Bush administration ended in failure and sectarian conflict, resulting in the U.S. policy of rebalancing in favor of Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal. In this sense the arms deal does not solve anything. A similar rebalancing under Reagan by arming one side, followed by arming the other, led to involvement with ground forces under president Bush. It only leaves the region poor after years of sanctions against Iran to the point where a NYT reporter was not sure whether it was safe to fly from Tehran to Mashad with Iran Air because of the lack of spare parts for the airline. War torn, with millions of refugees in Syria and Iraq, the region remains broken in many ways, waiting for a sensible non sectarian view to prevail in the interest of the people in the region. The election of Rouhani in Iran by 57% of the vote is only a sign that young people in the region given a chance would opt for a different course in future. The rest of Asia has moved forward and shows a path that can be followed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The American Treasury Secretary who handled the 2008 financial crisis, Henry Paulson, gives the new US financial reform legislation an incomplete grade. His main concern is that the too-big-to fail risk in the US banking system continues, and without clear rules a lot depends on the regulators. He does not see higher capital requirements doing much to ease that problem, and sees another crisis in a few years as inevitable. Former SEC chief, Harvey Pitt, gives it an F for failure or an I for Incomplete. He sees it as a boon for lawyers, because it is not clearly written and leaves so many loopholes, to a degree that is simply astounding. He says it does nothing in the way of preventing another crisis. Does nothing for transparency, nothing for monitoring and action by regulators, all factors that led to the crisis of 2008. Nouriel Roubini gives it a C+, because it does little to fix the reasons why securitization failed and caused the crisis, and in this way will keep credit creation and expansion in a weak state. He sees this financial reform bill as a failed effort that is laying the ground for the next crisis, with little action in the "too-big-to-fail" area, a huge dilution of what former Fed Chairman paul Volcker had advocated in the Volcker rule, and no real impact on the risky trading of derivatives. Bill Gross of PIMCO gives his frank assessment in no uncertain terms. A D+ for this bill. It shows how lobbyists for the banks still control Congress he says. It would have been better to let Paul Volcker take charge completely, than to have the lobbyists dilute the critical reform proposals. Simon Johnson gives it the lowest passing grade at MIT, a B. The only large change he says, is the Kanjorski Amendment, which give federal regulators the authority to breakup the large banks. But he cautions that it may require another crisis for the regulators and Congress to "get it," and do what they should be doing....