Dollar Decoupled from Oil

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.bizcommunity.com/article/saudi-arabias-petro-dollar-exit-a-global-finance-paradigm-shift-670911a#:~:text=The%20financial%20world%20is%20bracing,Sunday%2C%209%20June%2C%202024.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/05/29/us-saudi-defense-deal-biden-mbs-nuclear-security-iran-election/

Our fifty year agreement with Saudi Arabia to accept only U.S. dollars for oil expired and was not renewed. This may greatly weaken U.S. dollar demand and weaken our currency as we have an oversupply as dollars are sold off or no longer in demand due not being necessary to buy oil from Saudi Arabia.

I don't think we should renew this deal myself, but at the same time it is a big lynchpin in our world economic power and ability to pressure other nations economically against our political competitors. It also keeps Saudi Arabia from moving against Israel. It keeps China from gaining more power in the Middle East with their growing energy needs.

Should we renew this deal? Is China able to woo the Saudis into an agreement to accept the Yuan which would make China the new world reserve currency?

A long time ago when we invaded Iraq to stop Saddam, I recall oil being stated as the cause. This is the reason why it was stated as the cause because by making agreements with Middle Eastern oil producers to accept only U.S. dollars for oil, it makes the U.S. dollar the world reserve currency which afford a lot of economic power and a strong currency constantly in demand.

Downside is it ties us to Middle Eastern dictatorships and forces us to defend our dollar as the world reserve currency by complying with the demands of these nations and assisting with maintaining the power of dictators and bad actors which did end up biting us in the ass as the most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian and part of the reason Osama bin Laden went after us is because we had troops on Saudi soil as this power relationship is a two way street meaning the Saudis cannot piss us off too much either or it creates issues both parties. This means the Saudis cannot take strong stances against Israel even though they are the heart of Islam having Mecca and Medina, the two most holy cities in Islam, in their country. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel are the two biggest reasons we are viewed as the Great Satan by a lot of Muslims in that region of the world. It's also why anyone with any understanding of global politics laughs when people try to pretend America hates Islam or the Middle East because I guarantee if Saudi Arabia were invaded, we would have an army there and boots on the ground defending them as fast if not faster than we would help Israel. Saudi was never to my knowledge on the ban list or a target for invasion even though the vast majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi, which everyone left and right seems to not care about or say much about including Donald J. Trump because everyone pretty clearly makes a lot of money off Saudi Arabia and no one wants to offend them including Donald Trump. America doesn't mind playing the "We're stopping the terrorists" when banning small, weak, non-oil producing Middle Eastern nations to pretend they give a crap about us or nations like Iran who won't play ball, but they don't touch the big oil producing nations that are our "friends."

So do you want another deal with the oil kings to make our dollar strong and solid with payment being security, military support, and lots of money to a nation that treats its people fairly tyrannically and funnels money to terrorists and other militants who destabilize other nations like Somalia we don't care about? How do we like thsi foreign policy build on oil power? How much longer can it be maintained with oil dominance maybe coming to an end? Though I hear the demand for oil will be driven by oil to produce electricity even when car demand has greatly reduced, but we'll see if that is true when it happens.

[Aseahawkfan]

This is another of those clear examples that Americans are media-manipulated as a major pillar of American foreign policy that has gotten us into wars and conflicts as well as helps us maintain economic dominance isn't even mentioned much by Fox News and CNN and the usual media outlets while they keep Americans focused on arguing over Trump paying off prostitutes, gun charges by Hunter Biden, immigration, and wasting our time being led around by the nose by political media while Americans ignore important global issues like our deal with Saudi Arabia to maintain the U.S. Dollar as a reserve currency as Russia and China move to undermine this deal and replace us.

Not much of a peep from the major political media sources on a major issue concerning Americans, but guaranteed to be a concern for the American and global power elite that want this deal back in place to ensure dollar dominance and all the power and money that comes from it.

Neither Party cares to trouble much about this issue as they both support it to maintain global dominance, while Americans barely even know this deal existed or that it expired or what it even does for America.

It's another one of those clear signs the American people do not really run this country. Their vote is just a vote for a face the powerful people in America put on the TV, while they move what really matters behind the scenes.

Most people were not even aware this deal existed or what it does for America. Americans really do not govern their nation. They vote like they root for their sports teams.

[NorthHawk]

Will oil be as important as it is today in 10 years? How about 20 or 25?
There are reports that there is up to 40% less demand already and the producers still pump it out like crazy.
Earlier this year it was reported that California went 32 consecutive days using only renewable power and China is building out their power using renewables so their demand will decrease.
Oil will be around for a long long time, but its usage will probably become somewhat of a novelty or at least much less of a factor in world economics in the next 25 years.
Regarding the US reserve currency, Americans better hope that they don't lose that status if Britain's experience is any indication. When the British Pound lost its status as the worlds Reserve currency they saw pretty much a 25% increase in prices almost overnight (if I'm remembering my economics history correctly). That's a hammer to any economy - even one that is healthy let alone one that has some issues after the last economic cycle.

[Aseahawkfan]

Will oil be as important as it is today in 10 years? How about 20 or 25?
There are reports that there is up to 40% less demand already and the producers still pump it out like crazy.
Earlier this year it was reported that California went 32 consecutive days using only renewable power and China is building out their power using renewables so their demand will decrease.
Oil will be around for a long long time, but its usage will probably become somewhat of a novelty or at least much less of a factor in world economics in the next 25 years.
Regarding the US reserve currency, Americans better hope that they don't lose that status if Britain's experience is any indication. When the British Pound lost its status as the worlds Reserve currency they saw pretty much a 25% increase in prices almost overnight (if I'm remembering my economics history correctly). That's a hammer to any economy - even one that is healthy let alone one that has some issues after the last economic cycle.

How do you maintain the dollar as a reserve currency when oil is no longer dominant?

Britain's currency existed because their colonies were everywhere, so if you wanted to do business globally, the British pound was the best way to do it due to the size of their Empire and their dominance as a military and economic power when the rest of the world was weak.

I am not sure how much oil will be reduced. It should be a substantial reduction or at least the burning of oil creating carbon emissions. There is still a lot of oil use for petroleum products like many plastics and power generation. Not everywhere has sufficient alternative power sources to power their grid with other than oil.

You do raise an interesting point in how to maintain dollar dominance without the ability to create a huge empire or control a global commodity like oil to force others to purchase dollars to buy oil from a huge global producer. Not sure how they accomplish that, especially against a global competitor like China who isn't interested in interfering with local cultural customs and isn't pushing ideologies that so many don't agree with.

I'm still surprised by the number of Americans I talk to that didn't even know this agreement existed and don't even care about it. Yet they'll bother me all day about Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or whatever their chosen media source feeds them about the opposition. And none of these major media outlets seem to be educating Americans concerning a major pilar of American economic and global dominance. It's makes me look at these folks like, "Why can you vote and why should I listen to someone who doesn't really want to know what's going on with their nation?"

This agreement and all it supports is a major reason why 9/11 occurred in the first place and why we maintain such close ties with oil producing nations in the Middle East. I wonder if the founders knew most of the people would be completely lost when it comes to governing their nation and unable to compete against an elite class with goals most people cannot even begin to fathom. They had to know it would be like this I imagine since they were all educated and intelligent men.

[NorthHawk]

How do you maintain the dollar as a reserve currency when oil is no longer dominant?

It's still the most trusted currency as long as a future President doesn't decide to default on debts.
Crypto currency might eventually take it's place, but it's pretty volatile relative to the greenback.

Britain's currency existed because their colonies were everywhere, so if you wanted to do business globally, the British pound was the best way to do it due to the size of their Empire and their dominance as a military and economic power when the rest of the world was weak.

That's very similar to the US position of the last 80 years or thereabouts. However the US is still the largest economy and most trusted currency. Britain never had the largest economy to support it's status.

I am not sure how much oil will be reduced. It should be a substantial reduction or at least the burning of oil creating carbon emissions. There is still a lot of oil use for petroleum products like many plastics and power generation. Not everywhere has sufficient alternative power sources to power their grid with other than oil

Oil will probably never go away because of the many uses, but it won't be the dominant factor in the world like it has been as the world turns to reliable, free (after initial costs), and secure (from outside price pressures) energy.
There's a reason that Saudi Arabia is building a huge infrastructure in renewables as they know their oil revenues are going to take a big hit in the future. I suspect they have ideas of selling their power to neighboring countries - or maybe the technology for building a renewable system in the challenging climate/geography of their region.

As it is today there are huge changes to the demands for oil in motion. China as mentioned is building a massive renewable network so their demand for oil will naturally fall significantly. They don't import or manufacture anywhere near the amount of gasoline that would have normally happened if they didn't have such a huge manufacturing base for electric passenger vehicles. Their EV industry is massive and is exporting all over the world. That one sector itself is having a big impact on the demand for oil and will continue as the EV market begins to compete with the ICE market. But that's just one sector. The renewables are increasingly being used in factories instead of oil or coal and that also takes away the demand for oil. So if in 10 years China has reduced it's reliance on oil by 30 or 40%, it makes a huge impact on the importance of oil and the demands for it. Other countries around the world are doing similar things.
But oil will probably never leave - but it's significance will be much reduced.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's still the most trusted currency as long as a future President doesn't decide to default on debts.
Crypto currency might eventually take it's place, but it's pretty volatile relative to the greenback.

Russia definitely is not managed well enough to become a global currency. China could move on us, but they do have debt issues and not many like dealing with their Central Command economy.

As problematically managed an economy as the United States is, it is still the most well managed large economy by a good margin.

I doubt crypto will ever replace a nationally controlled currency unless the crypto itself is tied to a nation that can control it. I doubt the power groups in nations would ever allow it. I think they would ban crypto and execute any crypto groups that tried to destroy national fiat currencies long before it became a serious threat. I think decentralized crypto will eventually adapt into an international payment system, but its value will always be driven by fiat currencies used to purchase it. Though I think at some point a treaty will be created and an international crypto controlled by a United Nations type of bank entity will be created and used. Power groups will never accept a decentralized crypto as a replacement for fiat currency.

Oil will probably never go away because of the many uses, but it won't be the dominant factor in the world like it has been as the world turns to reliable, free (after initial costs), and secure (from outside price pressures) energy.
There's a reason that Saudi Arabia is building a huge infrastructure in renewables as they know their oil revenues are going to take a big hit in the future. I suspect they have ideas of selling their power to neighboring countries - or maybe the technology for building a renewable system in the challenging climate/geography of their region.

As it is today there are huge changes to the demands for oil in motion. China as mentioned is building a massive renewable network so their demand for oil will naturally fall significantly. They don't import or manufacture anywhere near the amount of gasoline that would have normally happened if they didn't have such a huge manufacturing base for electric passenger vehicles. Their EV industry is massive and is exporting all over the world. That one sector itself is having a big impact on the demand for oil and will continue as the EV market begins to compete with the ICE market. But that's just one sector. The renewables are increasingly being used in factories instead of oil or coal and that also takes away the demand for oil. So if in 10 years China has reduced it's reliance on oil by 30 or 40%, it makes a huge impact on the importance of oil and the demands for it. Other countries around the world are doing similar things.
But oil will probably never leave - but it's significance will be much reduced.

That is the hope, though some are predicting otherwise as energy demand increases for all things from EVs to data centers. These solar networks work very well in some regions and not so well in others. I think the final appearance of the energy sector will be fragmented and spread among several different methods according to the ability to use a particular energy system in a given region. I'm interested to see how much oil demand drops as these replacement systems grow more technologically advance and efficient. It's a difficult sector to invest in as well as solar is very commoditized and wind isn't as efficient. Geothermal can work for certain regions. Advanced battery systems seem one of the better ways to invest as that tech might not be as commoditized as solar and someone might be able to control the patents long enough to drive quality profits.

China's EV sector is impressive, but China is also one of those nations that a a lot of countries are moving to block as it's almost impossible to compete with their low cost of labor in the EV market which would absolutely destroy the vehicle markets in other nations. So they will protect their local markets from an influx of Chinese EVs since China doesn't compete in an equitable manner in the global markets. The renewable energy sector in China will hopefully reduce their oil demand, though right now they are using Russia's weak global position to purchase oil from Russia cheap as Putin completely ruined his own nation with this stupid war. Even if Russia wins, it will likely be a Pyrrhic Victory that Putin must carve out even as this likely becomes the point in history where he ruined himself and hurt Russia in the long-term.

As much as I would prefer to divorce our global interests from Saudi Arabia, I expect this deal to be renewed in some way. The Saudis gain a lot from their relationship with us including our protection. As you stated, the dollar is still the most stable and strongest currency capable of being a reserve currency. We have too much riding on this relationship that stabilizes relations in that region of the world and if we pulled our protection from Saudi Arabia, Iran would likely start acting up and China and Russia might move into that power vacuum.

I still at some point hope more Americans educate themselves on this pillar of American foreign policy. I hear people asking, "Why did this happen?" or "Why do they hate us?" This deal is a major reason why as it keeps us heavily embroiled in the Middle East providing security, weapons, and tying us to peace keeping in this region. It's why we went into Kuwait, why we fought the Iraq War, why we keep Iran contained, why we sent so much aid that region, why when Jamal Khashoggi was killed we did almost nothing to Saudi Arabia, and why we can exert massive influence on so many other nations by denying the use of our dollar and manipulating banks to ensure we control dollar denominated transactions for oil which is why we held a 100 million dollars from Iran. It's a very important pillar of our global control.

It's a very big deal for American foreign policy. Americans should know about it and understand its significance.

[NorthHawk]

I think that's a pretty reasoned take on the matter.

On a side note, I was talking with a Sales Manager at our local Porsche dealership and we got on to talking about EVs. He said he has been almost begging his clients who want the all electric Taycan to lease instead of buy.
His reasoning is that we are still in our infancy with EVs and the upcoming changes to batteries and the effects of new technology will render the current models of EVs almost unsellable for a price that the original purchaser would expect.
He thought that a 3 year old Taycan would lose about 50% in just a couple of years because the new ones have greater range and quicker recharge - and that's not going to change in the near future so new buyers wouldn't be willing to spend a hundred grand on a used car with less performance than a new one. He thought that the old car would be very difficult to sell because of that market. However if they leased, they could just hand it in after the lease period and get another one if they wished.
I doubt that it would be the same with a Chinese made BYD EV as they sell so cheaply or maybe old Chevy Bolts, but for the upper end (Mercedes/Audi/Porsche/BMW, etc.) it could become a real problem for them as used stock might accumulate.

[Aseahawkfan]

Interesting. Taycan is Porsche I see. Battery tech is the big tech they have to keep advancing to make EVs work as well as ICE vehicles. I can see the luxury brands having very advanced batteries soon that may take time to drop in price to the middle and lower income classes.

So far lithium batteries are the biggest in use. I think they keep trying to use other materials that are hopefully more plentiful. So far advanced battery tech is being developed in house at like a Tesla or large conglomerates like Panasonic with a few start ups.

This company NIO was I was invested in from China uses battery swap technology. I'm wondering if what you say above becomes true with batteries being the big reason to only lease a car as they continue to advance battery swapping becomes a bigger feature of cars. Right now Nio uses it for faster charging at battery swap stations where you go in and quickly have the battery swapped out which is much faster than charging. These stations are expensive to build and maintain and they must store a massive number of batteries being continuously charged. I know Tesla moved away from battery swapping due to its cost and other technical issues, but maybe it will make a comeback if batteries start advancing so fast it is harming auto sales and leading to excess inventory.

Or I imagine a used car market for middle income consumers wanting higher end brands could develop. EV is so young, it's hard to see what they will do in that market going forward.

Big bottlenecks right are now are lack of charging infrastructure for older apartment complexes as a lot of Americans and likely people in general live in apartments without sufficient charging infrastructure for every tenant to buy an EV and have it charged. I think for full EV adoption they either need charging fast enough that it will feel like going to the gas station or enough charging you can do it at home during your off hours.

[NorthHawk]

Battery swapping is an interesting option, but I'm not sure it's as economically feasible in the long run over recharging quickly if we can ever get to that point.
I've heard that Solid State batteries might be the next great leap for energy storage for EVs. They are said to be smaller, lighter, recharge quicker, and more energy dense than the Lithium Ion batteries in use today.
I think it's Toyota that has developed some and are testing them, but I don't know if they will be price prohibitive or if their recharge cycle is short meaning they would have to be replaced sooner than today's EV batteries.
However it turns out, there is a lot of research and testing on battery technology.

[River_Dog]

Electrical production is a sore subject with me. Our liberal state government, along with the Feds, insists on pushing renewables, mostly wind turbines, into areas that doesn't need them nor want them, and in the name of saving an endangered species, the salmon, insist on bypassing 4 dams on the lower Snake River, an extremely expensive proposition with no guarantee that it will do anything to bring back that species.

I'm all for renewables, but the first priority should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and fighting climate change, not saving some stupid fish. Concentrate on retiring coal and gas plants. Hydropower is safe, cheap, reliable, and the energy can be stored for use during peak periods, something that neither wind nor solar can provide. I've seen multiple surveys that show that 75%+ of the locals don't want wind turbines on our skyline as some of which are over 650' tall, taller than the Space Needle, yet this state insists on jamming them down our throats. If wind turbines are that necessary, why in the hell can't they put them a few miles offshore in the Pacific or in the straight/Puget Sound? The answer is that the Democrats have solid control of the state and don't need our votes to stay in office, so why should they care what the locals out here want? The Republicans haven't been competitive in this state for decades, so they don't have to worry about the electorate. It's a really bad situation when one party dominates a jurisdiction as the Dems do in this state.

Sorry to go off on such a rant, but like I said, the subject is an open wound for me.

[NorthHawk]

There are far more costs in placing wind turbines off shore as well as technological issues to contend with so putting them on land is much more efficient and the cost recovery is quicker.
As well it's easier to run power cables to existing lines that cross land (or mountains) than it is to run them from shore. That doesn't even take into account that the best places in the ocean might be in the middle of shipping lanes.
It wouldn't surprise me to see some type of tidal power being produced as that might be an option in the future.
There are different types of electrical storage facilities being developed (sort of like giant rechargeable batteries I suppose) that offset some of the lulls in solar/wind energy production but I'm not sure how far along they are.
Tesla was once big on that idea, but I don't know if they abandoned it or is still a division of that company. I seem to remember them selling a giant storage system to a place in Australia a few years ago but haven't heard how that's gone.

[River_Dog]

There are far more costs in placing wind turbines off shore as well as technological issues to contend with so putting them on land is much more efficient and the cost recovery is quicker.
As well it's easier to run power cables to existing lines that cross land (or mountains) than it is to run them from shore. That doesn't even take into account that the best places in the ocean might be in the middle of shipping lanes.
It wouldn't surprise me to see some type of tidal power being produced as that might be an option in the future.
There are different types of electrical storage facilities being developed (sort of like giant rechargeable batteries I suppose) that offset some of the lulls in solar/wind energy production but I'm not sure how far along they are.
Tesla was once big on that idea, but I don't know if they abandoned it or is still a division of that company. I seem to remember them selling a giant storage system to a place in Australia a few years ago but haven't heard how that's gone.

They do it on the US east coast and in Europe, so I don't see why they can't do it in the PNW. Besides, if you're a Dem/liberal, costs don't matter. It's going to cost many billions of dollars to breach the LSRD's with no plan to replace the power, transportation, and irrigation they currently provide to the region. It is much, much more cost efficient and more environmentally friendly to move goods to ports by barge via the Columbia/Snake rivers than rail or truck, but no one seems to care about that. All they care about is the stupid salmon. And shipping lanes? What about the shipping lanes in the Snake/Columbia Rivers? Those don't seem to matter when it comes to removing the dams.

The other thing about this wind project is that it occupies a huge footprint in 3 dimensions. This locally unpopular project that our governor insists on jamming down our throats covers 72,000 acres with 244 turbines, 6 rows stretching 29 miles with heights varying from 500' to 671' tall.

They had formed a committee, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which spent several years examining the proposed wind farm to make a recommendation to the Governor, and for various reasons, decided that it would best to scale it back by quite a bit. But that wasn't good enough for Inslee.

...last month (May 2024), Washington’s seven-person Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, a clearinghouse for permits required by large projects, recommended slashing the proposal in half because nests of the endangered ferruginous hawk were found in the area.

On Monday(Apr. 29th, 2024), the state’s energy facility siting panel sent Inslee its recommendation for approval of the Horse Heaven wind and solar project, ending a contentious multiyear review. It culminated with regulators paring the Benton County project to curb threats to tribal cultural resources and endangered hawks.

Inslee on Thursday(May 18th) rejected the council’s recommendation and told the group to reconsider in hopes of expanding the project closer to its full potential. A Democrat who is not seeking reelection after three terms in office, Inslee has sought to make climate initiatives key to his legacy.

What the hell is the sense wasting taxpayer money on a committee to study the project and make a recommendation if the Governor has already predetermined his course of action?

Tribal agencies in the area, specifically the Yakama Indians, are also against the project. When it comes to dams, Inslee is OK with using both tribal objections and an endangered species to justify their removal. But when it comes to an unwanted, massive wind project, he says f*** the bird, f*** the Indians, and f*** the local residents. My legacy in saving the planet is much more important.

As far as I know, there is no current, viable method of storing the massive amounts of electrical energy that would be necessary to support the entire region on solar and wind. They're putting the wagon in front of the horses by bypassing dams and refusing to consider nuclear while gambling that there will be sufficient storage in the near future for these two unreliable production modes.

[NorthHawk]

Politics and political agendas often make a mess of things. I don't mean to make it sound trivial but we see this kind of ego crap all the time by all manner of politicians across the spectrum.
How much sway do the indigenous peoples have in Washington State? Up here they have a real input into how the land is used as the Courts have determined that it's in fact their land and they have domain over resources and uses.
So any type of wind farm would mean they could have a veto or at least tie it up in the Courts for a long time. Projects often mean royalties for the individual nations and/or employment opportunities for their people.

[River_Dog]

Politics and political agendas often make a mess of things. I don't mean to make it sound trivial but we see this kind of ego crap all the time by all manner of politicians across the spectrum.
How much sway do the indigenous peoples have in Washington State? Up here they have a real input into how the land is used as the Courts have determined that it's in fact their land and they have domain over resources and uses.
So any type of wind farm would mean they could have a veto or at least tie it up in the Courts for a long time. Projects often mean royalties for the individual nations and/or employment opportunities for their people.

The wind project is not on tribal land, so my guess is that their legal options are limited. About 80% of the land will be leased from private dryland wheat farmers, the balance on public lands managed by the state. The NA's argument is that The project, which would combine wind turbines with solar panels and lithium-ion batteries, threatens traditional food-gathering sites, and its footprint overlaps with Yakama Nation ceremonial sites and monumental features central to cultural stories.

The Yakama Nation has pushed for project modifications to protect these cultural resources, as well as reintroduced pronghorn and the ferruginous hawk, which, according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, is “a State Threatened Species that is in the process of being uplisted to Endangered.” The energy project, touted as “green,” is scheduled to be built on an important habitat-connectivity corridor, which includes over a thousand acres of “some of the last remaining functional and uninterrupted shrub-steppe and natural grasslands in Benton County,” according to public comments from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

I suppose NA's could use "traditional food gathering and cultural resources" as a justification to object to just about anything as they used to roam over the entire area, and if that were the sole objection, I could understand pushing it to the margins. But my point is that the vast majority of local residents, 78% according to a Chamber of Commerce survey and including native Americans, are against this project, and the committee tasked with analyzing it spent years in coming up with a recommendation of which the Governor tosses out the window in just a matter of a few weeks, dismissing a whole host of reasons the committee took into consideration as being no big deal, including visual impacts of hundreds of windmills 100' taller than the Space Needle, restriction of aerial firefighting capabilities in areas subject to wildfires, disruption of the habitat of an endangered species, along with the objections of native Americans. With very rare exceptions, when such a large majority of local residents wants or doesn't want something, our government should honor the will of the people.

With the arrogance demonstrated by our Democratic governor, it's no wonder why a blathering idiot like Donald Trump can resonate with so many people. Residents of this area feel as if they don't have a voice in subjects that have a direct bearing on their lives, so they're fertile minds for someone like Trump.

[NorthHawk]

There's nothing more frustrating that watching a politician on his/her way out pushing their 'Legacy Project' and knowing that there is nothing you can do and that it may make things a lot worse for those affected by the changes.
Now that he's gone for the next election cycle, maybe whoever replaces him will have a more balanced viewpoint for all of the State and not just his voting block, but depending on how far along this project is, it might be a done deal.

[River_Dog]

There's nothing more frustrating that watching a politician on his/her way out pushing their 'Legacy Project' and knowing that there is nothing you can do and that it may make things a lot worse for those affected by the changes.
Now that he's gone for the next election cycle, maybe whoever replaces him will have a more balanced viewpoint for all of the State and not just his voting block, but depending on how far along this project is, it might be a done deal.

The Dem nominee for Governor is the current state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and he's worse than Inslee.

It's not just the lame duck syndrome. This state is as blue as they come. A Republican hasn't won a state-wide election in WA for 30 years and we haven't elected a Republican governor for 44 years. With that kind of party dominance, they don't have to heed the wishes of a relative minority of voters because they win by such wide margins that they don't need our votes.

It's a bad situation when any party dominates any jurisdiction the way the Dems have had such a stranglehold on this state. It's led to a lot of resentment out here and has spurred a movement to secede from the state and join Idaho and eastern Oregon. It won't ever happen as it would require an amendment to the US Constitution, but it demonstrates just how upset residents are out here and why Donald Trump gets the traction that he does. They do whatever the hell they please as there are no political consequences to their actions. So what if we piss off eastern Washington. They aren't going to vote for us anyway. We feel as if we don't have a voice.

[NorthHawk]

A healthy democracy needs a change once in a while - if only to keep the usual governing party aware that their viewpoint isn't accepted by all and there are limits as to how far they can push their agenda.
If the populism we see at the Federal level of politics hadn't seeped into the lower ballot races and governing parties like we see in some of the extreme right states, then there might be a chance for a change.
But as it is, most societies in the democratic world have largely made up their minds as to whether a change is worth the risk. Basically I think that those on the fence that might give the opposition a chance at government
are probably less likely to vote for a party where they see in other States some real electoral abuse with gerrymandering, voting restrictions, and other anti democratic acts.
Hopefully this populism cycle will end quickly and we can all get back to the principles that matter in free and fair elections like party philosophy and stewardship of our taxes.

[River_Dog]

A healthy democracy needs a change once in a while - if only to keep the usual governing party aware that their viewpoint isn't accepted by all and there are limits as to how far they can push their agenda.
If the populism we see at the Federal level of politics hadn't seeped into the lower ballot races and governing parties like we see in some of the extreme right states, then there might be a chance for a change.
But as it is, most societies in the democratic world have largely made up their minds as to whether a change is worth the risk. Basically I think that those on the fence that might give the opposition a chance at government
are probably less likely to vote for a party where they see in other States some real electoral abuse with gerrymandering, voting restrictions, and other anti democratic acts.
Hopefully this populism cycle will end quickly and we can all get back to the principles that matter in free and fair elections like party philosophy and stewardship of our taxes.

The problem in this country is our two-party system. We desperately need a third party comprised of moderates from each side of the spectrum. How many viable political parties does Canada have? 4 or 5? Great Britian has 11 that hold seats in their parliament. I imagine that a liberal in a red state like Mississippi has the same complaints as I do as a conservative in a blue state like Washington.

[Aseahawkfan]

Washington Dems have tight control of the state. They are fairly far left leaning liberals with maybe a few moderates. They do have some respect for business, but they are very much deep into the left with someone like Sawant far left into the socialist revolution range.

The State Democrats have driven me to push Republican because of what they do here.

The environmental policy RD talks about is a bit ridiculous and inconsistent. The paper straws in Seattle suck (pun intended). The plastic bags for 8 cents at the grocery store that you apparently can't put in your recycle bin and are supposed to reuse even though you end up forgetting and grabbing a new bag because 8 cents, then toss into the recycle bin or garbage when you have too many so purpose defeated. The most ridiculous leftist BS was some years back when they banned the use of salt or deicer during winter and only allowed sand to as RD put it save the salmon from the run off. Well, that didn't work too well because Seattle has a lot of hills. It was such a s*** show that even the left leaning people were pissed off and they went back to using salt and deicer and hired a city street manager from Minnesota and bought snow plows. Then we had light winters again and they sold the snow plows and the city manager from Minnesota left. But they kept the salt and deicer in use because we get maybe two weeks of bad winter every 5 to 10 years. And Seattle and Washington State (at least Western) is very hilly. Sand doesn't work well for hills. Just freezes over after turning to mud.

Then we had the head tax that Sawant had passed by the City Council that even the construction workers protested and eventually was removed because a hiring tax discourages hiring (imagine that). So a core union voting bloc for Dems was super pissed and the moderate Dems and the Mayor managed to get that removed behind the scenes.

Then the constant protesting of Amazon, a core business in Washington State wasn't great.

It hasn't been all bad. We have a fairly decent family leave and maternity/paternity leave system where everyone pays a very small amount into a tax pool and when someone takes leave, they draw on this system that they paid into. It's bit an honor system, then most of these welfare systems are supposed to be on an honor system and its unfortunate some abuse them. We also have a no fault Workplace Compensation system. I think they just implemented some kind of long-term care system for a small tax.

But the gas taxes are super high as well with the highest gas taxes in the country I believe. The sales tax is super high at 10 percent in most places. Property taxes are in the middle to high, but with property prices so high the actual cost of property taxes is very expensive. They started taxing tabs with a light rail buildout fee which boosted our tabs super high after Eyeman fought for 30 dollar tabs. The Dems made the tabs 30 dollars, then tacked on a bunch of other fees with different names driving the price of tabs into the multi-hundred while smirking at everyone who voted for the 30 dollar tabs.

Funnily enough, Washingtonians have pretty good gun rights for a blue state. Conceal and Carry permits are pretty easy to come by. Lots of Washingtonians own guns. It's a big hobby in our state. Kind of weird for a Blue State. Then again I grew up with union Democrat gun owning uncles, so I never thought of gun ownership as primarily Republican. Plenty of Dems like to carry a gun as well or use it for hunting or hobby shooting. The anti-gun stance of the Democrats is fairly recent as far as I understand it.

The Washington State Dems have gone pretty far left and it doesn't help when Trump keeps making everyone go to the extreme one way or the other with their vote.

[NorthHawk]

The big one you don't have is State income tax. I don't know if that's rare for a Democratic controlled state, but the funds have to be found elsewhere so a 10% sales tax is part of making up for it along with any fuel taxes and 'sin' taxes like on liquor or tobacco and such. Your fuel is by far cheaper than up here - even with our dollar being worth only about $0.72 or so it's still significantly cheaper than here and worthwhile for people to make an extra trip across the border to fill up.
Add in the lower federal taxes and you really have it pretty good from a 'government in your pocket' point of view.
The stupid decisions they make? That's every gov't entity around the world. People with agendas always push and get some changes that ultimately are reversed. It's just something democracies have to live with.
We pay a total of 12% sales tax at the moment with 7% being provincial and 5% federal.

If you had a 3rd party, it would probably be a fringe party like the greens or extreme right or left like we see in Europe. Up here we have a socialist Provincial Govt but they are only slightly different from the previous right wing govt we had for about 16 years. Both would probably be considered far left in the US.

[River_Dog]

The big one you don't have is State income tax. I don't know if that's rare for a Democratic controlled state, but the funds have to be found elsewhere so a 10% sales tax is part of making up for it along with any fuel taxes and 'sin' taxes like on liquor or tobacco and such. Your fuel is by far cheaper than up here - even with our dollar being worth only about $0.72 or so it's still significantly cheaper than here and worthwhile for people to make an extra trip across the border to fill up.
Add in the lower federal taxes and you really have it pretty good from a 'government in your pocket' point of view.
The stupid decisions they make? That's every gov't entity around the world. People with agendas always push and get some changes that ultimately are reversed. It's just something democracies have to live with.
We pay a total of 12% sales tax at the moment with 7% being provincial and 5% federal.

If you had a 3rd party, it would probably be a fringe party like the greens or extreme right or left like we see in Europe. Up here we have a socialist Provincial Govt but they are only slightly different from the previous right wing govt we had for about 16 years. Both would probably be considered far left in the US.

It's damn lucky for us that we don't have a state income tax for if we did, we'd be in the exact same boat that California is in. They've tried to get a state income tax passed for as long as I can remember. I can recall my dad over 50 years ago saying "I'll be damned if I'm gonna write those SOB's a blank check!", and he was exactly right.

The problem for the Democrats is the state constitution:

Technically, that (constitutional wording income is considered property) doesn’t outright preclude the adoption of an income tax, but any tax adopted would have to be uniform (no graduated rates, and few or no deductions, exemptions, and exclusions) and, more importantly, at an extremely low rate. State and local property taxes in aggregate, including those currently imposed on what we traditionally view as real and personal property, cannot exceed one percent of the total value of taxed property. In practice, this makes an income tax all but impossible. Any income tax that would comply with the limitations is likely not worth imposing.

They'd have to amend the state constitution, ie 2/3 majority in both Houses of the Legislature and a public vote.

You can't really compare gas prices here with those in Canada or any other country. What's more applicable for us here in WA at is what the price of gas is in nearby states, ie ID and OR. I just got back from a camping trip on the Lochsa River in northern Idaho about 160 miles east of Lewiston, a very remote area. The price of gas this AM in Kamiah, ID was $3.55/gallon, and at Costco here in Kennewick it's $3.96. Plus, you have to factor in the small town vs. big town pricing, that it's usually far more expensive in these out of the way places than it is at a Costco in a large city, so it's at least 15% more expensive, due to the carbon tax that went into effect about this time last year. Plus, as ASF pointed out, there's no evidence that it's achieving its objective, ie reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. All the oil companies are doing is passing on the added cost to the customer at the pump, something that should have been expected as that's exactly what has happened in CA when they implemented a carbon tax.

You're right, there's the chance that a third party could end up being composed of fringe elements of one or both of the two major parties. But it's a chance that I am willing to take. In 2016, I voted for Gary Johnson, a Libertarian candidate in the hope that he might get a high enough percentage of the vote that they could use his performance to get some traction in local races. But they don't have the donors that the Republican and Democratic parties have, so without any money, they can't effectively get their message out.

[NorthHawk]

I think that voting for fringe parties unless you truly believe in their platform and policies is taking the easy way out.
I've done it previously and after reflecting upon my decision I realized that it was a wasted vote. Unfortunately at times none of the parties running for office actually stood for the same things that I did.
However, I have voted all over the map in my life from far right to far left but mostly in between and I've always regretted when I did vote the extreme or out of my political beliefs.
In a perfect system, we would have (in my mind) 2 Centrist parties on either side and some lesser parties that are center left and center right with some extreme elements. The problems with having 3rd parties is that the parties ending up in power tend to trend toward their coalition partners who may be extreme in their views. If we look at Israel today - and I could be wrong in my understanding of it - I see the party in power being led by the nose by the fringe party or parties that are the extreme under the threat of dissolution of parliament. In the US there would always be the President who probably never even came close to getting 50% +1 votes who would have to spend at least some of his time trying to keep the coalition together so as to control the House and Senate but they could be flip flopping back and forth too as alliances are created and broken in establishing majorities. It might be like 'Survivor' in the political realm.

Just as an FYI, gas here is the rough equivalent of US$5.25 per US Gallon. Some places are a little more and some are down to about USD $0.55 less per US gallon.
Currently Vancouver pays C$0.54/ liter or C$2.05/US gallon in taxes or the rough equivalent of about USD $1.50 Victoria pays in gas tax C$0.47/litre or C$1.78 in US gallons or the rough equivalent of USD $1.30/gal.
The rest of the Province pays C$0.41/litre which works out to about USD $1.14/gal in taxes.

[River_Dog]

I think that voting for fringe parties unless you truly believe in their platform and policies is taking the easy way out.
I've done it previously and after reflecting upon my decision I realized that it was a wasted vote. Unfortunately at times none of the parties running for office actually stood for the same things that I did.
However, I have voted all over the map in my life from far right to far left but mostly in between and I've always regretted when I did vote the extreme or out of my political beliefs.
In a perfect system, we would have (in my mind) 2 Centrist parties on either side and some lesser parties that are center left and center right with some extreme elements. The problems with having 3rd parties is that the parties ending up in power tend to trend toward their coalition partners who may be extreme in their views. If we look at Israel today - and I could be wrong in my understanding of it - I see the party in power being led by the nose by the fringe party or parties that are the extreme under the threat of dissolution of parliament. In the US there would always be the President who probably never even came close to getting 50% +1 votes who would have to spend at least some of his time trying to keep the coalition together so as to control the House and Senate but they could be flip flopping back and forth too as alliances are created and broken in establishing majorities. It might be like 'Survivor' in the political realm.

Just as an FYI, gas here is the rough equivalent of US$5.25 per US Gallon. Some places are a little more and some are down to about USD $0.55 less per US gallon.
Currently Vancouver pays C$0.54/ liter or C$2.05/US gallon in taxes or the rough equivalent of about USD $1.50 Victoria pays in gas tax C$0.47/litre or C$1.78 in US gallons or the rough equivalent of USD $1.30/gal.
The rest of the Province pays C$0.41/litre which works out to about USD $1.14/gal in taxes.

I'm actually closer to being a true Libertarian than I am a Republican or Democrat, so I had no moral problem voting for Johnson back in 2016. I voted for Biden in 2020 because the Libertarians didn't have anywhere close to the type of candidate they had with Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, in 2016. Plus, a lot of the problems I currently have with Biden were unknown to me at the time, particularly his age-related issues and things like student loan forgiveness.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social moderate. Up until 2016, I had never not voted for the R candidate for POTUS, going all the way back to Nixon in 1972, nor had I voted for a Dem for national office. I have, however, voted for a couple of Dem gubernatorial candidates and several lower ballot elections, like state rep or senator. At this point, I've lost faith in both parties.

As far as the price of gas goes, it's still a bit of an apples vs. oranges when you try comparing prices across national borders. There are other things, like business taxes, property taxes, government subsidies, government regulations like environmental policies, etc. that can't easily be taken into account. I remember years ago when my former employer first built a potato processing plant in Taber, Alberta. The US government would only allow us to move potatoes across the border to American plants if we could prove that the quality attributes were better because Canadian farms were heavily subsidized by their governments, giving them an unfair price advantage. There are too many differences in how businesses operate in each country to make a fair price comparison.

And keep in mind that the additional cost of gas is just one of my beefs with this carbon tax. It's unfair as us here in E WA don't have access to public transportation like they do in the Seattle area, and there's no accounting for what they're doing with this huge amount of revenue they're taking in, which is in the billions of dollars. With our gas tax, there's specific things that they by law can spend it on, ie highway construction/maintenance, ferries, public transit, et all, all of which has to go through a budgeting process. There's no such accounting with the carbon tax.

[Aseahawkfan]

Just to update this thread in the interest of putting forth factual information. There was no written agreement with Saudi Arabia or treaty to accept only the dollar.

There was a statement of cooperation after the Yom Kippur War to repair Saudi-U.S. relations when America sent massive support to Israel to use against Egypt and Syria causing Saudi Arabi to cut off oil sales to America causing a huge spike in oil prices. To repair relations Kissinger made some backdoor deal publicly announced as a statement of cooperation to resume oil sales for us to provide them with military and political support. Saudi Arabia started accepting dollars for oil due to the power and stability of our currency compared to other currencies. They also started investing U.S. dollars in our debt loaning America money from the dollars they collected from oil sales.

The specifics of the agreement do not seem to include Saudi Arabia only taking dollars for oil, but they prefer dollars which they use to purchase American military tech and debt. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a foundational pillar of our international power which is more likely to weaken as oil becomes less important.

I wanted to update the info as I investigated it more so as to put out more accurate information.