Skip to main content

I thought this was pretty interesting.  InTrade the 'prediction markets' site has a contract for the probability of Bush bombing Iran by September or December.  I had a chance to discuss and analyze this contract with Afshin Rattansi on Press TV, Iran's hottest television station, last night.

Here's the YouTube link;

Afshin Rattansi:  Live from Paris, Max Keiser, journalist and broadcaster, joins me now.  Is the high price of oil again to do with the weak dollar and what did you think about the Fed's decision to keep rates the same, where they were?

Max Keiser:  Well, it's a brilliant synopsis, Afshin, of the situation.  The dollar is weak, oil is strong.  Bernanke was maybe holding out hope the possibility of him becoming more hawkish on rates.  Maybe even raising rates a quarter of a point to throw the US dollar bulls a bone.  No cut was forthcoming.  A lot of talk.  The markets saw this as an excuse to sell the dollar.  The dollar is weak, very weak and, of course those commodities priced in dollars like oil, gold and food commodities, responded accordingly.  So the US is in an interesting situation, Afshin, because they can't raise rates without making the housing crisis worse.  They can't lower rates without making the dollar more precarious so they've backed themselves into a corner.  And if they are going to go into a global currency fight against countries like China, well, the US has about 75, 76 billion in foreign reserves.  They're going to be up against China with 1.7 trillion in US dollars and foreign reserves, so it's not much of a fight there.  It could be an interesting fight though.

Afshin Rattansi:  Do you think China would ever call that though?  I mean, during the 1990's, of course, we all wondered about Japan calling in that bet as it were.

Max Keiser:  Sure.  Well, Sumitomo Bank, Bank of Japan are direct extensions of the Federal Reserve System and the cartel on Wall Street, whether it's JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs.  China is a little bit different situation.  I think they've got the ability now to wean themselves off the US dollar.  They've got the local currency, the yuan which is appreciating against the dollar which means that all these Chinese people have more purchasing power.  And they're willing now to spend some money after saving, you know they provided America with savings for years.  Now they're going to spend some money.  So this means that they are willing to allow the dollar to weaken because it means that their currency, the yuan goes up, so they're actually in a winning situation.

Afshin Rattansi:  Just on the matter of gold, it hit a one month high.  It's traditionally seen as that investment of choice during wars.  Is it the same indicator or is oil a better bet?

Max Keiser:  I brought you some gold Afshin, I'm going to send this to you.  One troy ounce of gold to put in your pocket and carry around with you as this crisis unfolds.

Afshin Rattansi:  It's probably illegal.

Max Keiser:  But gold is poised to break out on the upside again.  It is the commodity of choice for those that are looking for a safe harbor.  It has been selling off over the past few months because the Central Banks and the commercial banks and the investment banks have large short positions in gold trying to keep the price down, but they don't have inexhaustable finances to carry something like that out.  So gold is really breaking out on the upside and we're looking for gold to get through the $1000 barrier again, on its way to two and possibly three thousand dollars an ounce.

Afshin Rattansi:  We've got a graph coming up on the screen from Intrade dot com about international politics betting, as it were, on the markets.  I know you pioneered this type of betting.  The international media says its not the weak dollar its international politics.  You probably can't see the graph in your studio there, but it shows a decline . . . well, we're watching a graph about betting on a war with Iran, airstrikes against Iran.  You had a look at the graph just before coming to the studio, how would you interpret the graph?

Max Keiser:  Well, the global tensions right now, based on that graph, which is the probability of a US bombing of Iran by September, I believe there's a 16 percent chance with the chance rising to 30 percent by December, according to that chart.  And this is a prediction market, or a perception market, which aggregates interest from traders all over the world, who are making bets as to the probability of such an event occurring.  My take on the recent weakness is that you see, for example, Bush is making nice nice with North Korea.  He's, I guess, lifting some sanctions, or talking about lifting some sanctions.  So there's a perception, now that the neo-cons have had to take a step back.  John Bolton was on TV today saying, "oh Bush is making a horrible mistake by cutting the North Koreans any slack whatsoever."  So traders who are betting on a possible bombing of Iran are selling out of their positions.  They're pulling their money out of that position.  But you see that in the December's future contract on bombing Iran, it's a 30% probability, so I wouldn't say that by the time Bush is out of office, the probability is going to stay at 16%.  Obviously, there are still some traders out there who are betting on bomb Iran by the end of the year, which corresponds with the Bush administration.

Afshin Rattansi:  Finally, back to what you were saying about how the Fed seemed to have them in an unwinnable situation.  Does that mean that oil futures will just continue to rise and that the Fed has no options on the table to be able to stop it because that too will mean political problems for political parties in Europe and the United States?

Max Keiser:  Absolutely.  The chart of oil, if you look at it more technically speaking, going back a few years oil has been on an upswing, but it's stayed within a very defined channel.  If you can imagine that on its upswing.  The price today broke out of that channel on the upside, which, if it stays above the 141/142 level, you could see panic buying into the 150/160 level.  Which would create unbelievable dislocations in the global markets and this would result in some, I think, urgency on the part of various world governments to take some action.

They are now trying to blame speculators for this problem, but the speculator in this equation is Ben Bernanke.

He speculated with the future of the dollar.  He lost.

And now the results are in the price of oil.

Afshin Rattansi:  But, surely, a war with Iran would increase oil prices and make things worse for all those banks, so perhaps it's not in the interest of Wall Street?

Max Keiser:  Goldman Sachs now has the biggest oil position in America and probably one of the biggest oil positions in the world.  They're long oil.  So the banks have aggressively been buying oil on their balance sheets.  I think they might see this as a way to bail themselves out of this mortgage crisis.  By hedging themselves by buying oil.  They have, remember the shadow banking system, Afshin, which is not talked about widely, but it's the back channel, special investment vehicles and conduits that exist between banks - it's roughly a ten trillion dollar market which is unregulated and unreported.

All this paper in the shadow banking system, ten trillion dollars, is at risk of going bad.  Which would mean that every major bank in the US is technically insolvent.  So if they could get oil to a higher price and they are long oil, maybe this is how they are going to bail themselves out?  You know policy is driven purely in self interest.  The Federal Reserve Bank and the commercial banks and the Wall Street banks are not acting in the interests of the population at large, they're acting purely in their own self-interest, which is a shame because they're actions dictate the reality for 300 million Americans.  But they don't see it that way, they see it only as a way to preserve their own self-interest.

Afshin Rattansi:  Max Keiser, financial analyst.  Thank you for giving that financial perspective on international affairs.  

Originally posted to Max Keiser on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:01 AM PDT.


Chances you think Iran is bombed by end of December?

6%1 votes
6%1 votes
12%2 votes
12%2 votes
6%1 votes
18%3 votes
0%0 votes
6%1 votes
0%0 votes
12%2 votes
18%3 votes
0%0 votes

| 16 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  A dead doctrine shooting geopolitical blanks (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for this diary.  

    I'm a daily visitor to Intrade and have been following that Airstrikes on Iran contract, especially since December when it fell sharply.  I took it at the time as indicating that people were perceiving that this unpopular President was entering into a very, very lame duck year.

    And sure enough, last week when Israel claimed to have held a military exercise over the Med as a show of force to Iran, the airstrike contract fell by another 4% in one day!

    Extraordinarily, a demonstration of strength seemed to have been perceived as an act of impotence.  

    Everyone believes Bush is shooting geo-political blanks.  

    And, indeed, as you mention in your interview with Afshin, John Bolton on Friday declared the Bush doctrine dead:

    "I think this is an embarrassment," Bolton said in an interview. "I think this represents the definitive collapse of the Bush Doctrine and I'm sure they're popping champagne corks in Pyongyang."

    •  Is December contract a hedge? (0+ / 0-)

      On further reflection, do you think the post '08 election bump in the Airstrike contract is a 'hedge' against an Obama win?  

      I ask this because I see that the McCain contract almost mirrors the December Iran air strike contract.

      In the past week, we have heard the likes of Bill Kristol on Fox News suggested that Bush is more likely to attack Iran IF Obama is elected:

      WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

      KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.

  •  False Dilemma in dealing with Iran (0+ / 0-)

    Our media is presenting us with a false dilemma in dealing with Iran, according to which our only options are either sanctions or war, or else Iran will supposedly get nuclear weapons.

    In characterizing unilateral sanctions as the "only strategy" in resolving the dispute, the NY Times conveniently left out a range of other options in dealing with Iran, such as accepting Iran's suggestion -- widely endorsed by American and international experts -- to operate Iran's nuclear program as a multilateral venture, thus addressing any real concern about weapons proliferation.

    Why is this option being systematically ignored?


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site