the oil price was dropping so much. I knew someone was playing with supply (duh) but didn't really think about why.

Because oil shale and fracking costs are greater than their traditional drilling techniques. They are trying to push increasing US, Canadian, and Russian market shares into a price range that makes it ineffective to keep producing oil/natural gas.

They're trying to corner the market by underselling everyone, similar to WalMart.

just resume getting the oil from fracking and from shale.
A better move imo would have been for OPEC to expand into things like solar power, wind and other renewable sources because in the long run the oil "will" dry up.

They must have felt that progress towards alternate petroleum obtaining processes (shale/fracking/etc.) have become too cost effective. In the short run, they can maintain a monopoly simply by lowering prices. That's easier than spending money on new energy sources. Likewise, as the cost-effectiveness goes down for non-traditional petroleum sources, innovation that would make them even cheaper slows down because it's also less cost effective.

For the time being, they are maintaining their monopoly as cheaply as they can. In the future, I have no doubt they will embrace anything to maintain their control. Right now though, nothing further is needed, as evidenced by US, Canadian, and Russian shale/fracking coming to a screeching halt in the last month.

A good long term strategy though is to take the money they have gotten and arent using really is to invest it in things that will grow and renewable energy is probably the best bets around unless something like cold fusion should be discovered but so far thats been a bust where as solar and wind are proven they just need the time to grow which will happen once most of the oil sources are dried up.

Undoubtedly they will (and have) invested in alternative sources. It's just currently cheaper for them to pump oil. When something else becomes more feasible, they'll do that.

They are fearful of solar however, as they cannot possibly contain it.

systems as well as varies solar farms, if they do that then they will be sitting pretty when the oil market finally does go bellyup.

Incidentally this will likely be because solar farms will be less prevalent than smaller panel systems.

They could be stretching out as long as possible with these kinds of moves, and investing in new technologies through other parts of their companies, etc. It seems like both of you could be correct.

Saudi Arabia has killed the fracking industry.
Now it's how many jobs will be lost.
And don't forget, the collateralized energy losses.
Billions of dollars in defaults are coming soon!

It's weird to see liberals worried about job losses in the "shale oil industry".

Well the estimates I've read add up to about 500,000 jobs.
That is a lot of unemployment payments.
A lot of food stamps and other social services.

There are no replacement jobs.
Particularly at their previous pay rates.

So cheering how the Saudis' screwed Putin is kinda short sighted.
When the junk bonds default it will upset the markets.
Those fracking jobs are gone, and not likely to return anytime soon.

What will be the impact on the petro dollar, if any?

Question: did CRomnibus protect Wall St from this kind of bubble?

I didn't lament the loss of asbestos-related jobs, either.

which will put more into the economy because you have probably 20 to 30 million people in the US who will now have a bit more money to spend on consumer goods which means retailers will have a boom which means they will stop feeling so skin flinty on paying their workers and stop gutting their hours.

As you know servicing debt does not grow an economy, right?

So that $750 in gas savings will go to pay down a credit card...
not into buying hard consumer goods

How will the working class spend their $5 they save at the pump?

And how does servicing debt grow an economy?
Paying interest on a loan grows the economy how?
Isn't rent seeking a drag on the economy?

Society's diverse so you get a diverse answer.

For those with the least income, the savings would go for buying things.

For those with more income, more income tends to pay down debt.

For those with even more income, more income goes into luxuries and towards big-ticket items.

For those with even more income than those with mere "even more income", more income goes into liquid accounts or investment paper, helping to keep interest rates (naturally) low and encourage (in a theoretically-modelled world) investment.

What we hear about is that those with least income buy stuff.

Then we hear that buying stuff is what helps make high-paying jobs. That Keynesian multiplier, after all. Oft quantified, seldom reproducibly.

The gap in the thinking is *what* those with the least income buy, the input to a multiplier that assumes "average" consumers get the money: They buy imports if they're not food, and food. Neither creates good-paying jobs in the US.

So there's the diverse answer.

In general it will help counter any inflation. Sadly, for those who dislike including the more volatile component of the inflation index, it will look like it's contributing to deflation when it's not.

We'll repeat the Great Depression. Credit eventually runs out. You do have to actually pay for it. Using it responsibly and paying for what you buy will lead to a stronger economy in the short and long term.

artificially inflated so the ones who are guilty of that can take it and shove their loses up their ass followed a Molotov cocktail.

formerly unemployed KGB agent go from rags to riches? It's called A-N-N-E-X-A-T-I-O-N!!!!!!

Oil prices were forced down to strike at the heart of ISIS, to kick their major source of funding out from under them. That's why the Saudis and the Emirates are going along with it.

that seems more timely and in line than anything else I've read here (with the side benefit that folks like Putin also take a hit).