So I just wrapped up reading The Shell Game (pictured below), which I described earlier the Da Vinci Code except it was about oil politics rather than the Holy Grail, and thus interesting for that reason alone.
In any case, I admit a general ignorance of Middle Eastern politics. I know the basics and a smattering of interesting details, which I must have picked up purely to fight with people with viewpoints I found irritating (yea, I'm a winner...) but I never understood the big picture. For example, I never understood the links between the House of Saud, the flow of petro-dollars, fostering Wahabbism and radicalism, nor have I understood the pan-Arab fear of Iran. This book, despite all of its sensationalized moments and oversimplifications, really sheds a LOT of light on how these things connect together, and ultimately how they foster terrorism. And in turn, how the US is implicated. Reading this book was breathtaking to me: There were moments where pieces would suddenly fall into place, light bulbs would flash above my head, and my brow would furrow as I muttered "oh my god" in the airport. Equally, there were moments where everything would the exact same except I would mutter "god we're fucked and I hate everyone." It's an upsetting book. But I do think you should read it, because I think it will change the way you see things forever. (Yes, you can ignore some of the conspiracy theory aspects of it...it's not that difficult.) I also want to declare once and for all, that if anyone wants to pretend we have historically been involved in the Middle East for ANY significant reason other than oil, I think you're stupid. End of discussion.What this boils down to is that the Middle East has been on my mind for the past few weeks (instead of the bar, of course). Between reading The Shell Game and continuing to take in news about Iraq, Iran, the rising price of oil, and continuing to follow unfolding events in the energy sector (shame on Obama by the way), I now increasingly believe that our current struggles with the Middle East are truly existential crises. Terrorism is a symptom, not an independent threat. Which makes our current foreign policy truly stupid. (Except of course, for nuclear weapons, specifically the existence of a nuclear and destabilized Pakistan, and the remnants of a collapsed nuclear super power with no incentive to keep that shit under guard.)
The Big Question: How is it that it has been 7 years since 9/11, that terrorism has been the keystone of our foreign policy, and Not ONCE, NOT ONCE, NOT ONCE, has our President asked "Why are there terrorists? Where does terrorism come from? What are the causes of terrorism?" The only politicians that have spoken about it are those on the "fringe" like Kucinich or Ron Paul. WHAT THE FUCK!?!
Does no one else find this void startling? Normally when a question like this comes up, we can heartily call up some sort of bastard jingoist slogan to cover our asses. But that doesn't work here. We don't have easy, prepackaged responses to this question. Why? Because the question was NEVER put into public discourse. It was never even asked! I would blame the politicians, but I think this is a failure far beyond politics. Wait wait..no no...they DID talk about it.
"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." - George W. Bush, Sept. 2001(Forgot about that. Sorry. All of this is because they hate freedom.)
Although it's a little bit too late for being brief, I'm not really going to go into what I think about this stuff right now, except to say that I have been thinking very long and hard about economics, politics, and energy...and things are starting to come together.
As an illustration, I'll just use one very very simple example. Oil companies are reaping ENORMOUS record profits as oil prices have been pushed up. Ok. So now what? Let's just stick with the most basic, most indisputable, simple facts.
- Two ex-oil executives in the White House.
- Secret closed door meetings to determine US energy policy.
- US companies are the first, and only companies in line for Iraqi oil now.
- Invasion of a country with absolutely no link whatsoever to terrorism.
- 50 years of military occupation, overthrowing hostile governments, assassinations, propping dictators, feeding arms and military hardware to Iraq to fight Iran, military bases in Saudi Arabia, and two wars in the Gulf in 10 years. (Cost of Iraq alone thus far: 650 billion.)
Obama? Tax the shit out of them. Which I will doubly enjoy as I watch them gnash their teeth and feel oh so affronted.
13 comments:
I will actually read this book.
And as much fun as it is to (a) piss you off anonymously, and (b) watch you bitch at others thinking it's me, I will give up anonymous commenting for your sanity.
For now.
1) Awesome! That's pretty exciting that you'll actually read it. I'm curious what you'll think and have to say about it.
2) YOU ARE SUCH A COCK.
Are you once more spouting that nonsense about taxing the "windfall profits" of the oil companies, I can't really tell from your longwinded rant
RS
I would like to re-emphasize the idea that Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world.
RS- Oh no, no. I'm sure he's saying that the administration should incite another major terrorist attack, declare a state of emergency, postpone the upcoming elections indefinitely, and move the White House to Saudi Arabia stone-by-stone- all to put a few extra bucks into the hands of vacuous, greedy leeches who add nothing to society at large except a market for luxury helicopters.
This book intrigues me but I have Armed Madhouse and Hegemony Or Survival to get through first.
Fact. Pakistan fills me with an inky dread. The oil "leeches" and especially their unwitting ideological accomplices almost makes me pity them. Almost.
I'm gonna say that Armed Madhouse and Hegemony or Survival seem to be about 100 times more intense than Shell Game...mostly because Shell Game is a page-turner type novel. Those two books are the types I have to take long breaks between or my ability to exist becomes too intensely burdened. So if you can slog it out with those two, man...go for it. I'm going to take a break with Confederacy of Dunces for a bit.
Oh. By "Fact." I meant "yes. totally."
Not "here's a fact for you!"
Goody. I was hoping we were going to play with the windfall tax thing again. Now I was going to note how Jimmy Carter's windfall tax on American oil companies in the 1970's led us to where we are now, but I think you may be right, a windfall tax on oil companies might be the way to go.
But we shouldn't stop there. Oil companies make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales. We should also put a windfall tax on the electronics industry (14.5 cents gross profit per dollar of sales), computer equipment manufacturers (13.7 cents gross profit per dollar of sales), and on Microsoft (27.5 cents gross profit per dollar of sales).
RS
Further, if we look at total dollars earned instead of profit margin, there are more industries that could be subject to a windfall tax. Oil and gas companies took in $86.5 bilion in profits last year, but the financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits, retail industries took in $137.5 billion, and IT companies took in $103.4 billion. These companies should be targeted for a windfall tax as well.
...and Jeff, you write that "the administration should incite another terrorist attack." Remind me how it incited the first one.
RS
RS: Respond to the facts about how taxpayers subsidize oil profits through military invention, and how a private company that has control over ALL facets of the ENTIRE company, should be allowed to screw the entire country? Without resorting to ideology (which you will do immediately I'm sure), why is it acceptable for a few to profit enormously to the detriment of every. single. other. citizen of the country?
It's not about the size of the profits. Strawman. Swing and a Miss.
Economy, not company.
HJL,
Your question is problematic. First, you errantly assert that the oil companies (I’m presuming you meant companies, not company, in your statement) are “private.” Oil companies are not private, indeed the big five (Exxon-Mobil, BP, Conoco Phillips, Shell and Chevron), are public owned companies. Investors own those companies, either individually, or in the case of most of the ownership, through mutual funds. As an example, an examination of the major holders for Exxon shows that the majority of investors in Exxon are mutual funds, investment companies, and banks. Not one of these companies own over 5% of Exxon, and all are in turn owned by individuals directly, or by more mutual funds and investment companies, in turn owned by individuals, and so on down the chain.
Secondly, you contend that these oil companies are “screwing the country.” How so? Why are oil prices so high? Put simplistically, Venezuela, a weak dollar and a reliance on foreign oil have increased oil prices. Much of our imported oil used to flow from Venezuela, but with the advent of Chavez, this pipeline was turned off. The weak dollar is the result of current Fed policies, as has been amply demonstrated by writers greater than my own. A result of the weak dollar means that one gets less oil for each dollar spent. Thus, one has to spend more dollars to get the same amount of oil. Further, since the late 1970’s domestic oil production as a percentage of total oil consumed has fallen to abysmal levels. Not one new oil refinery has been built in the past 30 years. New technologies which would increase efficiency in the oil fields (and lessen the environmental impact) have not been utilized. It is telling that during Hurricane Katrina, not a drop of oil was lost. It has been estimated that enough oil exists within our borders to provide us with energy independence for upwards of 35 years.
Third, you argue that military intervention is subsidizing the oil companies. I’m not sure if this contention is the “No Blood for Oil” argument, but I think you miss the point. Oil companies have benefitted, nee will benefit, from the War in Iraq. But this is a happy effect, not a subsidization. Under your contention, it can be argued that WWII was a subsidization of oil companies as well, after all BP (Great Britain) and Shell (Dutch) were oil companies that but for our intervention in the Pacific and European theatres would not be around today.
Lastly, you contend that oil companies control every facet of the economy. Not so. Your argument appears based on the contention that oil is necessary to keep our economy flowing, and thus the oil companies have a stranglehold on the American economy. Yet, couldn’t your argument be applied to Microsoft, or Arthur Daniels Midland and Cargill, contending that they have a stranglehold on computer software and agriculture respectively. How should we treat them?
RS
Not that this means anything, but Bush just lifted his executive ban on offshore oil drilling. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html
why do you keep calling me HJL? The more inflammatory I get, the less I want this to be traceable.
1) The public company ≠ private company argument doesn't have any real bearing on this. It's a label.
2) Screwing the country means the entire economy suffers from skyrocketing costs, while the same rise in costs increases the margins of the companies. Thus, it's not that one company outperforms another company (i.e., competition), this is one sector taking everything from every other sector. You don't have to pull the trigger to have done wrong.
As for oil prices, no one really knows what's happening. Some claim it's demand surges from China and India, but supply and demand haven't shifted substantially as prices have doubled. I make no claims as to causation on this one. No one can, even if pundits do.
3) This is the big one. Why are we in Iraq? I'm not saying "No Blood for Oil" because I think it's a stupid saying. I'm saying "open your eyes, the only reason the US has ever had an interest in the middle east is oil." WMDs, or a threat from the Middle East, even if they existed, are symptomatic of our prior involvement in the region. We fucked around and got burned. There were other reasons for WWII. There are not other reasons for our grip on the middle east. At all.
4) Oil differs because the price of everything else depends on oil. It's a natural resource and commodity, unlike computers. Oil directly affects the price of food since industrial fertilizers come from fossil fuels. Transport costs are determined by the price of oil. Heat and survival are determined by the price of oil. The cost of plastic is determined by the price of oil.
If that doesn't convince you, I'll try analogy: All life comes from the sun. Without a source of energy, there is no life. Similarly, all industrial activity and all modern economic activity also requires energy to power light bulbs, computers, transportation, feed populations, etc etc. Without a source of energy, the economic activity dies. That is the crisis to which we do not have an answer.
And for the record, I do think agribusiness is similar. I think if market conditions suddenly flip and food prices move in such a manner that the population can no longer afford food and the agribusinesses pull in massive disproportionate profits, the solution is not to applaud the free markets and claim that things are as they should be.
TK: Hm. Considering that there cannot be any effect on current prices, how confident can I be that Bush cited reducing current oil prices as a rationale?
Now is this good policy? Or is this red meat to the oil companies? I can't say I know for sure, but I don't think it's clear at all.
Post a Comment