European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course.

by geezer in Paris
Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 10:19:34 AM EST

For months- years, in fact- I and others have been pointing out that the Iraq war was about oil theft as a strategy of the empire. My great fear was that the strategy would succeed, ushering in an era of global resource "management" at the point of a gun. Considering the number of resources that appear nearing the supply-demand crisis point, this scenario suggests an unparalleled resurgence of global warfare. I have also written on the plans to attack Iran, and suggested that it is hard to find a group, political or otherwise, that had the cojones and the power to oppose such an attack.

The most telling point in opposition to this scenario was this:

Why do it?

The risks always seemed to outweigh the gains, since, as Jerome has repeatedly pointed out, development of oil fields is a pricey endeavor, and none of the majors who can field the money and know-how to do it would likely be willing to do it in a war zone. Also, if the Straits are blocked, economies tumble as oil prices skyrocket. What's the good of that?
I pointed out that Iran is the great remaining geopolitical obstacle to US dominance of Arab oil, and it's clear that's long been the US intent. Control of Iran- or neutralization- was reason enough.

Here's a new perspective on that objection, and a new scenario.

Brought across by afew

First, the link to a very good read:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112907R.shtml

The Bush-Cheney shell game that is developing uses Iraq to justify attacking Iran and uses Iran to justify the continuing occupation of Iraq. But ultimately to what end?
As Michael Klare pointed out, no oil company will invest billions of dollars in oil production infrastructure without a stable and secure investment climate. And after nearly five years of US occupation, Iraq is no closer to having such a stable climate.
The global oil supply is starting to run out, and in response the Bush-Cheney bubba boys are running tanker loads of precious fuel into the Gulf to fuel a saber-rattling operation or worse. War, whether hot or cold, will never achieve the objective of securing oil supplies for US interests, but it might serve to obscure what is really going on.
Imagine what will happen when gas prices shoot up to $5 or $6 a gallon in the US. Now imagine how happy Dick Cheney will be if he can find an excuse to attack Iran, and Iran retaliates by disrupting the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz. Oil shortages will be blamed on Iran, and peak oil as an issue will fall off the table.
A much better strategy for the US and the rest of the world would be to act on Lester Brown's suggestion of an immediate emergency meeting of the G-8 to coordinate decisive action to reduce oil use. Such a meeting could also begin a diplomatic process such as the UN process on climate change to decide how to rationally apportion what remains of the world's oil.
In a sensible world where the grownups were in charge, governments would come up with a plan to use the last of the oil to help all nations build up their renewable energy infrastructure. We cannot afford to waste another drop of oil, either on useless consumer garbage or on war.

I think she has a good point, but I suggest this as as more likely strategy:

-Assume that oil control is the motive:

-Assume we attack Iran, and that Iran retaliates by closing the straights-- or retaliates in any other way that closes off the supply of oil to that part of the world which is dependent on Arab oil.

Panic ensues, prices explode. Fear=Opportunity.

I agree that in the short term the blame for the price increases will be dumped on Iran- (how convenient). Ignore for the moment the irrationality of blaming Iran for responding to an American attack in a way that results in massive panic-driven oil price increases. Yes, the MSM will flog the demonization of Iran, and the American people will buy it, in the main.

I do not see that the scenario will bump the now-acceptable subject of peak oil off the table for long, nor do I see that as a likely part of the strategy. To the contrary.

I think that such an interruption in oil and the ensuing panic could be a bonanza for the Neocons every bit as great as the 9/11 event, and this time one need not be a conspiracy theorist to agree that it will be us that creates the event.

The likes of John Bolton have rendered the United Nations ineffective and irrelevant--and that was exactly their job.
What more perfect rationale could we possibly have for the creation of a badly needed world oil allocation authority --with ourselves in covert or overt control?

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 3)

This pre-supposes that the Chinese, Russians etc would have nothing whatever to say on the subject of oil allocation.

It is at this point that the importance of Russia having a nuclear deterrent becomes clear, because it actually does act - in extremis - as an effective veto against mad US military resource - grabbing options.

The US is no longer in the global driving seat, and will essentially, have to do what their creditors tell them. They haven't yet woken up to this unpleasant reality, but as the current credit meltdown worsens through the winter, they will.....

I believe that the solution lies in a cartel of oil consuming (China, US, EU, Japan etc) nations sitting down with a cartel (OPEC plus Russia, Norway) of oil producing nations to agree a new partnership-based oil allocation / market process.

The Wade Formula was an interesting, and generally disregarded, approach to oil allocation by the Senegalese president.

But I would start with gas/LNG, since that is newer, more discrete (ie Norway, Russia and Qatar could call the shots), without a settled market structure, and involves a much more homogeneous energy product.

I disagree with Jerome's view that oil and credit intermediaries can ever be part of the solution: their toxic partnership in the last fifty years has been the direct cause of the problem.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 06:53:15 AM EST

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 2)

This pre-supposes that the Chinese, Russians etc would have nothing whatever to say on the subject of oil allocation.

Not at all- consider the scenario in which the US presents itself as the voice of sweet reason in the face of a world oil crisis. Even if we generated it. Granted, "voice of reason" is a bad joke today- but in the next administration? I see no evidence that any likely future administration has any intention to adopt a different strategic policy vis. energy. And there is that old saw about the law and possession. I suggest it is equally likely that the scramble would be to curry favor. And all the real diplomats didn't die over there- they're just hiding.
Another, better approach for them might be to do this structure by proxy.

It is at this point that the importance of Russia having a nuclear deterrent becomes clear, because it actually does act - in extremis - as an effective veto against mad US military resource - grabbing options.

We just did one of those "mad military resource ops".
Would the above situation qualify as a nuclear extreme?
Against what targets,employing what strategy would the Russian nuke be useful to roll back such a development?

The US is no longer in the global driving seat, and will essentially, have to do what their creditors tell them. They haven't yet woken up to this unpleasant reality, but as the current credit meltdown worsens through the winter, they will.....

Perhaps logically you are right, but I've said all along that the burning question is what will be the response of the Empire to the knowledge that they are screwed? History does not offer a lot of hope for rational behavior under those circumstances. This administration is not known for it's ability to perceive reality.

I believe that the solution lies in a cartel of oil consuming (China, US, EU, Japan etc) nations sitting down with a cartel (OPEC plus Russia, Norway) of oil producing nations to agree a new partnership-based oil allocation / market process.
The Wade Formula was an interesting, and generally disregarded, approach to oil allocation by the Senegalese president.
But I would start with gas/LNG, since that is newer, more discrete (ie Norway, Russia and Qatar could call the shots), without a settled market structure, and involves a much more homogeneous energy product.

Sounds good to me. Now the problem is to get the empire to sweetly capitulate on a project that has been going on since 1941, and has deep ideological and emotional roots--not to mention trillions of dollars invested. Because to participate in such a structure without dominating it is anathema to all that. And without US participation it would be stillborn.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 07:42:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 2)

Well, my view is, as you know, that the process has already started.

If, as I suspect, partnership mechanisms are emerging because "they work" (and it's in the commercial sector they are emerging), then those governments and corporations who do not use the model will be at a disadvantage to those who do. The system will eat itself essentially.

They don't yet know they are screwed, and they will be looking around for a market solution that makes sense, and from which they do not lose. That's what I am proposing: win/win.

Intermediaries, domination, competition and all that shit are so last century....

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 08:11:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 2)

An Oil allocation Authority won't happen, mostly because history is composed of cock-ups rather than conspiracies. Oil will become increasing scarcer, more expensive, and gradually more and more unaffordable to the poor and poorer countries.

Those countries and companies with oil assets will reap the profits. Wars will increasingly break out to gain access to those diminishing resources. The Iraq war was the first of these, aimed at securing access to Iraqi oil for favoured U.S. corporations.

In this it has been largely successful. The Iraqis will be paying for their own occupation for many years to come. So will the American taxpayer and car owner of course, but hey, it's a free country, and it is they who elected Cheney/Bush.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 12:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (none / 0)

History is replete with massive screw-ups and incredible diplomatic triumphs, multilayered, multiphase strategies that worked --and failed, elaborate conspiracies that worked and hammer-crude muggings that failed totally. Otherwise, the story of humanity would be just another cheap daytime soap.

From my point of view, it's a lot better story than that.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 04:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 7)

geezer in Paris:

Not at all- consider the scenario in which the US presents itself as the voice of sweet reason in the face of a world oil crisis.

Given the Bush years, this seems unlikely, except perhaps as an ironic comedy skit.

I'm torn between suspecting there's some as-yet unrecognised genius-level global masterplan, and accepting that these people are utterly incapable of imagining a strategy more sophisticated than swaggering around like macho losers and blowing shit up for the sake of it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 09:56:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (none / 1)

The only "genius level" possibility I can see is seizing Iraq territory ahead of the time when oil ceases to be a commodity.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 01:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 2)

Yes- it's a powerful temptation to just assume they're all pistol waving dingbats. But I read somewhere that the real structure of government consists of the 95% career civil servants who really comprise the "works", and who make day to day policy- and have a powerful say in the real strategy. Strange to be reassured that the "petite functionnaire" is mostly in control.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 04:10:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 2)

That's been the case in the past,

the real structure of government consists of the 95% career civil servants who really comprise the "works", and who make day to day policy- and have a powerful say in the real strategy.

where administrations put in their figurehead ambassadors and what-not, leaving the civil servants in situ to run the place.

However, Bushco has systematically destroyed and dismantled that model, installing its sycophants in bureaus and agencies, for several layers down, well into the mundane workings. Read any of the pieces written about how the intellectual lightweights of Liberty University were installed by Rove/Bush/Gonzales and have pretty well ruined the credibility of the justice department.

The next president, assuming a Democrat is allowed to win, will have a LOT of housecleaning to do, from the bottom up.

by Mnemosyne on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 07:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 3)

I agree, and I have read many of the pieces you speak of. The real questions are these:

-How deep is the infection? I think the patient still has levels of resistance. Hansen, at NASA is a good example. The focus was on politically useful slots- the rest seem to have been muzzled, but not "liquidated". If that were not the case, it would be a terminal disease. It may still be:

-Do the democratic doctors truly want to do the surgery needed?

I worry more about that-- I don't see it. Hillary will keep the bases in Iraq, --and the stolen oil. If she does, she must keep the empire, and empire and a democratic republic are mutually exclusive.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 at 05:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 3)

How deep is the infection? I've heard that it goes down five or six layers into the bureaucracy. That's pretty deep and enough to cause fundamental change in the way a department functions.

As to your other question, je ne sais pas.

I fear that the bases in Iraq will stay, just as a function of inertia. Once the massive machinery lumbers into activity, it's very hard to turn it aside or, especially, to undo what's been done. That will/would require massive amounts of change, and barring externally-imposed disaster, I'm not sure the comfortable American body politic is up to confronting that.

by Mnemosyne on Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 at 07:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (none / 1)

THe Bush administration has managed to destroy the federal agencies that are supposed to advise the Administration objectively. So those 95% are powerless if the Preznit populates the top 5% with cronies ready to manipulate the reports that come out of their agencies. Provision of services is a different story, so while the US government is now effectively lobotomised it still functions on a physiological level.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Dec 8th, 2007 at 06:25:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

While I don't exactly agree with Chris, I do think (4.00 / 5)

the Russians and the Chinese have a strategy. The problem is: What is it?

I do not think the strategy is to respond with nuclear weapons: They will do that if and only if they are attacked.

Given that they have starting arming Iran for real with some decent (conventional) missiles, I suspect their scenerio for an open US attack on Iran is to savage the US Air Force--now a possibility--and send the US Fleet to the bottom--now a likelihood. In this scenerio US control of the Middle East collapses--though who then lobs what at whom is an open question.

Obviously they will not provoke this scenerio, but they do seem to be preparing for it, as the US is likely to provoke it.

Chris' scenerio would be rational, but that is the whole problem with it: In six years of misgovernance, the Bush administration and the backers behind it have exuded a total stink of panic over losing global hegemony. They do not seek wealth; they seek domination, and this precludes all co-operative solutions.

Narcissistic control freaks and macho losers--the Brit Guy's image gets it about right.

by Gaianne on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 01:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: While I don't exactly agree with Chris, I do t (none / 1)

the Russians and the Chinese have a strategy. The problem is: What is it?
I do not think the strategy is to respond with nuclear weapons: They will do that if and only if they are attacked.

I think the Chinese have a very full domestic plate right now- they may have a strategy, but I'd bet they will diddle away the opportunity to employ it effectively.
Russia- a different kettle of fish. A smart diplomatic approach might be to share power there. They may see their best interests as grabbing major authority in the structure. Empires often share power- one of the safer ways to deal with them is to be nasty enough to motivate some healthy fear,-- and then deal. Pure speculation, true.

Nukes have no utility in this process, as I said in my reply to Chris cook. No rational targeting options.

The allocation mechanism will happen, because it is essential--it's only a question of the right opportunity- the right "shock therapy" moment. From a totally Machiavellian point of view, the coming Iran event could be the perfect moment. Look what they did with 9/11.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 04:33:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: While I don't exactly agree with Chris, I do t (4.00 / 2)

I don't there will be an Iran moment: that window is closed.

The economic shock therapy is happening as we speak.

I liked Jerome's car crash analogy, what's happened so far is the driver hitting the screen and dashboard as he slams the brakes on without a belt: the crash itself is about to happen...

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 05:00:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I'm optimistic (4.00 / 2)

is I think that the US economy is in an irreversible tail-spin that will IMHO lead to an "End of Empire" realisation.

A US Suez moment.

Co-operation will then be the only way out: domination is no longer an option.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Nov 30th, 2007 at 04:44:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I'm optimistic (4.00 / 3)

Hope you're right, Chris.
But for 20 years of study, I have seen what I thought were events that seemed likely to force the empire to
-Retrench
-think more cooperatively
-Collapse
-Alter direction in a big way
etc.
Wrong every time.
I've learned that it is unwise to underestimate the ability of the rich and powerful to hold reality at bay- for just a decade or two longer.
Each time some draconian reality-modification scheme or some dark-side narrative emerges to evade the oncoming train wreck, I am again surprised.

The current power structure that drives the empire is composed of fabulously wealthy, isolated and privileged men, with political views that Mussolini would feel comfortable with. In Cheney's case, the work of his lifetimes is crumbling before this eyes, he is dying and he will not get another chance. The motivation to engage in draconian action as well as reality modification is powerful-and so are they.
You and Jerome (and many others) think that the bill has finally come due, and the ship of state is broke.
I think you're both wrong- I think they are not out of options yet, and the level of barbarity that could emerge as the great beast scrapes the bottom of the barrel, and flails it's last could be really nasty. The death throes could take a long time, and drag the world down with it.

Apocalyptic? Yes. Admitted. I think Bush is a weak man and a "believer", and that Cheney and the Neocons would rather die than admit. Bad combo.

If any (or all) of us had written a piece that, based on careful analysis and historic precedent, had predicted the actions of the empire over the last 7 years, we'd have been committed for treatment.

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 03:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I'm optimistic (4.00 / 2)

The difference is the pervasive spread of the Internet.

To me, the "Epiphany" was the realisation that a 19 year old - by inventing music file sharing - had single-handedly destroyed the business model of the global music industry.

The same - through instant money/value messaging and decentralised linked "clearing" of obligations - will apply to global payments within five years at the outside.

This process is outside anyone's control. Those currently at the top of the heap are just going to have to make do with a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

As John Gilmore almost said - he spoke of censorship:

"The Internet interprets Banks as damage and routes around them."

There is a "Telluric" change taking place beneath our feet, and IMHO the "Napsterisation" of Society will change the world for the better - and just in time.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 07:29:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: While I don't exactly agree with Chris, I do t (4.00 / 2)

Narcissistic control freaks and macho losers

fratboyocracy...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 03:04:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 5)

The really sick thing about all this is that the higher the price per barrel goes, the more "rational" it becomes to commit to ever-more-destructive extractive methods like the tar sands nightmare. Thus spending even more energy (and time, and ingenuity, and labour) trying to get at the diminishing petro resource... and so on.

The failure of markets is writ large in diminishing resource scenarios: scarcity raises prices, raised prices only increase the incentive for intensified exploitation, until the species is extinct or the oil fields are dry. The rarer it gets, the more incentive there is to destroy the increasingly rare remnant. Thus the rapid erosion of forest cover as good wood gets scarcer and more valuable; the ongoing crash of large fish populations (now worldwide, thanks to globally ranging factory trawlers); and the ongoing acceleration of insanity like MTR and the tar sands open-pit mining.

This is a lethal feedback mechanism in "free markets" that neolibs never seem to deal with; in their fantasy land where everything is an interchangeable commodity, it doesn't matter if you run out of trees or fish, because you'll just substitute something else. But in the real world of biotic systems, it matters very much if you run out of trees or fish; and kudzu or jellyfish are not, in fact, an equivalent substitute.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 03:01:22 AM EST

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 4)

In the limit 'substitutability' really just means 'Everyone else is expendable.'

Remember these people do not do empathy, and they don't do cause and effect. No matter how intelligent they are otherwise, they're the aggressive semi-morons of the human species, unsuited to long-term decision making and terminally mis-adapted to physical reality.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 09:12:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 3)

The really sick thing about all this is that the higher the price per barrel goes, the more "rational" it becomes to commit to ever-more-destructive extractive methods like the tar sands nightmare. Thus spending even more energy (and time, and ingenuity, and labour) trying to get at the diminishing petro resource... and so on.

This is horrible, see what's happened in the Niger Delta to grasp the whole scope of the thing, but I think that something even more harmful is emerging. There's this naive liberal belief that there are 2 seperate worlds: One that acquires assets by trading, and another that gets them by military conquest.

The trading world is suppossed to be a fairytale land where compulsion and coercion in international relations are absent, while the military world is supposed to be the Hobbesian world where all the murder and mayhem goes on.

Cause you see, money is supposed to make people more docile, because as we know the poor of the world are the nasty and brutish ones. < / spits>

Well,the idea that these two are seperate worlds seems highly questionable. After all, I think that it's not a hard argument to make that the terms of contract between many oil companies and local governments are little more than neo-colonialism. (It would be ironic of course if the origins of say British colonialism in India were in the private sector world of the trading corporation, let's call them the British East India company for example, rather than the British army.

Because trade ties, and more importantly, foreign ownership of vital national assets have never been a pretext for military action. That would be silly, because it conflicts with the liberal view of the world. And everyone knows that the highly educated people running international finance don't have to resort to violence to get things, they just buy them. After the IMF has made made loanshark terms to a poor country that has a lot of natural resources.

So we can just buy it. And if they don't want to sell, we'll coerce them through the market. Oops, there is no coercion in the market, it's simply not possible. The market is the world of free exchange, people are never forced to sell things because they have to because of others actions rather than wanting to. If they were that would be silly. Because it would show that the market is no more docile than the military world.

Of course, if we come into a world of resource scarcity, then it might become prohibitively expensive to buy natural resources. And maybe countries that have nationalized oil companies will refuse to sell, because they think that they can get more money running the oil fields than by selling a source of state revenue. And then what? Well I guess that we'll have to bring in Blackwater to take the fields.

And of course this is something new. It's not like Tim Spicer, the guy who's running private military operations for the Pentagon, was ever involved with the mercernary firm Executive Outcomes, responsible for violations of the Geneva Conventions in the course of retaking a diamond mine in Sierra Leone.

We matter more than pounds and pence/ Your economic theory makes no sense "We work the Black Seam"-Sting

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 10:53:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 5)

There's this naive liberal belief that there are 2 seperate worlds: One that acquires assets by trading, and another that gets them by military conquest.

Yer catching on mate :-)

I used to wear a little enamelled pin that read "Capitalism IS Organised Crime"... I misplaced it somewhere along the years, but it is still pretty hard to make a nice clean distinction between the Mafia and "legit" business, except in the radius of operations. The Mafia kill people and dump the bodies in the East River; big "legit" business kills people and dumps the bodies in East Timor or Panama or Colombia or Iraq. Much like flush toilets, the cleanliness of "legit" big business is largely a matter of moving the mess further away; it's still a mess. Profit maximisation is mugging, there's no way around it; a fair, honest, humane or decent deal is less immediately profitable.

The funny thing is that they admit it openly... wasn't it Friedman who said that MacDonald's doesn't spread around the world without the B-52 bomber, or something like that. And then of course there's Smedley Butler's famous book, an early exposé of the degree to which the US armed forces were/are used as a private enforcer army for US corporate barons.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 at 01:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (4.00 / 2)

Where's South America in all this? Considering Chavez is talking about cutting the USA off as soon as Monday, depending upon events, and if the Tupi find in Brazil lives up to its hype, they'd certainly factor in, right? (These really are questions, not comments.)

Karen in Austin

Thence comes our true nobility by grace, It was not willed us with our rank and place. Chaucer

by Wife of Bath (bakerswife13@yahoo.com) on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 11:19:05 AM EST

Re: Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. (none / 0)

For some answers to your question--and some more questions (as always, it seems), read my
"Who's afraid of Hugo---" diary.

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/12/1/10948/4747

Useful talking follows experience, the more experience the better. Talking that precedes experience is known as bullshit.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 01:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no kidding! (4.00 / 2)

In a sensible world where the grownups were in charge, governments would come up with a plan to use the last of the oil to help all nations build up their renewable energy infrastructure. We cannot afford to waste another drop of oil, either on useless consumer garbage or on war.

Pacific Tribune

by Keone Michaels on Sat Dec 1st, 2007 at 12:01:12 PM EST

Oil allocation Authority-- ours, of course. | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]