Article

2007-12-28 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-12-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top
File under: Global Jihad

#1 A world of insecure and suspicious great powers engaged in military competition over vital interests would not be a safe or happy place.

Ya, unlike the wonderful World---where Russia and China doing everyng they can to sabotage US in ME---we enjoy now.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2007-12-28 06:06|| 2007-12-28 06:06|| Front Page Top

#2 When we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan we blocked the Russians from selling there oil cheaply to the Euro's, this is why Putin,France, and Germany are pissed at us. They can only sell to us and buy our high priced crude. Why do you think we sent paratroopers into the north for control of the Russian pipeline and the Brits got basra to protect BP's interest at that port. BP=Standard Oil US company 1 the rest of the world 0. I like it that way. Our nation was once on a Gold Stanard now an oil standard, next is Nuke standard. We have a lockdown on the oil, now we need to control the Nuke standard.

Posted by Ho Chi Theresh4727 2007-12-28 10:44|| 2007-12-28 10:44|| Front Page Top

#3 Anyone who is "relatively sophisticated" who still cannot figure things out suffers from the widespread problems of inability to reason and economic illiteracy. That oil is a global commodity that is key to all industrial economies is enough for anyone who can in fact reason to understand its importance.

I can think of no other issue (there must be some - just haven't struck me) like this one, however, in that the conventional public wisdom, from Dubya on down to academic twits and ordinary non-political citizens, is fundamentally illiterate: that we should seek "energy independence", or that such a thing has any real meaning. This made no sense whatsoever (economically, technically, or strategically) before 9/11 - after those attacks, it is simply astonishing that anyone can continue to think that it's a question of physical commodity access, in a globalized economy with proliferation of weapons technologies. It's about power, and security, and prosperity, and the laws of economics apply to energy as to anything else.

No feasible transition in energy technologies will change the importance of oil to economic security (including our own) for a very long time, no imaginable changes or policies will make our security less dependent on engagement with the outside world.

No conceivable marginal change in oil consumption patterns and prices will produce an effect on producing countries sufficient to "de-fund" their efforts, conventional or otherwise, to oppose and hurt us - Friedman's illiterate ravings notwithstanding.

I've not the slightest concern that in fact the US will actually adopt any pointless and wasteful policies in this regard, as people's economic common sense puts a speed bump in the way (same as with the global climate scam).

We could impose a net reduction in economic welfare on ourselves by somehow reducing use of the best commodity (oil) other than through market pricing. This sacrifice of wealth-creation would accomplish precisely nothing WRT all the other issues - security, terrorism, global competitiveness, involvement in the MidEast - as the rest of the world continues on the whole to act rationally (using oil as it is currently used) or perversely (using the undiminished proceeds from oil to fund terrorism, anti-US actions in Iraq/Afghanistan/Africa/etc., wahhabi madrassahs).

The percentage of our oil imports from the Gulf could triple, or drop to nothing, and there would be no effect on these calculations. If one doesn't see that, then one doesn't even understand the issues under consideration.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-12-28 12:05|| 2007-12-28 12:05|| Front Page Top

#4 Bravo, Verlaine. Well-written!

Even if we (the U.S.) built several hundred nuclear reactors in the next twenty years, we'd make only a marginal dent in our need for oil. Sure, we'd have plenty of electricity, but that's a smaller part of the energy need here. We need oil for the vehicles and for industry; coal and nuclear power simply won't do. And 'alternative' energy so far is a pipe-dream and a scam (though a profitable one, ask Archer-Daniels Midland).

Oil is fungible. It's a commodity. The profits go to those who pump it cheap and sell it large. And the only way to reduce the money flowing to the Middle East is to discover enough oil elsewhere, oil that can be pumped cheap and sold in millions of barrels a day, to make a difference. That (very likely) isn't happening (don't talk about oil shales).

So we're stuck. We're stuck on oil. Question is, are we also stuck on stupid?

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-12-28 13:13|| 2007-12-28 13:13|| Front Page Top

#5 Steve and Verlaine are basically correct.

The only way to do without oil in its current quantity is be replacing it with technologies (vehicular in particular) that don't need oil but accomplish the same thing.

Just like coal replaced wood 200 years or more ago electricity will replace oil. BUT, while nuclear and coal can replace the generation of electicity it is not portable like oil so your car can't run on it efficiently.

When the electric vehicle (or hydrogen which is a whole nother topic) infrastructure can match or exceed the oil based infrastructure, then we'll be on to something as demand for oil and its importance will wane. Till then, no and then ain't too soon.

Posted by AlanC 2007-12-28 13:38|| 2007-12-28 13:38|| Front Page Top

#6 But we aren't really in the Gulf for our own need for oil, if currently only 35% of what we use comes from imports, and only 17% of that from the Gulf. (According to my daughter's calculator, that makes 6% coming from the Persian Gulf). Yes, oil is a fungible commodity, but surely that makes U.S. dependence less rather than more, as we buy from abroad when it's cheaper, and use more of our own when more expensive. And certainly we can't force the other major consumers, whose major suppliers are in the Gulf, to stop sending their money there... after all, some are the countries that haven't even tried to meet the Kyoto CO2 reduction commitments they've been so enthusiastic about, and the others are rapidly growing economies.

The new battery technologies will likely cut significantly into whatever percent of our oil consumption used for transport and travel, and likely that of the other First World countries... but not that of China and India, until their economies mature to the point where they can afford the upcharge for such fripperies.

This piece was printed yesterday on page A-11 of the Wall Street Journal, not exactly the reading material of the financially naive. Why do you suppose the writer decided to so address that particular audience, and why do you suppose the WSJ editors chose to publish it?

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2007-12-28 18:36|| 2007-12-28 18:36|| Front Page Top

23:50 Barbara Skolaut
23:34 Frank G
23:34 3dc
23:31 rjschwarz
23:28 3dc
23:24 3dc
23:07 Broadhead6
23:01 Broadhead6
22:56 trailing wife
22:49 GK
22:44 Redneck Jim
22:40 Redneck Jim
22:38 Grunter
22:35 newc
22:34 twobyfour
22:28 newc
22:15 Vinegar Phans8565
22:14 Seafarious
22:11 Old Patriot
22:09 Chuck Simmins
22:01 Barbara Skolaut
21:51 Redneck Jim
21:50 3dc
21:38 trailing wife