Re: Hummers

["viveka" <kaliyuga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ivnadal wrote:
> Reply to comrades Stan and Jon:
>
>  Now to say the supply of oil is finite is to say a truism.  To say we are
> going to run out tomorrow and repeat tomorrow for the next  10,20,50 years
> is a little bit like predicting the collapse of the stock market tomorrow
> and then repeating the prediction for 10,20,50 years-- that is to say the
> parameters are expanded to the point where they lack meaning, define
> nothing, except the waste of time.

At the risk of going back over territory that was somewhat exhausted (though
clearly not resolved) a couple of months ago, and without the benefit of
Mark's input currently, I would point out the following, and forgive me if I
oversimplify and don't use a proper marxist analysis.  Would anyone disagree
that the most plentiful and cheapest oil to extract is in the Middle East?
Certainly not.  Would anyone disagree that this oil (plentiful and cheap as
it is currently) is critical to a capitalist economy and that control of
this arena was beginning to shift in favor of Russia, China and France,
especially given the instability of the Saudi regime?

Bush initially said this "war against terror" would take 50 years!  How many
years will it really take to reconfigure the Middle East to the liking of
U.S. interests.  If, with increased use, the oil supply may only last 30 or
50 years, does the U.S. government wait until year 29, or do they strike
when they have the optimum opportunity?

While I'm not in a position to dispute your figures that the costs of
extraction in the North Sea has been substantially reduced, does that mean
that it's now only $2 or $3 dollars a barrel?  And for how long?
>
> I am sympathetic to the arguments that state the war is about oil, but I
> think those arguments, are incomplete, and wrong, unless we explore the
> production of oil as a commodity, and the rate of return on investment in
> oil.
>
> I most definitely do not think the war is about scarcity.  Nor do I think
> the war is about securing "cheap oil."  There was an interesting quote in
> Forbes magazine from an article about oil in which some "expert" stated:
> "The only thing keeping Iraq production from exceeding three million
barrels
> a day is the  US Navy."

And wouldn't this make sense?  Why would they want Iraq to expand production
and sell 90% of it to other interested parties, when, with one simple war,
the U.S. gets it all!

>Perle, et al.  go to Clinton
> and demand the reshaping of the Mideast, the elimination of Hussein,  the
US
> increases the rate and intensity of attacks on Iraq,  OPEC #3 hits in
1999,
> and the US, always looking for a place to dispose of old machinery, used
> cars, depreciated capital, depleted uranium, and expired on the shelf-life
> weaponry, attacks Yugoslavia, making the world safe once again for the
> heroin connection through Albania.  Money, oil, and heroin, the basic food
> groups of the capitalist diet.

Well, no one said there wouldn't be some side benefits.

While I can't speak for Mark, I can say that his background and research
into this arena is authoritative.  His conclusions, if correct, are profound
and far reaching and should not be dismissed because they are not a proper
marxist analysis (whatever that really means).  The problem, of course, is
that to turn this machine system that we live under in a different
direction - away from a petroleum based economy - may take 50 years or more.
In the meantime, we can be guaranteed the promise our dear president made
for 50 years of continued warfare.

Margaret