Re: Hummers

["lvnadal" <lvnadal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "viveka" <kaliyuga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Hummers


control of
> this arena was beginning to shift in favor of Russia, China and France,
> especially given the instability of the Saudi regime?
_________________________

I would disagree with the argument that control of this area was beginning
to shift to Russian, China, and France.  Russia's GDP is barely 60% of its
pre 1994 level.  It's internal economic disorder fundamentally hampers its
influence anywhere in the world.

China is the mother of all bubbles, with its economic reconfiguration laying
waste to agriculture, unemployment at unbelievable levels, dismantling of
medical care and social welfare programs, and the political scene wracked
with dissent, and particularly, left-wing working class dissent.

China also has more non-performing debt on its bank ledgers than Japan.

France? Germany? Hardly  competitors of the US in this area.  And the
reaction of the French and German business communities tells us all we need
to know about their willingness to engage the US in conflict.
_________________________________________
>
> 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?
____________________________________________

The US would wait not to 29 years, but 29 years 364 days and 23h 59 m to
act.  Capital does not look that far ahead.  The rate of profit does not
allow it to.  When Marx talks about the anarchy of the world markets, of the
capitalist mode of production, I think this is exactly what he means.
____________________________________________


>
> 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?
__________________________________________

We will have to see how long.  But in 1949, the cost of production was less
than $3 a barrel, so we've had 50 years so far, with the price dipping below
$2.20 in 1998. Cost of production in the "high difficult" area of the North
Sea is below $3 and $4 a barrel.

The trend has been downward for costs of production.
__________________________________________

 > 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).
__________________________________________

As I stated, I do not view this work as authoritative.  The work of the
followers of Hubbert is not considered authoritative in the industry.  The
predictions have failed to materialize; the analysis abstracts production
from the basic input for production, profit;  capital does not organize
itself as their work suggests.

I do not dismiss that type of analysis.  I propose that it is mistaken and
does not adequately apprehend the forces at work in the industry, which is
the capitalist production of oil for profit. We must never forget, the oil
industry has no interest in producing oil.  It's only interest is in making
money.