Re: flaring off

[dmschanoes <dmschanoes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it is important to separate the issues of petroleum scarcity and
"economic" determinants.

We can argue about both, but the real issue the connection between the two.
I think it is painfully clear that the bourgeoisie are not driven forward or
backward by an anticipated shortage of petroleum.

In a nutshell, the way I would state this is..."IS the war in Iraq all about
oil?"
Absolutely not.  "Is the war in Iraq all about the capitalist production,
and overproduction of oil?"  Absolutely yes.

The difference between the two has important practical significance for
determining a program of revolutionary opposition.

Re Geologists.... there is little agreement among geologists about total
petroleum reserves.  I've said this before, but I always enjoy saying it
again-- in the industry the saying goes:

" The geologists are always smiling because they know they can always find
the oil.  The petroleum engineers are always frowning because they know it's
always too expensive to produce."

Actually, I think that is one of the best restatements of Marx's analysis of
the nature of the commodity, use value and exchange value, I've ever read.

dms



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] flaring off


> I am glad that David responded to my question regarding future trends.  I
happen to
> think that Lou gave the correct analysis of the hydrocarbon future.  I
agree with
> David on the forces leading toward deflation in manufacturing.  The runup
in
> commodity prices, such as steel, may be a short run phenomenon, but water,
> petrochemicals suggest future price increases.