Re: An Economic Question

[Colin Danby <danby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Clifford,

I'll just run through the obvious logical points. I find Henry's
approach more fruitful because it's less reductionist.

> Yet maintenance of hegemony
> requires a secure economic base, which in an industrialized,
> fossil fuel based economy,

Can we unpack "based"? Does "based" just mean that fossil fuels are the
energy source for all those cars and trucks and furnaces and so forth?

> means secure access to oil.

As Paul D. sometimes reminds us, there's a lot of oil out there. I'm not
a specialist but there are surely many different foreign producers.

> I believe one must ask on what
> terms does the U.S. feel it needs secure access to oil.

This seems to assume that oil "access" is a large constraint and
headache. What's the evidence?

> There are of course other options for the U.S. to
> maintain hegemony-including a policy that
> gradually begins to wean the U.S. away from
> fossil fuel dependence. What has
> happened that determines a hegemonic strategy
> premised on the need to
> maintain access to cheap fossil fuel?

This is question-begging, since it hasn't been established that U.S.
strategy *is* so premised. One could assert any number of plausible
"needs" of the US of A (e.g. stopping global warming!), but it doesn't
logically follow that U.S. policy flows from them. I would not
necessarily assume that the Bush administration is deeply rational or
far-sighted.

So you have two logical gaps: (a) establishing that the need is pressing
and (b) establishing that the Bush administration acts on said need.

> Some have suggested that a quick U.S. victory in Iraq
> could lead to access to oil at under $20 a barrel for the
> long term.

Surely "some have suggested" signals a flimsy premise!  On the contrary,
I can think of no surer way to raise oil prices for quite a while than a
massive Middle East war.  The mind reels.  Iraq's government is
*anxious* to sell oil.  *If* U.S. policy were premised on getting oil,
the Bush administration would simply conciliate Iraq, which would not be
hard.

What essential natural resources did Vietnam hold?  Did the Reagan
administration attack Grenada for its nutmeg?  Was the Bay of Pigs
invasion intended to seize vital canefields?

Best, Colin

____________________________________________
Colin Danby
Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences
University of Washington, Bothell
(425) 352-5285
fax (425) 352-5335
danby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bothell.washington.edu/IAS/danby/
____________________________________________