It is refreshing that someone on this list is concerned with some real current problems. The true voice of the proletariat is still alive.
The drop in oil prices is mostly a cyclical effect of the drastic reduction of demand from the Asian financial crisis. There is zero pressure even in the U.S. to raise oil prices at this time, because of the effect its has on keeping inflation low. Even oil companies are not really upset by this condition because, until oil prices drop below $7 per barrel, it is not a big deal because that is the production cost at the North Sea. So at the current $10+/barrel, only the profit margin is reduced and some idiot oil broker in chincago holding high future contracts will get wiped out. But the good news for the oil industry is that it gives a big boost to oil mergers to consolidate markets and reserves and down size employment which in better times the governments would have never approved. Five years from now (or God forbid 10 year?, in which case it is solid proof there is no God), if and when Asia recovers without major revolution, the oil industry will be in the position to command $35 oil in the next cycle, and enjoy the inflated value of their global reserves which they are now buying up at low cost. It also puts the opec countries (mostly arabs) in their places, including the bonus of Indonesia and Russia which are living exclusively on oil exports (not really living, because all of the revenue goes to service foreign debts). With globalization, America, the center, is enjoying the rotting of the outer limbs of the global economy, but it has yet to realize the gangrene kills the whole organism. Iraq is not an oil problem as far as Washington is concerned. In fact, the low oil price works against Saddam in the balck market. Saddam is only currently America's worst enemy. He has not always and will not always be wearing that honor, given the unpredictability to Iran. The reason America fails to kill Saddam is not because of incompetence, but because Saddam may not be the worst alternative. He is just a bad boy. What Washington wants is for Saddam to be our bad boy. Saddam has a major advantage over Clinton, as he did over Bush. Saddam has a focused purpose whereas Clinton, and American policy, is diffused with complex incentives that are contradictory. Unlike the debate on Jameson, oil political economy is no intellectual tea party on Marxist culture. But then, if there is a shift in this direction on the list, ABC news may not be interested in interviewing Doug. (No offense, Doug, you have a right to conduct your life and career as you see fit, and to be fair, you don't dictate the direction the list takes. It is not a criticism, only an observation on how American media works.)
Henry
pms wrote:
> Hey gang, how about a poll?
>
> Who thinks it's possible that the missle strikes in Iraq, and talk of
> Saddamn rejecting the oil=-for-food program,(who starts these rumors?)
> could have to do with the Big Cigars need to bolster oil prices.
>
> Do you think it is:
>
> a. Highly possible
> b. Somewhat possible
> c. Hardly possible
> d. It could never happen
>
> ***************************************
> Thanks for the offer Heartfield. Found Role of Force online. Keep getting
> a return on off-list post to you.