<div>Mike B:<BR><BR> <BR><BR>Indeed. The bi-partisan policy on keeping control of the second <BR>largest oil patch in the world will emerge when the Democrats take control of the<BR>Congress and Senate.<BR><BR> <BR><BR> <BR><BR>[WS:] Why do you assume that things happen because someone powerful <BR>will them that way?</div> <div> </div> <div>MB: Class interest. I think that there has been an historical consensus among U.S. capitalists, expressed through their political executive committee that control of oil is of strategic importance.</div> <div> </div> <div>WS:</div> <div>That does not seem like a very realistic model of real <BR>life behavior. A more realistic model is the sinking of the Titanic or the <BR>royal flagship Vasa <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regalskeppet_Vasa" target=_blank><FONT color=#003399>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regalskeppet_Vasa</FONT></A> - because <BR>of the mixture of incompetence, inertia, lack of
foresight, inability to <BR>change the set course, fear of sticking out, cover-your-ass mentality,<BR>narrow-minded self-interests and the like. The Vasa sunk on her maiden<BR>voyage after sailing only about a mile not because someone willed that <BR>to happen, but because a lot of people involved in her construction minded<BR>their own business, did not want to upset their bosses, and ignored the<BR>reality checks - it was much easier to simply go with the program than <BR>to rock the boat, literally and figuratively. The same holds for most <BR>large organizations, including the US government.</div> <div> </div> <div>MB: I agree that there is a lot of incompetence (e.g. dealing with global warming), inertia (solidifies my point above) and so on....</div> <div> </div> <div>WS: I think a better behavioral model is one based on two principles: <BR>window of opportunity and path dependence, or inertia. Under ordinary <BR>circumstances
things follow the already established path without any radical changes <BR>in the course, because this is the easiest and least costly/risky way for <BR>the people who run the show. A radical change in that path occurs only <BR>when a window of opportunity opens and a right set of forces are in place - <BR>like the Bush presidency and the 9/11.</div> <div> </div> <div>MB: I agree with these points as far as they go. </div> <div> </div> <div>WS: The Bushies invaded Iraq mainly because they could - they thought it <BR>was easy, they could sway the public to go along, they and their various <BR>cronies and supporters would personally benefit from it, and they expected the <BR>whole thing to be over in a matter of few months - a quick, easy and popular <BR>war with high payoffs and relatively low cost. They were proven wrong, but <BR>once their set that course, changing it is very difficult. This is probably <BR>the most tragic and ironic
aspect of Bush presidency - Bush and his cronies <BR>may be gone in the next two years, but the policies they set in motion will <BR>be willy-nilly followed by the subsequent administrations for the next 50 <BR>or so years, until they run aground or another window of opportunity opens.</div> <div> </div> <div>MB: I agree that they invaded because they could sell the idea to the bourgeois democratic body politic more easily after 9/11 and because amongst them were a faction of ruling class politicos who thought *their* world would be better off without a secularist, Arab nationalist dictator in charge of Iraq. But very importantly, there was control of a major spigot in the oil supply for which ruling class consensus was already in historical motion--inertia.</div> <div> </div> <div>Best,</div> <div>Mike B)<BR><BR> <BR></div> <div> </div><BR><BR>Watch the communist
manifestoon!<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1oGIffyVVk<p> 
<hr size=1>Everyone is raving about the <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42297/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta"> all-new Yahoo! Mail.</a>