Yeah, goes to show the "No blood for oil" theme really didn't make much sense. It was just a carry over from Iraq I, which most certainly was about oil.
The unitary "we" — with its implicit assumption that the interests of the country and those of the petrochemcial conglomerates are indistinguishable — is refreshingly naive.
The War in Iraq turned out to be a terrible mistake and no doubt the oil was some kind of big tangential issue. However, the war most certainly was not chiefly about oil but the desire to spread Democracy at the point of a gun. That's how Bush's Straussian advisors saw it. And though Bush isn't a Straussian I genuinely believe he genuinely believes liberal democratic rights are God ordained; thus his fanaticism/idealism. I've read Strauss and have blogged quite a bit about the tension (of which the Straussians are aware) between traditional Christianity (the kind Bush believes in) and liberal democratic theory (ala the theology of the Declaration of Independence).
One point I've taken from Straussians like Allan Bloom (Paul Wolfowitz's mentor) is that average folks or the "gentlemen" leaders like Bush probably aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate the tension between Christianity and liberal democratic theory; so just sell them a "synthesis" -- convince them their Christian God grants liberal democratic rights. Something similar occurred during the US and French Foundings.
Mike: yeah, exactly... all those "no blood for oil" hippies must really feel like jerkoffs now that there's only LESS oil.
Of course, this makes me want to ask a really politically incorrect question (which of course I will now proceed to do). How many dead US soldiers would it be worth to wake up tomorrow and have gasoline back to a dollar per gallon? It would certainly be worth ONE, so don't say "nothing is worth the cost of a brave american life." That's just emotion talking, and it's demonstrably false. So far about 4,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq. How many dead, brave US soldiers would it be worth for each dollar less per gallon at the pump? What about dead Iraqis? I say 1,500 US soldiers -$/G, and 15,000 Iraqis -$/G. Yes, that means 1 American life is worth 10 Iraqi lives. Oh well.
My numbers might be skewed because I really love my gasoline. I like to drive my Hummer around town as I throw pennies at homeless people. Fun and humanitarian.
Bruce M.: "How many dead US soldiers would it be worth to wake up tomorrow and have gasoline back to a dollar per gallon?"
As always, the Left's fondness for Necromancery and Human Sacrifice is really quite *Liberal*. But Bruce M.'s post does point to the fact that whenever the "anti war" crowd makes an outlandish accusation it really is more about them and what *they* are inclined to do then it is about those whom they accuse. :P
Here's a simple thing to keep in mind; if anyone on the Left had ever truly believed that the War was both wrong and about oil then they would have asked for the Alaskan Reserve to be opened. Indeed, if they truly believed both things they would have gotten down upon their hands and knees and *begged* that the Alaskan Oil Reserve be opened.
But they didn't. :P
If the Left had ever believed that the war was not about oil then they would not have opposed the importation of oil from Canada.
But they did.
If the Left had believed the War Against Terror was about oil then they would not have opposed the use of tar sands. Nor would they have opposed offshore drilling. Nor would they have opposed the building of oil refineries and nuclear reactors.
But these were all things the Democrats have chosen to do all the same!
So clearly they do not believe the War Against Terror is about oil. They merely seek a distraction from the fact that they are both Luddites and hypoocrites. Sucks to be them. ^_~
What not blood for oil? If you don't want to shed blood for oil than explore for it. Drill offshore. Drill ANWAR. Better yet, convert coal to liquid fuel. If you don't want to do any of those things then live with the consequences which will not be pleasant.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Yeah, that's a pretty new-fangled idea, that "liberal democratic rights are God ordained." Wonder where Bush got that from?
Towering barbarian: I am neither left nor right. I'm a Goldwater liberal. The right is the group obsessed with death. I'm just posing a question, one begged by the phrase "blood for oil" - how much blood? A grim, but perfectly legitimate question.
Your analysis assumes that people on the left want us to have and use oil. I don't think that's a good assumption. If it were up to a lot of them, oil would be banned.
I think its time to take over Saudi Arabia and keep their oil as compensation for the terrorist they've supported over the years, support for the terrorists in Iraq, for 9/11, for their abuse of women and non-muslums.
Snarky: yeah yeh yeaaah... get it out of your system. What about all the US soldiers who were forced in to signing up for the military, hate it, have bad attitudes and don't do a good job? Why are their lives worth a premium?
If you would not passively sacrifice (allow to be sacrificed) one soldier's life to bring gasoline back down to one dollar per BARREL (let alone one dollar per gallon), you are either a liar or an insincere moron. Meanwhile, what do you think of Bush, who is causing our soldiers to be sacrificed for absolutely NOTHING - not even one cent off the price of gas. Quite the opposite, the soldiers are dying to make gas more expensive and to make America more hated throughout the world. Talk about dying in vain.
If you would not passively sacrifice (allow to be sacrificed) one soldier's life to bring gasoline back down to one dollar per BARREL (let alone one dollar per gallon), you are either a liar or an insincere moron.
Sky high oil prices are the next best thing to a proper carbon tax for global warming. So I for one wouldn't sacrifice any soldiers to lower them. Who would ever have guessed George W. Bush would do so much to help the environment?
BruceM,
Actually, I deserve a mallet upside the head for reading too quickly and not realizing that you were being mostly ironic. My apologies for that one and for being way too surly in my response. And you're right about the leftists as well. Too many of them really do seem to be trying to revive feudalism with themselves as self-appointed squires.
But to answer your hypothetical question; while a European-style war for resources might be something we would have to engage in were we truly in dire straits, the fact remains that we don't need it and would therefore be foolish to engage in anything of the sort. As I've previously noted, both our resources close to hand and the technological options we have available for the building of a little infrastructure do happily make any such sacrifice unneccesary. (Mind you, I'm now dodging both the question of "But what if we didn't have these options available?" and the question of "And *how* many men do we lose to the occupational hazards of building this infrastructure?" with my response and I realize this. But my inclination is to answer "But we *do* have these options! So let's pursue them." to the first, and "Probably fewer than we would to resource wars!" to the second).
One of my big fears is that the Left will hypnotize themselves enough with their own "blood for oil" jive and scarcity talk that they themselves will make the WOT the resource grab they claim it to be if they ever find themselves in a position to do so. In the end, my feeling is that it is best if we continue to keep the WOT at the level of a war for defense as we did with WWII rather than use it as a pretense to make any grabs.
I guess that got rid of a mass murderer, 1000000 overall, 5000 in a single night does not count.Only the oil price.
By the way the more it get high better.That will induce best use of resources and in the long run it will fall lower than before.By 2010 oil price will be 10 $ a barrel no more.As Yamani said stone age dint finish for lack of stones.
On the issue of blood for oil, my recollection is that Iraq I ran prices up until we got out and things cooled down. Iraq I, again based on recollection, was good for oil companies and producers during the build up and until the U.S. had been out for a while. It seems that as long as this goes on, i.e., Iraq II, prices will be high.
In an odd way, this crazy movement gives me hope that we are looking at another bubble. Even if Americans can (painfully) pay these prices, folks in Africa, South America, India etc can't. I think that will produce a crash sooner or later. It would be sooner if we'd actually try to develop new sources of all kinds of energy - ANWAR, offshore drilling, shale oil, nuke power, ocean power and cleaner coal.
What about all the US soldiers who were forced in to signing up for the military,
The military draft is sure awful.
Hey, wait a minute...
On the other hand, I'm constantly told that (since oil prices are so high) that everyone should walk more (or bicycle, or whatever), completely ignoring the hundreds (if not thousands) who will die from overexertion, undetected health conditions, or crosswalk accidents...
Or let's talk about "life equivalents." 600+ million airline passenger trips per year in the US. Suppose the security procedures since 9/11 only cost each one 5 minutes (ha!). That's three BILLION passenger-minutes completely wasted. 525,600 minutes in a year.
Each year, we throw away about 5700 YEARS of human life. At 70 per, we've wasted 81 human lifetimes. Probably 10+ times that.
(And yes, this is a silly analogy. But it's the same one they use against secondhand smoke...)
Then there's that other, really ugly aspect. It's not worth 4000+ American lives to have cheap oil, or to put in a democracy in Iraq. What's the exchange rate with the lives of people in those countries? A lot of Iraqis have been killed in the war. A lot MORE of them would have been killed, according to human right organizations - or at least, according to what they were saying BEFORE the war. All of those "50,000 Iraqis murdered or killed by poor conditions each year" propaganda pieces lamenting the lack of world action went away, literally overnight, once the US went in.
Human Rights Watch used to have horrifying front-page commentary on their web site about the horrendous things Hussein did. At least, until 2003.
Each of your assertions that begins "If the left..." (or minor variants thereof) contains a logical leap. Moreover, they all rely on the faulty assumption that there's something you can call "the left" that has a single identifiable position on any of those matters.
LM,
Pragmatically? Given that Liberals, Anarchists, National Socialists and Communists are all pretty much the same sort of technophobes on this one, bothering to distinguish between herds of political sheep would pretty much be a waste of time. EcoFreaks are EcoFreaks are EcoFreaks. Therefore, the Left is the Left is the Left. ^_~
Requesting that people calculate a blood for oil ratio is a fool's game. No such easy trade-off exists.
How do you reduce demand so much? Nuke China's and India's rapidly growing urban centers? Or Europe? Those actions should lower global demand substantially. Of course, we risk retaliation. But retailation would more likely extinguish civilian lives rather than military. Where do you live, BruceM?
OK, then, if demand-side management is unworkable, let's crank up supply. We've occupied Iraq at the cost of about 5K US lives, and an unknown number of Iraqi lives. It doesn't seem that ExxonMobil is ready to roll in yet, though. So, ethnically cleanse southern Iraq? Recognize Kurdistan as an independent country?
That should help. Though you might want to balance the benefit of $1 gas against the tax increase needed to pay for the increased Army needed to keep the rabble from blowing up our shiny new pipelines.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Yeah, that's a pretty new-fangled idea, that "liberal democratic rights are God ordained." Wonder where Bush got that from?
I think the objection was to the fact that the Declaration is clearly talking about a female Creator, a divine Goddess, while the post to which you refer is in the masculine. ;-)
On the other hand, I'm constantly told that (since oil prices are so high) that everyone should walk more (or bicycle, or whatever), completely ignoring the hundreds (if not thousands) who will die from overexertion, undetected health conditions, or crosswalk accidents...
Ya know, as someone who has been hit by cars twice but who feels safe in her Volvo (which also gets 31 mpg...), I 'll agree with that sentiment.
Well, in related-to-this-thread comments... I'll be driving back up to New England this week. The trip will cost more than double what it cost my 1L year, even though I've managed to coax my car into getting much, much better mileage.
My next car is going to be powered by hampsters. Even that hybrid thing won't cut it, with gas this expensive.
I think you are probably right that "the Creator" God is female. But so conceding, would you agree that She grants Human Kind an unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness/Property?
Towering barbarian: No prob... "mostly ironic" describes 95% of my postings on here pretty well (in both number and substance).
Requesting that people calculate a blood for oil ratio is a fool's game. No such easy trade-off exists.
I know. I'm just bored, I have a bad flu and am not going anywhere tonight, so I figured it might provide me with some entertainment, whether it be in legitimate answers or insensitivity flaming.
She grants Human Kind an unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness/Property?
Our rights come from each other, when we're acting rationally and treating each other in the manner we'd like to be treated. They don't come from Yahweh, spirits, Xenu, ancestors, Zeus, Jesus, or even Neil Young.
If rights came from a higher power, little smelly mean people wouldn't be able to violate them.
If rights came from a higher power, little smelly mean people wouldn't be able to violate them.
Why not? Free will got you down?
Our rights come from each other, when we're acting rationally and treating each other in the manner we'd like to be treated.
No, not really. That makes our rights entirely alienable and subject to the whim of other people. As a practical matter, yes, one can remove the right to life that is possessed by another person, but that is wrong for a reason that transcends social constructs.
Chicago: A barrel of oil is 52 gallons and produces about 40 to 50 percent gasoline or 20 to 26 gallon of gasoline. How big is your gas tank? Maybe you do.
Our rights come from each other, when we're acting rationally and treating each other in the manner we'd like to be treated.
No, not really. That makes our rights entirely alienable and subject to the whim of other people.
You guys seem to be talking past each other.
An example to further the discussion: when a murder kills a man, has he "alienated" that man's right to life?
Under theobromophile's more normative idea on the fundamental source of rights, probably not. But descriptively speaking, it is hard to see how being dead hasn't affected his rights.
No, not really. That makes our rights entirely alienable and subject to the whim of other people.
Exactly. My rights are only as meaningful as your willingness to not violate them. That's why we should respect our fellow man, and treat others how we want to be treated. If I violate your rights, any complaint that you're violating my rights rings hollow and is equitably estopped.
No oil drilling/refining no cars, no nuclear power, no windmills (would disturb Ted Kennedy's view from Martha's Vinyard), no passenger trains (McCain opposes Amtrak), airlines soon to be bankrupt and the TSA left to search each other.
Those who know more about the economy and debate among themselves the reason for the rise in the price of oil, like many other traded commodities, seem to rarely invoke Iraq. Rather, they discuss inflation, the devaluation of the dollar, the very low fed funds rate, Congress's constant meddling with decisions that drastically affect production, leveling production of oil, and rising demand spurred by emerging nations, yes. All that and more. The war in Iraq, not so much.
But if the theory that the FFR is the key (FFR goes up, commodities crash) is correct, when rates start heading up again, probably sooner rather than later, then relief is in sight.
Then again, maybe the simple answer is that Pres. Obama hands Bernanke his head and appoints another Obama-like prodigy in his place. Prosperity follows. Under that scenario we're in the tall cotton this time next year.
The Federal Funds rate was as low as 1% in May 2004, and the price of oil was about $40 per barrel.
The next president is stuck with Bernanke because the Fed is independent and the president can't fire him. Of course Congress created the beast so it could change the law, but until that happens Bernanke stays. I don't anyone really can account for the recent rapid run up price. It's hard to believe that the fundamentals could change so quickly.
BTW - Think Climax Top for Oil. My prediction ... oil will top at $165 in the next 5 days ... then crash ... hard. Compare USO (an oil ETF) vs CROX (crocs) back in 11/07. The charts look alot alot.
To bad Teddy Roosevelt isn't around today .... we'd be in Saudi and Iran by now pumping oil at a price the benefits all, not just a select few potentates and sheiks.
An example to further the discussion: when a murder[er] kills a man, has he "alienated" that man's right to life?
Absolutely he has. How else would someone's right to life be alienated?
Based on notions of fairness, the "golden rule," and basic economics, each society determines for itself which rights people should have and which rights they should give up. Many rights, such as the right to life (or "the right not to be murdered") and the right to murder at will, are mutually exclusive, so societies are forced to make a choice. A society that chooses to respect the right to murder over the right not to be murdered will collapse in a pool of blood.
And we don't need a higher power to figure that out.
mike123: A lot of things would be better if TR were around today.
A lot of things would be better if TR were around today.
But TR allowed Wilson to win by splitting the Republicans and WIlson caused a bad end to WWI and that caused the rise of Hitler that allowed the rise of the Soviet Union...
Today, anyone can buy all the gas they want. Therefore, the reason for the skyrocketing price of oil is due to the market being manipulated, primarily by the governments of OPEC countries.
Anyone who believes that Arab and other OPEC countries don't buy and sell futures contracts ahead of the market based on insider information, or that Congress isn't bought and paid for by the same OPEC countries, is as naive as a child.
Congress could easily end the speculation that is driving prices through the roof [recall House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's promise in 2006 to bring down the price of oil; Congress has still taken no action to end the speculation in oil futures]. Remember the Hunt brothers' running up the price of silver in the '70's, from under $5 an ounce to over $50? That was stopped practically overnight. Since there is no shortage of oil, the current price run-up is due to speculation.
Congress could easily require that futures contracts must require oil to be available for delivery, rather than being simply a paper transaction; there are other ways to stop futures speculation. It can easily be done -- if Congress wants to stop the price gouging. But clearly, they don't. That indicates that Congress is getting something out of the current situation.
Remember the 2 - 4 hour long gas lines in the 1970's? And gasoline rationing that limited drivers to only 5 gallons at a time? And gas stations putting up "Out Of Gas" signs when the line of cars still stretched around the block? And being able to buy gas only on even or odd days of the week, depending on your car's license number? Those things indicated a shortage. Now, there is no shortage of oil. Supply and demand are in balance.
Consumers are being gouged by speculators, the biggest of which are governments of OPEC countries. And Congress sits idle, doing nothing, while getting quietly rich at the expense of the American people.
If OPEC is so good at manipulating prices why did they let the price of oil collapse in 1985? Bear in mind that once the price collapsed it stayed stayed collapsed for over fifteen years.
I think the data point above provides pretty strong evidence that OPEC's vaunted ability to control the price of oil is mostly mythical.
I think the oil market is frothy and I think it is related to things like investors looking for a more profitable home for their money and hedge funds activity.
However, there is also abundant geopolitical risk factors in the petroleum markets right now. Most of the major oil producing regions (Nigeria, Russia, Middle East, Mexico, Venezuela, etc) have substantial political risk to current and future production levels.
Are you seriously claiming that OPEC governments do not play the futures markets, and that they refrain from making huge amounts of money based on their exclusive insider information?
In fact, significantly more money can be made by knowing the day-to-day movements of the oil price than can be made by even large moves in the price of oil, due to the enormous leverage involved in futures contracts. I know; I've played the futures markets plenty. Think of it this way: if you buy a house with a 10% down payment, and the house appreciates by 10%, you have made 100% on your invested money. And the futures markets offer much greater leverage than that. Also, the percentage change between $15 and $16 oil is much greater than the percentage change between $125 and $130.
Do you seriously believe that OPEC governments, knowing, for instance, that they are going to announce on Monday the release of 300,000 bpd more oil onto the world market [as Saudia Arabia suddenly announced two weeks ago], would not take advantage of that insider knowledge?? Even a $1 change in the price of oil translates into literally $billions for those on the right side of the oil futures market. That certainly trumps a $1 change in the price of a barrel of oil. Advance knowledge of price changes is much more lucrative, and it does not matter at all if the price of oil is high or low.
To believe that Arab and other governments do not employ the best futures traders in the world is simply wishful thinking. The Arabs are our friends, right? They wouldn't stick it to American consumers. Sure.
I'm not trying to argue, I'm just pointing out what's actually happening. You can see the massive increase in money going into oil price speculation here. Do you think that Arab money is not a big part of that?
I'm sure there is some OPEC money in the futures market. Again, I have to ask the same question, if OPEC activities on the futures market have a major impact on pricing why did crude oil prices stay collapsed for so long?
Your comments on the futures market leverage are correct. Don't forget that the leverage moves both ways and if you are on the wrong side of a trade the margin calls will provide you with a tremendous haircut.
There is also a lot of hedge and pension fund money moving into the futures market.
Crude oil may reach a record $130 a barrel this year because pension funds are investing more in commodities, said Pierre Andurand, the chief investment officer of BlueGold Capital Management LLP, a hedge fund.
I don't know what is going to happen with the price of oil, and the crystal ball has been put up since I never thought crude would bust $100 / BBL.
I do try and keep in mind that speculative bubbles seem like they are never going to end right up to the point where the market collapse.
There is also a massive increase in prices of and investments in futures markets for ag commodities and metals.
This is a data point that supports the idea that broad based market conditions / psychology is driving commodity prices, not manipulation of particular indexes.
The Arab countries are major stockholders in Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and others. During this credit crisis, our government was "encouraging" the Arabs to invest more in US based trading houses. They own the futures market by extension.
I'm hopeful for a climax top. If it doesn't come, then Bush has to understand that this is the economic front of the war on terror and start to do something.
Again, I have to ask the same question, if OPEC activities on the futures market have a major impact on pricing why did crude oil prices stay collapsed for so long?
I'm not trying to argue a point, but maybe I didn't make it clear in my earlier comment.
Much more money can be made in the futures market by having insider knowledge. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is able to substantially increase its oil production. But there is no real need to do so, since world supply and demand are currently in balance. But by simply announcing, without warning, that they were increasing their output by 300,000 bpd, they caused the price of oil to slide a few dollars per barrel.
In a bubble, call contracts [betting the price will rise] are expensive. Put contracts [the other side of the deal, betting that prices will decline] are very cheap [there is much more involved; strike prices, expiration dates, etc.] But any good futures trader, knowing in advance that Saudia Arabia will unexpectedly make their surprise announcement, can take really enormous amounts of money out of the markets for their clients. When that happens, the cheap puts become very expensive. Therefore, it doesn't matter nearly as much what the current oil price is, compared to being able to predict whether the market will go up or down a buck, due to the next announcement. Only the Saudis have that inside info, and they make very lucrative use of it.
So you see, the price of a barrel of oil, low or high, pales into insignificance compared with the money to be made in oil futures, with insider knowledge, which Saudia Arabia has -- and which no other country, even OPEC countries -- possess, because S.A. is the only country that can substantially and credibly increase current production.
Finally, I agree that commodities have had a run-up concurrent with oil prices. But at least part of that run-up -- a large part -- is due to the fact that oil is essential to agricultural production; it requires burning 7/10ths of a gallon of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol.
LM:
Good news! Today I found myself thinking about investing a few bucks in oil. That's a nearly infallible bellwether of a bubble about to pop.
I think you may be on to something. I've been getting similar impulses [not that I would act on them now; I've learned my lessons in the past about being able to predict markets].
"I think its time to take over Saudi Arabia and keep their oil as compensation for the terrorist they've supported over the years, support for the terrorists in Iraq, for 9/11, for their abuse of women and non-muslums."
Or, just go take the oil because they were charging more than it costs to take it.
While I personally lament the rising price of oil, it will take even higher oil prices to affect changes in the market--but clearly the market is already responding with production of gas guzzlers being curtailed.
To suggest the price of oil is somehow being manipulated by "dark forces" requires us to overlook the role of several important factors including (1) demand because of nearly a billion Indian and Chinese consumers coming on line, shifting the demand curve up and to the right; (2) supply because of the lack of refining capacity in the US, and (3) geostrategic factors such as instability in Nigeria and other major oil producing nations, etc etc.
We, or at least libertarians, should be celebrating the rising price of oil as determined primarily by market forces, rather than imposition of government taxes. At some point our US oil shale or methane production or other energy sources capacity will become economically feasible, and petroleum will go the way of the horse and buggy, and when that happens, OPEC--and especially our friends the Saudis--will cease to exist.
The unitary "we" — with its implicit assumption that the interests of the country and those of the petrochemcial conglomerates are indistinguishable — is refreshingly naive.
One point I've taken from Straussians like Allan Bloom (Paul Wolfowitz's mentor) is that average folks or the "gentlemen" leaders like Bush probably aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate the tension between Christianity and liberal democratic theory; so just sell them a "synthesis" -- convince them their Christian God grants liberal democratic rights. Something similar occurred during the US and French Foundings.
Of course, this makes me want to ask a really politically incorrect question (which of course I will now proceed to do). How many dead US soldiers would it be worth to wake up tomorrow and have gasoline back to a dollar per gallon? It would certainly be worth ONE, so don't say "nothing is worth the cost of a brave american life." That's just emotion talking, and it's demonstrably false. So far about 4,000 US troops have been killed in Iraq. How many dead, brave US soldiers would it be worth for each dollar less per gallon at the pump? What about dead Iraqis? I say 1,500 US soldiers -$/G, and 15,000 Iraqis -$/G. Yes, that means 1 American life is worth 10 Iraqi lives. Oh well.
My numbers might be skewed because I really love my gasoline. I like to drive my Hummer around town as I throw pennies at homeless people. Fun and humanitarian.
As always, the Left's fondness for Necromancery and Human Sacrifice is really quite *Liberal*. But Bruce M.'s post does point to the fact that whenever the "anti war" crowd makes an outlandish accusation it really is more about them and what *they* are inclined to do then it is about those whom they accuse. :P
Here's a simple thing to keep in mind; if anyone on the Left had ever truly believed that the War was both wrong and about oil then they would have asked for the Alaskan Reserve to be opened. Indeed, if they truly believed both things they would have gotten down upon their hands and knees and *begged* that the Alaskan Oil Reserve be opened.
But they didn't. :P
If the Left had ever believed that the war was not about oil then they would not have opposed the importation of oil from Canada.
But they did.
If the Left had believed the War Against Terror was about oil then they would not have opposed the use of tar sands. Nor would they have opposed offshore drilling. Nor would they have opposed the building of oil refineries and nuclear reactors.
But these were all things the Democrats have chosen to do all the same!
So clearly they do not believe the War Against Terror is about oil. They merely seek a distraction from the fact that they are both Luddites and hypoocrites. Sucks to be them. ^_~
????? It's in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE!
Yeah, that's a pretty new-fangled idea, that "liberal democratic rights are God ordained." Wonder where Bush got that from?
Your analysis assumes that people on the left want us to have and use oil. I don't think that's a good assumption. If it were up to a lot of them, oil would be banned.
I would not sacrifice even one soldier's life to bring gasoline back down to $1 a barrel. I would, however, volunteer your life for that purpose.
If you would not passively sacrifice (allow to be sacrificed) one soldier's life to bring gasoline back down to one dollar per BARREL (let alone one dollar per gallon), you are either a liar or an insincere moron. Meanwhile, what do you think of Bush, who is causing our soldiers to be sacrificed for absolutely NOTHING - not even one cent off the price of gas. Quite the opposite, the soldiers are dying to make gas more expensive and to make America more hated throughout the world. Talk about dying in vain.
... or as our Virginian brethren might say, "oyer veyer."
Sky high oil prices are the next best thing to a proper carbon tax for global warming. So I for one wouldn't sacrifice any soldiers to lower them. Who would ever have guessed George W. Bush would do so much to help the environment?
I'm not sure what Prof. Kerr expected when he opened the comments to this post, but the train wreck seems to be forming quickly.
Actually, I deserve a mallet upside the head for reading too quickly and not realizing that you were being mostly ironic. My apologies for that one and for being way too surly in my response. And you're right about the leftists as well. Too many of them really do seem to be trying to revive feudalism with themselves as self-appointed squires.
But to answer your hypothetical question; while a European-style war for resources might be something we would have to engage in were we truly in dire straits, the fact remains that we don't need it and would therefore be foolish to engage in anything of the sort. As I've previously noted, both our resources close to hand and the technological options we have available for the building of a little infrastructure do happily make any such sacrifice unneccesary. (Mind you, I'm now dodging both the question of "But what if we didn't have these options available?" and the question of "And *how* many men do we lose to the occupational hazards of building this infrastructure?" with my response and I realize this. But my inclination is to answer "But we *do* have these options! So let's pursue them." to the first, and "Probably fewer than we would to resource wars!" to the second).
One of my big fears is that the Left will hypnotize themselves enough with their own "blood for oil" jive and scarcity talk that they themselves will make the WOT the resource grab they claim it to be if they ever find themselves in a position to do so. In the end, my feeling is that it is best if we continue to keep the WOT at the level of a war for defense as we did with WWII rather than use it as a pretense to make any grabs.
By the way the more it get high better.That will induce best use of resources and in the long run it will fall lower than before.By 2010 oil price will be 10 $ a barrel no more.As Yamani said stone age dint finish for lack of stones.
im from a 3rd world country and my mother language is not english
The military draft is sure awful.
Hey, wait a minute...
On the other hand, I'm constantly told that (since oil prices are so high) that everyone should walk more (or bicycle, or whatever), completely ignoring the hundreds (if not thousands) who will die from overexertion, undetected health conditions, or crosswalk accidents...
Or let's talk about "life equivalents." 600+ million airline passenger trips per year in the US. Suppose the security procedures since 9/11 only cost each one 5 minutes (ha!). That's three BILLION passenger-minutes completely wasted. 525,600 minutes in a year.
Each year, we throw away about 5700 YEARS of human life. At 70 per, we've wasted 81 human lifetimes. Probably 10+ times that.
(And yes, this is a silly analogy. But it's the same one they use against secondhand smoke...)
Then there's that other, really ugly aspect. It's not worth 4000+ American lives to have cheap oil, or to put in a democracy in Iraq. What's the exchange rate with the lives of people in those countries? A lot of Iraqis have been killed in the war. A lot MORE of them would have been killed, according to human right organizations - or at least, according to what they were saying BEFORE the war. All of those "50,000 Iraqis murdered or killed by poor conditions each year" propaganda pieces lamenting the lack of world action went away, literally overnight, once the US went in.
Human Rights Watch used to have horrifying front-page commentary on their web site about the horrendous things Hussein did. At least, until 2003.
I wonder what changed?
Each of your assertions that begins "If the left..." (or minor variants thereof) contains a logical leap. Moreover, they all rely on the faulty assumption that there's something you can call "the left" that has a single identifiable position on any of those matters.
Pragmatically? Given that Liberals, Anarchists, National Socialists and Communists are all pretty much the same sort of technophobes on this one, bothering to distinguish between herds of political sheep would pretty much be a waste of time. EcoFreaks are EcoFreaks are EcoFreaks. Therefore, the Left is the Left is the Left. ^_~
How do you reduce demand so much? Nuke China's and India's rapidly growing urban centers? Or Europe? Those actions should lower global demand substantially. Of course, we risk retaliation. But retailation would more likely extinguish civilian lives rather than military. Where do you live, BruceM?
OK, then, if demand-side management is unworkable, let's crank up supply. We've occupied Iraq at the cost of about 5K US lives, and an unknown number of Iraqi lives. It doesn't seem that ExxonMobil is ready to roll in yet, though. So, ethnically cleanse southern Iraq? Recognize Kurdistan as an independent country?
That should help. Though you might want to balance the benefit of $1 gas against the tax increase needed to pay for the increased Army needed to keep the rabble from blowing up our shiny new pipelines.
I think the objection was to the fact that the Declaration is clearly talking about a female Creator, a divine Goddess, while the post to which you refer is in the masculine. ;-)
Ya know, as someone who has been hit by cars twice but who feels safe in her Volvo (which also gets 31 mpg...), I 'll agree with that sentiment.
My next car is going to be powered by hampsters. Even that hybrid thing won't cut it, with gas this expensive.
If you were to posit a divine Creatoress, yes, I think that She gave us those rights, unconditionally, by virtue of being human.
Requesting that people calculate a blood for oil ratio is a fool's game. No such easy trade-off exists.
I know. I'm just bored, I have a bad flu and am not going anywhere tonight, so I figured it might provide me with some entertainment, whether it be in legitimate answers or insensitivity flaming.
She grants Human Kind an unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness/Property?
Our rights come from each other, when we're acting rationally and treating each other in the manner we'd like to be treated. They don't come from Yahweh, spirits, Xenu, ancestors, Zeus, Jesus, or even Neil Young.
If rights came from a higher power, little smelly mean people wouldn't be able to violate them.
Why not? Free will got you down?
No, not really. That makes our rights entirely alienable and subject to the whim of other people. As a practical matter, yes, one can remove the right to life that is possessed by another person, but that is wrong for a reason that transcends social constructs.
Chicago: A barrel of oil is 52 gallons and produces about 40 to 50 percent gasoline or 20 to 26 gallon of gasoline. How big is your gas tank? Maybe you do.
You guys seem to be talking past each other.
An example to further the discussion: when a murder kills a man, has he "alienated" that man's right to life?
Under theobromophile's more normative idea on the fundamental source of rights, probably not. But descriptively speaking, it is hard to see how being dead hasn't affected his rights.
Exactly. My rights are only as meaningful as your willingness to not violate them. That's why we should respect our fellow man, and treat others how we want to be treated. If I violate your rights, any complaint that you're violating my rights rings hollow and is equitably estopped.
American, Year Zero.
If rights came from a higher power, little smelly mean people wouldn't be able to violate them.
If you were kept in a hamper like those hampsters, you, too, would be little, smelly and mean and go around violating rights.
1 BBL is 42 gallons US.
But if the theory that the FFR is the key (FFR goes up, commodities crash) is correct, when rates start heading up again, probably sooner rather than later, then relief is in sight.
Then again, maybe the simple answer is that Pres. Obama hands Bernanke his head and appoints another Obama-like prodigy in his place. Prosperity follows. Under that scenario we're in the tall cotton this time next year.
The next president is stuck with Bernanke because the Fed is independent and the president can't fire him. Of course Congress created the beast so it could change the law, but until that happens Bernanke stays. I don't anyone really can account for the recent rapid run up price. It's hard to believe that the fundamentals could change so quickly.
To bad Teddy Roosevelt isn't around today .... we'd be in Saudi and Iran by now pumping oil at a price the benefits all, not just a select few potentates and sheiks.
Absolutely he has. How else would someone's right to life be alienated?
Based on notions of fairness, the "golden rule," and basic economics, each society determines for itself which rights people should have and which rights they should give up. Many rights, such as the right to life (or "the right not to be murdered") and the right to murder at will, are mutually exclusive, so societies are forced to make a choice. A society that chooses to respect the right to murder over the right not to be murdered will collapse in a pool of blood.
And we don't need a higher power to figure that out.
mike123: A lot of things would be better if TR were around today.
But TR allowed Wilson to win by splitting the Republicans and WIlson caused a bad end to WWI and that caused the rise of Hitler that allowed the rise of the Soviet Union...
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/36405
Today, anyone can buy all the gas they want. Therefore, the reason for the skyrocketing price of oil is due to the market being manipulated, primarily by the governments of OPEC countries.
Anyone who believes that Arab and other OPEC countries don't buy and sell futures contracts ahead of the market based on insider information, or that Congress isn't bought and paid for by the same OPEC countries, is as naive as a child.
Congress could easily end the speculation that is driving prices through the roof [recall House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's promise in 2006 to bring down the price of oil; Congress has still taken no action to end the speculation in oil futures]. Remember the Hunt brothers' running up the price of silver in the '70's, from under $5 an ounce to over $50? That was stopped practically overnight. Since there is no shortage of oil, the current price run-up is due to speculation.
Congress could easily require that futures contracts must require oil to be available for delivery, rather than being simply a paper transaction; there are other ways to stop futures speculation. It can easily be done -- if Congress wants to stop the price gouging. But clearly, they don't. That indicates that Congress is getting something out of the current situation.
Remember the 2 - 4 hour long gas lines in the 1970's? And gasoline rationing that limited drivers to only 5 gallons at a time? And gas stations putting up "Out Of Gas" signs when the line of cars still stretched around the block? And being able to buy gas only on even or odd days of the week, depending on your car's license number? Those things indicated a shortage. Now, there is no shortage of oil. Supply and demand are in balance.
Consumers are being gouged by speculators, the biggest of which are governments of OPEC countries. And Congress sits idle, doing nothing, while getting quietly rich at the expense of the American people.
If OPEC is so good at manipulating prices why did they let the price of oil collapse in 1985? Bear in mind that once the price collapsed it stayed stayed collapsed for over fifteen years.
I think the data point above provides pretty strong evidence that OPEC's vaunted ability to control the price of oil is mostly mythical.
However, there is also abundant geopolitical risk factors in the petroleum markets right now. Most of the major oil producing regions (Nigeria, Russia, Middle East, Mexico, Venezuela, etc) have substantial political risk to current and future production levels.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34132
Are you seriously claiming that OPEC governments do not play the futures markets, and that they refrain from making huge amounts of money based on their exclusive insider information?
In fact, significantly more money can be made by knowing the day-to-day movements of the oil price than can be made by even large moves in the price of oil, due to the enormous leverage involved in futures contracts. I know; I've played the futures markets plenty. Think of it this way: if you buy a house with a 10% down payment, and the house appreciates by 10%, you have made 100% on your invested money. And the futures markets offer much greater leverage than that. Also, the percentage change between $15 and $16 oil is much greater than the percentage change between $125 and $130.
Do you seriously believe that OPEC governments, knowing, for instance, that they are going to announce on Monday the release of 300,000 bpd more oil onto the world market [as Saudia Arabia suddenly announced two weeks ago], would not take advantage of that insider knowledge?? Even a $1 change in the price of oil translates into literally $billions for those on the right side of the oil futures market. That certainly trumps a $1 change in the price of a barrel of oil. Advance knowledge of price changes is much more lucrative, and it does not matter at all if the price of oil is high or low.
To believe that Arab and other governments do not employ the best futures traders in the world is simply wishful thinking. The Arabs are our friends, right? They wouldn't stick it to American consumers. Sure.
I'm not trying to argue, I'm just pointing out what's actually happening. You can see the massive increase in money going into oil price speculation here. Do you think that Arab money is not a big part of that?
I'm sure there is some OPEC money in the futures market. Again, I have to ask the same question, if OPEC activities on the futures market have a major impact on pricing why did crude oil prices stay collapsed for so long?
Your comments on the futures market leverage are correct. Don't forget that the leverage moves both ways and if you are on the wrong side of a trade the margin calls will provide you with a tremendous haircut.
There is also a lot of hedge and pension fund money moving into the futures market.
Crude Oil May Surge to $130 This Year, BlueGold's Andurand Says
I don't know what is going to happen with the price of oil, and the crystal ball has been put up since I never thought crude would bust $100 / BBL.
I do try and keep in mind that speculative bubbles seem like they are never going to end right up to the point where the market collapse.
What exclusive insider information do these oil producing countries have? Most of them are close to maximum output or producing from declining fields.
What secret information do they possibly have?
And how on earth could they *keep* it secret when they rely mostly on foreigners to actually run the oil systems?
There is also a massive increase in prices of and investments in futures markets for ag commodities and metals.
This is a data point that supports the idea that broad based market conditions / psychology is driving commodity prices, not manipulation of particular indexes.
I'm hopeful for a climax top. If it doesn't come, then Bush has to understand that this is the economic front of the war on terror and start to do something.
Much more money can be made in the futures market by having insider knowledge. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is able to substantially increase its oil production. But there is no real need to do so, since world supply and demand are currently in balance. But by simply announcing, without warning, that they were increasing their output by 300,000 bpd, they caused the price of oil to slide a few dollars per barrel.
In a bubble, call contracts [betting the price will rise] are expensive. Put contracts [the other side of the deal, betting that prices will decline] are very cheap [there is much more involved; strike prices, expiration dates, etc.] But any good futures trader, knowing in advance that Saudia Arabia will unexpectedly make their surprise announcement, can take really enormous amounts of money out of the markets for their clients. When that happens, the cheap puts become very expensive. Therefore, it doesn't matter nearly as much what the current oil price is, compared to being able to predict whether the market will go up or down a buck, due to the next announcement. Only the Saudis have that inside info, and they make very lucrative use of it.
So you see, the price of a barrel of oil, low or high, pales into insignificance compared with the money to be made in oil futures, with insider knowledge, which Saudia Arabia has -- and which no other country, even OPEC countries -- possess, because S.A. is the only country that can substantially and credibly increase current production.
Finally, I agree that commodities have had a run-up concurrent with oil prices. But at least part of that run-up -- a large part -- is due to the fact that oil is essential to agricultural production; it requires burning 7/10ths of a gallon of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol.
LM:I think you may be on to something. I've been getting similar impulses [not that I would act on them now; I've learned my lessons in the past about being able to predict markets].
Or, just go take the oil because they were charging more than it costs to take it.
To suggest the price of oil is somehow being manipulated by "dark forces" requires us to overlook the role of several important factors including (1) demand because of nearly a billion Indian and Chinese consumers coming on line, shifting the demand curve up and to the right; (2) supply because of the lack of refining capacity in the US, and (3) geostrategic factors such as instability in Nigeria and other major oil producing nations, etc etc.
We, or at least libertarians, should be celebrating the rising price of oil as determined primarily by market forces, rather than imposition of government taxes. At some point our US oil shale or methane production or other energy sources capacity will become economically feasible, and petroleum will go the way of the horse and buggy, and when that happens, OPEC--and especially our friends the Saudis--will cease to exist.