RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Unfolding Universe (discovery channel)

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, "(8?»" wrote:

> Sorry about the links, several were long and ugly, so to
> increase legibility (in a non-Pine world, I know), I stuck them
> in as html.

That's okay; I can try to reconstruct it later.

> Obviously we have a different view of reality (which I won't try
> to claim that either is 'true') You make good points about
> beliefs, ideals and national identity. I differ where causality
> of these traits are concerned.  I see them as a tool used by the
> ruling class to implement control over the population.

I noticed that.  But I don't buy it for a minute.  Not a 
microsecond.  (OK, I do buy that these things can be used as tools 
for control, but I'm pretty sure they exist quite strongly in the 
world and are quite beside the notion of a ruling class.)

> The people in Branson you speak of, were trained to react, and
> I'm sure some only participated out of fear (this is not the
> time to be seen as unpatriotic). This is systemic control.

Actually, I know fear pretty well, and the thing that blew me away
the most was that this was pretty clearly not related to fear.  
(OK, so *I* was a bit rattled by the experience, but that's
different...)

[snip]
 
> The problems you speak of in Iran follow a close parallel to Saudi Arabia. 
> In both cases, US and Britain aided/installed leaders who were friendly to 
> western interests, and oppressed their own people to maintain 'stability'. 
> This included overthrowing Premier Mohammad Mossadeq of Iran in 1953 to 
> reinstall the Shah (originally installed by Britain).
> 
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

I actually do not disagree with you about the fact of how regimes
were installed.  I would point out a very interesting feature about
how many of these nations were founded by western powers: they
tended to lump together peoples who did not consider themselves
fellow contrymen of any place, and split peoples apart who could
well have.  In many cases, these are among the most powerful forces
making the regimes and nations unstable, and much of this
nationalism goes on quite strongly even in the absence of ruling 
classes or centralized control.

[snip]

> The Shah maintained his power through US support, until the resistance was 
> so great that it could not be contained. This is the scenario that Saudi 
> Arabia (really the al-Saud family) is trying to avoid, by backing away from 
> openly supporting the US.

The royal family has been in an untenable situation for quite some
time.  While the country is not quite as vulnerable as (the invented
nation of) Kuwait to hostile attack, at least from Iraq, they are
quite vulnerable, and nobody much would lift a finger to prevent an
invasion or coup *if* it were perceived that the rulers had beliefs
and policies more consistent with those of the people.  It is
considered to be a major scandal and horror that the royals are not 
(or are not perceived to be) upholding Islam to the extent that the 
rulers over Mecca and Medina should be.
 
> The al-Saud family is allegedly the most oppressive government in 
> existence, (now that the Taliban lost that title).

Oh, there are many contenders for this title.  Saddam is a really 
pretty oppressive guy himself, and Africa is littered with some 
really impressively nasty regimes as well.  There is no question 
that the oppression is necessary for them to maintain control, and 
the US obviously supports them pretty strongly.  I do not think, 
although you have argued, that the reason they are so hated is 
solely (or perhaps even primarily) for economic reasons.

[big snip]

> "They" do not have to speak in unison, as one of them is now the
> most powerful man in the world.

Probably the most powerful, but I think the recent European tour
fiasco gives fresh evidence that he is nowhere near omnipotent and
possibly quite a bit weaker than other recent US presidents.  And he
doesn't have very strong political skills to get what he wants.  
Really, there have been only two superb politicians in the
presidency in the last 25 years (Reagan and Clinton; these skills
certainly don't fall along partisan lines) and nobody else has been
anywhere close.

[snip]

> > > In Columbia (7th largest US source in 2000) , Bush has proposed
> > > providing $98M in aid to create a brigade to protect the oil
> > > pipeline owned by Occidental Oil.
> >
> >Fine, but now tell me how much we are spending there on drug
> >interdiction or other programs.  It's not that the special favors
> >don't bug me, it's just that I don't see that they are the sole
> >or even predominant factors in this particular relationship.
> 
> I believe that the 'war on drugs' is merely a pretense for
> military activity to protect oil interests. 

You are obviously free to have these beliefs, and I'll skip the 
awesome opportunity for a snappy comeback along the lines on what
substances you must be using. :-)

[snip]
 
> > > We hear the administration talk of controlling the world's oil
> > > supply daily, they just use the phrase "national interest".
> > > Currently every other part of the world economy is dependent on
> > > oil, and they are doing their damndest to keep it that way.
> >
> >OK, so I'll let you in on this secret that is actually not very
> >secret.  Yes, oil companies have an unhealthy interest in expanding
> >or boosting their presumed importance in the big scheme of things.
> >Yes, they do unfairly wield undue influence on policy.  But at the
> >end of the day, people who see them as some all-controlling
> >illuminati miss the pretty important point that control over
> >physical commodities (and oil is just one of a bunch) is just not as
> >important as most people assume.  Yes, this is counter-intuitive,
> >but I would argue that it is true.  The biggest non-US oil producers
> >are places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria, Indonesia, Mexico,
> >Russia, Norway, the UK...pretty much *not* a list of world powers
> >these days (apologies to those from Russia or the UK).  It is
> >absolutely convenient for the US to ensure that there are no sudden
> >changes in oil production, and very profitable for US oil companies
> >that they have a "most favored industry" status in this country. But
> >when petroleum one day has the kind of background importance that
> >commodities like lumber or iron ore have now, we really will have
> >moved on.
> 
> You are making my point here (at least as I see it). Oil is one
> commodity that lies at the foundation of our society.

Actually, I'm trying to argue that this emphatically not the case.  
*No* commodity is really the basis or foundation of modern society.  
Countries that specialize only in the production of commodities
have, as a rule, *less* power and smaller economies these days.  
One reason for this is that the primary products of a
commodity-dependent exporter are...wait for it...commodities.  Lots
of countries can produce them.  Yes, some commodities can become in
the short or even slightly longer important enough to have political
implications.  Consider for a moment: the really infuriating thing
about the Bush energy policy is that it places supreme importance on
things that are really not very important, and no emphasis on things
that could well be.  In other words, it's a bad policy primarily 
because it *uselessly* enriches one industrial sector over others.
If oil really were as horribly important as you seem to suggest, 
than the Bush policy (while it still might be bad) would be at least 
explicable.

> I cannot think of a single transaction in the world economy that
> does not rely on oil. You are inferring that being an oil
> producing country should lead to a strong economy. The reason
> that most of them are not world powers is that the country
> doesn't receive the wealth generated by their oil, it all goes
> west, with the exception of what it takes to payoff those who
> are safe-guarding it for us.

The world economy certainly does rely on some source or sources of
energy.  Oil is currently the *cheapest* and best fuel for many
purposes.  It is the cheapness of oil that is the key point here.
The reason why oil-dependent countries do not have large economies
is that they have to produce millions of barrelsful of the stuff,
and oil production is both capital-intensive and (increasingly)  
technology-intensive.  US oil companies possess both superior
capital and superior technology.  *They* make out fabulously well
(pun unintended), which helps create the illusion that oil
production is a big money venture.  But these days you have to be
something like Kuwait or have the Permian Basin in your backyard for
oil to be the basis of anything like a first world economy (or have
something smaller, some other prospects, and only 4 million people,
which is the Norwegian strategy.  Really, do the numbers if you 
don't believe me.  All of the crude oil in the world doesn't add up 
to anything really that impressive.
 
> The importance of oil was apparently not lost on Roosevelt
> during WWII either (I've recently learned of this, so I won't
> try to pretend I know too much, and don't yet have complete
> substantiating documentation.). In any war, maintaining supply
> lines is critical. Once the allies were able to stop the flow of
> oil to the axis, it sealed their fate.

This exactly proves my point.  Oil is cheap and fairly easy to get
when the markets are working "as usual".  War time is exactly the
opposite of this.  If nobody will sell you oil, and you can't
produce it yourself, and you have no alternative fuels, then you are
truly screwed if your supply line is cut.  This happens *precisely*
because the usual thing can't happen: nobody can sell you oil or
deliver it to you.  But exactly the same situation is true if you
replace "oil" with "food" or any other necessary commodity.  
Wartime scenarios are, of course, incredibly important if you're at
war (or planning to be) and the war is against a superpower or is a
global war.  If you are not at war, then almost everything is
different.

> After the war, Roosevelt sought to control/influence the world's
> oil supply to allow the US to maintain its security.

Um, Roosevelt is dead before the war is over.  But you are correct
that control and influence over the world's oil supply is very handy
indeed if you are a superpower either planning wars, threatening
wars, or seeking to prevent wars.  Now the reason why the full-time
pressure on oil supplies is less necessary these days than it used
to be is that other technology has changed as well.  It is much,
much easier for a superpower to disrupt supply lines at will these 
days (when we have truly frightening air and naval superiority over 
everybody in sight) than it ever was in the 1940s.


> This became a policy focus of the post-war era. The Conference
> at Bretton Woods established the IMF, to promote peace through
> fair trade among nations. Now whether one chooses to believe
> that the intent was as stated, or as I've theorized, is
> irrelevant, because we can see the outcome. The IMF has done
> nothing but made cheap raw materials to multi-national corps,
> while the country receiving the 'aid' goes into decline.
> 
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1944/440722a.html

Just one problem here.  Commodities are cheap by nature, which is 
why they are called commodities.  There are certainly problems with 
the IMF and with multinational corporations, but blaming them for 
the cruel economic truth that world sugar prices are always going to 
suck is really missing the point.

 
> >US policy in the former Soviet Union has been frankly very weird for
> >sometime now, but the one constant aspect has been the US preference
> >for *somebody* to have lots of power (whether it's Gorbachev,
> >Yeltsin, or Putin doesn't seem to have been hugely important despite
> >obvious differences between these 3 leaders), just as long as that
> >somebody can prevent the remainder of the former Soviet armed forces
> >from being a completely rogue element, and keep some semblance of a
> >lid on the spread of nuclear arms and technology throughout the
> >world.
> 
> I agree, we like to have a *somebody*. It is much easier to
> maintain security if we have to deal with fewer people. It also
> makes it easier to point out an enemy. I'm afraid the lid you
> speak of though is a facade.  Depending on who's numbers you
> believe, Bush has actually decreased aid to Russia to protect
> its stockpiles. From what I've seen, it is hard to tell, as some
> funds are 'transferred' from other funds/depts, instead of being
> new appropriations. Will take some more digging.

The lid on arms proliferation is certainly much leakier than you
might like.  If there are saving graces here, they lie in the fact
that "good" nuclear arms are extremely difficult to construct, and
almost as difficult to keep in a functional state.  Nobody is saying
anything much about Russian stockpiles these days for a lot of
reasons, but one of them might well be that they might have vastly
fewer functional devices than they had a decade ago (which would
also help explain why they so cheerfully went along with the treaty
to eliminate another large portion of them).

jking

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/