I first heard the term in some book on world capitalism and globalization, well before I visited this website; I don’t remember the title however.
Same here.
Something like 1/2 of the energy we use comes from oil. Without it other means of generating energy would become too expensive.
An ascetic rejects pleasure. I am not saying that we have to survive on a handful or rice per day. To say that I am advocating anything that extreme is ridiculous and, IMO, indicative of the sort of thinking that created the situation that we now face.
The main thing is that we need oil to create alternatives to oil. As a nation, we have to control the means of production to maintain our global influence. Otherwise we will go broke fast.
No we don’t. If one group won’t sell us oil, another will. Second, even if it’s true, it’s not our oil; we don’t have the right to steal it. Third, “our global influence” is not a cause worth killing and dying for.
Well, I do want to commend you for finally making a factual statement that is at least roughly true. It looks, from the Annual Energy Report, that it is more accurately around 40%. And, if you consider the amount that comes from imported oil, it is a few percent shy of 30%. And, then, if you exclude Canada, Mexico, UK, and Norway (who I assume won’t stop selling to us anytime soon), it is down a bit under 20%.
This makes the scenario of “bad guys” refusing to sell us oil (which others have noted is not realistic anyway) seem somewhat less dire. (Although admittedly, we can’t immediately substitute one energy source for another…particularly when it comes to cars.)
I searched google and found this site almost immediately…
http://www.buyusa.gov/bahrain/en/56.html
Apparently the inclusion of this site makes those figures a matter of fact. I even restricted the displayed results to include sites under the .gov domain, nothing else.
another site…
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html
Here is a link to a PDF file entitled “International Energy Outlook 2005”:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieooil.pdf
In that file they estimate oil production capacity up to the year 2025. As you can see the control over the Middle East is absolutely vital. Most of the major oil producing countries are in or around it. At the least half of the oil in the world comes from that region.
Why else would we invade Iraq? In the history of the human race, when has any group waged war against any other just for the hell of it? Do rich people really need to kill poor people when it is easier to subjugate them? I don’t think so.
Except that, as noted several times in this thread, the Middle East countries have a direct self-interest in selling us oil. It is in their own best interests to continue to do so; a self-imposed embargo on oil exports to the U.S., could crush the economy of many Middle East nations.
This is fraught with errors - serious historical errors. I can immediately think of many wars which were launched for reasons other than economic.
enitocinnlonahte
this has been a blast…I havent laughed so much for a long time, keep up the good work. May you keep taking whatever it is you are taking.
Why? If they control the major source of oil then they can pit nations against each-other. China will need as much as us if they continue to expand their economy.
What’s stopping you? Name one.
Yes, of course oil producers pit oil consumers against each other, it’s called competitive bidding. Buyer A offers $x/gallon, Buyer B offers $x+1/gallon, you sell to Buyer B. But this imagines that producers always have consumers at their mercy, which isn’t true. Consumers pit producers against each other. Seller A offers $x/gallon, Seller B offers $x-1/gallon, you buy from Seller B.
If China increases their demand for oil that means that the global price for oil increases. It doesn’t mean that suddenly China gets all the oil and the US gets none, because the US can afford to pay more for oil than China does. If China wants more oil they’re going to have to pay higher and higher prices for it.
Plus, when prices are high, demand tends to decline. If gasoline is $10/gallon expect to see massive changes in how much gasoline people use…over the long term. Even a monopoly supplier doesn’t have complete control over his sale price because eventually people will decide to do without rather than purchase the good. DeBeers may have a near-monopoly on diamond prices and sets their prices much higher than they would be without that monopoly. As a result I simply don’t buy any diamonds. And lab-grown diamonds are beginning to be competitive to mined diamonds.
But diamonds are a luxury good, oil is a neccesity! Actually no, oil isn’t a neccesity. The simple fact is that oil isn’t an irreplacable resource, only that replacements are currently much more expensive than oil.
Look, have you ever heard of an economic principle called the law of supply and demand?
I think you are assuming that oil will diminish slowly. Companies that exist to produce oil will do so until it runs out. If the market can create realistic alternatives to oil than it can also create improved extraction methods.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that oil will not diminish gradually? That is certainly what the “peak oil” folks predict…and I don’t think that this part of their thesis is very controversial.
I don’t see how the improvement of extraction methods will prevent it from diminishing gradually.
enitocinnlonahte, you have done a good job in uniting people who generally have opposing political points of view behind the idea that your thesis here has more holes than Swiss cheese. (I don’t recall basically agreeing with UncleBeer and Lemur866 all that often.)
In your defense, I don’t recall agreeing with myself that often either.
There is no cheap oil replacement. The work of creating a source of energy has already been done for us. The infrastructure is in place to exploit it. It is not cheaper to build something entirely new.
Why is it full of holes?
I dont find it full of holes, rather the whole thread feels like a labyrinth made by rubiq and was designed while he was on medication.
you make a statement, give no facts to back it up and as you are chalanged you change your ideas as you go along answering with phrases such as “it is human nature to be ruthless” “this is the will of the people.”
First you say “Canada does not have the infrastructure to produce oil like the Middle East” and when you are challenged “Pop quiz: which country currently exports more crude oil to the US: Saudi Arabia or Canada?
Hint: it’s not Saudi Arabia.”
you make a complete turn around without conceding that you were wrong " I don’t believe that it would be incorrent to say that we have control over Canada." you remind me of a politician in Australia Jo bjelke peterson.
If this wasnt the GD it would be amusing…but its not.
Hint: try thinking about what you want to say…check out your facts and lets talk about it
huh?
The fact of the matter is that Canada should not even be included. Oil can be extracted from the tar sands, but getting to is more wasteful and expensive than the standard methods. On top of that, there is no proof that Canada can even come close to meeting our demand. We already buy all of the oil Canada exports.
Oil from Iraq is guaranteed to be exploitable. Our mission there is to get the oil flowing and ensure exports are paid for with US dollars. The same applies to the other Middle Eastern countries.
Ignoring Canada, Iraq would be #3. I was wrong. Happy now?
…that’s what we are all wondering.
I’ve just wasted a good half hour of my life (and energy) reading this thread.
Here’s the thing. Yes, the US has an interest in encouraging low oil prices, since we import more oil than we produce. And so we do things like protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or invade Iraq. But we aren’t “grabbing” the oil produced by Saudi or Kuwait or Iraq, we’re just ensuring that the oil gets sold on the world market. Now, naturally the more oil that is produced the lower the price, which benefits the US. But every other country that imports oil benefits as well. It could be argued that since the US imports more oil than any other country we benefit more than any other country.
We have a national security interest in ensuring that the global free market for oil continues to exist without interuption, sure, just like every other oil importer. But this still isn’t economic imperialism, or grabbing oil before it can be sold to China. Oil consumers in the US aren’t being given free gasoline because of the invasion of Iraq and never will be, at most US oil consumers will eventually get a very small reduction in price that will also be shared by everyone around the world. The US pays the price, everyone benefits. How is that economic imperialism?
The USA is not entirely selfish. The benefit - if you want to call it that - is not just a low oil price. The US wants to do well for the people who have a vested interest in the strength of its economy.
What price?
What price? Dead soldiers, maimed soldiers, dead contractors, maimed contractors, people serving as soldiers when they could be doing a more productive job, equipment and infrastructure destroyed, munitions expended, investment in military hardware, etc, etc.
All of which must have been considered before the war began.