Moon for the Misbegotten.
I didn’t ask for a list of allies nor did I suggest that a list of allies sans analysis would buttress my obviously true claim that US foreign policy revolves around oil. The poster knew that the only line of argument he could take to he cast doubt on this claim and avoid mentioning the elephant in the room that is the US relationship with SA was if he listed the official allies in the region. My subsequent posts support my claim that both you and he felt could be dispelled with truncated statements of fact.
Longhorn Dave is right about stock price movements. Saying XOM has benefited significantly from Tillerson emerging as SoS nominee is reading goat entrails or rune sticks in a way somebody else can read differently just as plausibly. It’s up a slightly more than other oil majors (he’s also right it’s just uninformed to compare with non-integrated oils) like CVX, BP or RSD, in recent days but had lagged them by more in the recent rally of all of them in last few weeks. That rally isn’t necessarily 100% about OPEC but also various expectations about US policy under Trump in energy and generally, but applies to all of them. XOM’s performance difference is way below the threshold of a significant move clearly related to Tillerson. And short term market moves even for a particularly identifiable reason don’t always prove correct in the medium to long run anyway.
On Exxon being like a country I don’t agree as much with Dave. And Tillerson isn’t being nominated to head a country anyway but be a diplomat. But aside from the Red Scare now ironically gripping liberal Democrats 
wrt ‘ties to Russia’, the thing I wonder most about Tillerson is how you shift from working at a place with such a strongly defined culture as Exxon your whole career. A number of schoolmates went to work there (people slightly younger than Tillerson): very particular culture, which he must have mastered. Unlike Trump himself, there’s no plausible way you can make out somebody who rose to the top of Exxon as a clown, IMO/IME. But his skill set and views to be SoS are uncertain, the actual hearings should give more evidence.
Our alliance with Israel is about oil. Our alliance with NATO is about oil. Our defense obligations to Japan are about oil. Our strategic engagement with China is about oil. Our intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was about oil.
This doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Grin! There is a very, very faint fingernail of logic to this part of what you said, in that some of our Pacific strategy involves keeping the sea lanes open for oil supertankers. This came up – fifty years ago! – in the justification for the Viet Nam war: we feared the ability of a communist Viet Nam to block sea lanes.
(Which, of course, didn’t happen. But LBJ and RMN both were concerned about it.)
Huh? If you can’t tell a thing from momentary stock movements, how is what he said meaningful? He cited a momentary stock movement as a premise.
You can tell a thing by public policy, statements of intent and what you see with your own lying eyes.
To be clear, I fully expect a strawman to be thrown out there to the tune of, “Ravenman thinks oil is irrelevant to our foreign policy!” Well, of course not. Foreign policy is about interests, and we have several major interests, of which oil is one. But attempts to simplify our foreign policy down to one issue, and imply that all others are a far distant second, I think doesn’t make sense except in conspiracy theory minded views of history. In fact, I think the oil-only theory is in the same conspiracy bucket as “our foreign policy is run by the Trilateral Commission.”
If I knew “foreign policy revolves around oil” was going to be spun into “every aspect of foreign policy is directly involved with maintaining access to oil reserves” I would have picked a different phrase.
You predict straw men as you build them up. Of course I never suggested an “oil-only theory.”
Oil-only is dead. Long live Oil and Water!
Yes, you certainly should have picked a different phrase. “X revolves around Y” pretty much means (to me) that “Y” is the single most important thing that will effect “X”
To me, your phrase meant that “Oil” (which I assume is shorthand for “easy access to oil reserves in the world”) is the thing that is MOST IMPORTANT for foreign policy. Since foreign policy “revolves” around it. The “oil” then being the most important thing in the universe of “foreign policy”
Long live Oil and Vinegar!
Interesting discussion of the OP’s topic on 538 today.
TLDR: Trump may be in aggressive bully mode here, testing the limits of what he can get away with. If Republicans won’t stop him from nominating a guy who got a medal from Putin, while Putin is being accused of trying to manipulate our election, clearly they’re not going to stop him from doing anything at all and America is basically over.
For the Democrats, this is a chance to pick up a win. Most of Trump’s other picks are just right-wing Republicans; climate change denial and dismantling public education are policies that clearly have appeal to the Republican base. Sucking up to Vladimir Putin, however, definitely is not, and if they’re smart, they’ll hammer him on this issue rather than on any of the other perfectly legitimate reasons why he shouldn’t be nominated.
Read the prior posts in the thread for context.
The context is that you cited a single days increase in stock prices to show that there was no “boost” to Exxon’s stock due to the Tillerson announcement.
The problem with this, as was correctly pointed out, is that you cannot look at short term, MOMENTARY stock movements to show anything. The prediction is that Exxon’s stock is going to benefit going forward from Tillerson at the helm as SOS. Just looking at one-day returns is not how ANYONE judges the market.
Citing ONE DAY returns is not a great way of refuting this.
No, that’s not at all what happened. I was fighting back on the following post. I was sarcastically citing a single day’s decrease to see how the conspiracy theory would evolve.
Hell, you can tell people that moving the Prime Minister of Exxon to SecState won’t affect Exxon’s stock price. Because people will investigate the ramifications and apply their sophisticated understanding of global finance. That, and the long-standing reputation of oil executives for integrity and fair dealing.
ah, you were picking a nit, rather than dealing with the more important overarching question of whether or not making the head of Exxon the SOS would favour his particular company and skew the market. gotcha.
Why is that even a question? Of course it will.
The only tension between Trump and Putin is sexual tension. Will they or won’t they…?
(Ugh, where did I leave that brain bleach…?)
I’ve got it, and you are just plain out of luck! Serves you right!