Should/will Rex Tillerson be confirmed as Secretary of State?

[drad_dog]

@LonghornDave

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.

So it’s a conspiracy theory that don the con wants to hire the exxon head to be US sec of state? That’s good. I was worried there for a minute. All those conflicts of interests. Thought it might be another Hillary-type thing going on. Thank god we have two standards we can use, for rage, retaliation and vengeance against the behaviors of the two political parties. We dodged a bullet on that one.

It’s pretty clear that for his presidency don the con is going to be using a petroleum based lubricant.

[elucidator]

nm

[Ravenman]

@Euphonious_Polemic

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”

I can hear it now - “Just because I said the earth revolves around the Sun doesn’t mean that the earth doesn’t revolve around lots of stars in our solar system!”

[Little_Nemo]

@WillFarnaby

Turkey and Israel are important allies because of their proximity to the reserves of the Middle East. Of course having “allies” is only one aspect of foreign policy, and your omission of Saudi Arabia was an honest mistake.

Put those goalposts back where you found them, young man.

Is Saudi Arabia an American ally? Yes. Is Saudi Arabia our closest ally? No.

Now go back and read what I wrote. I’ll wait here.

Let’s do some thinking now. Look at the oil-producing countries in the Middle East. What foreign policy do they all have in common? They all hate Israel. So if the United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East revolved around oil, what would our policy towards Israel be? We would be hostile towards Israel. Is our policy towards Israel hostile? No. As I noted, Israel is one of our closest allies in the Middle East.

“Everything is about oil” is a simple answer. But like many other simple answers, it’s wrong. Oil is undeniably a factor in our foreign policy. But there are other factors which can outweigh oil.

[Little_Nemo]

@Ravenman

You said that the other poster left Saudi Arabia off the list of allies. He did, on the basis that they aren’t an ally.

But you knew that, of course. Which is why you insisted that Little Nemo amend his correct statement with… something.

I’m willing to give him that point. The United States and Saudi Arabia aren’t formal allies. But I’d say we have an unofficial alliance.

[WillFarnaby]

@Little_Nemo

Put those goalposts back where you found them, young man.

Is Saudi Arabia an American ally? Yes. Is Saudi Arabia our closest ally? No.

Now go back and read what I wrote. I’ll wait here.

Let’s do some thinking now. Look at the oil-producing countries in the Middle East. What foreign policy do they all have in common? They all hate Israel. So if the United States’ foreign policy in the Middle East revolved around oil, what would our policy towards Israel be? We would be hostile towards Israel. Is our policy towards Israel hostile? No. As I noted, Israel is one of our closest allies in the Middle East.

“Everything is about oil” is a simple answer. But like many other simple answers, it’s wrong. Oil is undeniably a factor in our foreign policy. But there are other factors which can outweigh oil.

Armchair geopolitics is fun, but the people who actually wield power think much more like the article I linked to at the Council on Foreign Relations. Our alliance with Israel had more to do with keeping the Soviets out of the region and preventing a pan-arab state that would threaten the oil sheikdoms. After the Iranian revolution, the alliance was strengthened and is necessary as a counterweight to Iranian influence. This is standard stuff you can hear all over mainstream sources.

Also I never said “everything is about oil”.

[WillFarnaby]

@Euphonious_Polemic

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”

Well yes, oil is the most important thing, but it’s not the only thing. Oxygen is important and life on Earth revolves around access to oxygen, but there are other things that are necessary for life.

[Ravenman]

I wouldn’t say life revolves around oxygen, though.

[LonghornDave]

@Euphonious_Polemic

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.

No, I was pointing out the absurdity of the mindset of some of the group think around here.

Everything is slanted to the worst possible interpretation.

Same thing with your message here. Ignore the 10 other posts I’ve made in this thread addressing exactly what you’re claiming I ignored.

[LonghornDave]

http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/rex-tillerson-retire-darren-woods-elected-chairman-ceo-exxon-mobil-corporation

Rex W. Tillerson, chairman and chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM), has announced his intention to retire at year-end after more than 41 years of service.

Darren W. Woods, currently president of Exxon Mobil Corporation, has been elected chairman and chief executive officer by the board of directors effective Jan. 1, 2017.

Tillerson was scheduled to retire in March 2017 when he reached 65, the company’s mandatory retirement age for his position. After consideration, Tillerson concluded, and the board agreed, that given the significant requirements associated with the confirmation process, it was appropriate to move the retirement date.

[LonghornDave]

@Little_Nemo

I’m willing to give him that point. The United States and Saudi Arabia aren’t formal allies. But I’d say we have an unofficial alliance.

One that we moved away from somewhat under Obama.

[LonghornDave]

@drad_dog

So it’s a conspiracy theory that don the con wants to hire the exxon head to be US sec of state? That’s good. I was worried there for a minute.

No, it’s a conspiracy theory that this move was done to benefit Exxon.

@drad_dog

All those conflicts of interests. Thought it might be another Hillary-type thing going on. Thank god we have two standards we can use, for rage, retaliation and vengeance against the behaviors of the two political parties. We dodged a bullet on that one.

Some conflicts of interest are easier to avoid than others. Trump’s, for example, are incredible difficult to do anything about. Putting them in a blind trust doesn’t really solve anything since he’s not going to just forget which buildings he owned. He can still easily do moves to personally benefit his personal financials even if they are in a blind trust. Further, he can’t easily sell them since they are not liquid investments. It would take years to sell all of assets. They are incredibly troubling and difficult to do anything about.

Hillary’s are pretty easy to solve for: turn over the foundation to a completely third party management team and her and her family have nothing to do with it while president. Also, stop giving speeches (including her husband and daughter) to companies and foreign governments for money while in office. Easy to fix. Only problem is she showed while she was Secretary of State that she wouldn’t do those easy to do things.

Tillerson’s conflicts are extraordinarily easy to solve for. Make him sell off all of his Exxon stock and cut all ties. Boom, solved. Even easier since he was probably planning to do exactly those things this year anyways.

[LonghornDave]

@running_coach

Why is that even a question? Of course it will.

Oh, and you’re the one who absurdly thought he wouldn’t leave his position at Exxon. He’s already announced his retirement even before the confirmation hearings.

[running_coach]

@LonghornDave

Oh, and you’re the one who absurdly thought he wouldn’t leave his position at Exxon. He’s already announced his retirement even before the confirmation hearings.

Why is that absurd? Trump’s not cutting ties to his companies so why would I expect any of his nominees to do the same?

And I still expect Tillerson to favor Exxon and the oil industry.

Jack Kingston is already in Russia talking to business leaders.

On Monday, Jack Kingston, a former Trump surrogate, briefed American businesspeople in Russia on what they might expect from the incoming administration.

[LonghornDave]

@running_coach

Why is that absurd? Trump’s not cutting ties to his companies so why would I expect any of his nominees to do the same?

It’s absurd because they are both more than full time positions. How could he possibly handle the day to day duties of two separate positions that probably each require 70 work hours per week? He’d probably get shot down in the confirmation process 100-0 if he said he was going to handle being Secretary of State in his spare time.

Why in the world would Exxon agree to that? Believe it or not, but the CEO at Exxon is probably a pretty difficult and time consuming job. If you had said that you expected him to remain as a board member then that wouldn’t be absurd. I’d call that highly improbable, but what you said just feasibly isn’t possible.

Further, as I already pointed out, Exxon has a mandatory retirement age of 65, which Tillerson would hit next year anyways.

@running_coach

And I still expect Tillerson to favor Exxon and the oil industry.

I think it is certainly possible that he might do things that indirectly benefit the oil industry, and in particular, major international oil companies. I find it highly improbably that he takes actions that benefit Exxon specifically and not other major oil companies like Shell, Total, or Chevron. For instance, he almost certainly will be less likely to enact sanctions on countries. He’s already said he believes them to be ineffective. That will be an indirect benefit to oil companies.

[LonghornDave]

@running_coach

Trump’s not cutting ties to his companies so why would I expect any of his nominees to do the same?

This just hit me, but do you not understand the difference in the relationship that Trump has to his company compared to Tillerson to Exxon? Trump owns the Trump companies, which own highly illiquid assets. He can quit being active in the management, which he may not be much more than a figurehead as it is, but that does nothing to change his ownership. It is very difficult for him to cut ties in a short term basis without selling assets at a fire sale price.

Tillerson is just a manager at Exxon. If he doesn’t perform, they fire him, if he wants to leave/retire he quits. He owns stock that he’s received as incentive compensation over the years, but it is easily saleable and could be liquidated in a day without much effect on the price. It is incredibly easy for him to cut ties.

[running_coach]

@LonghornDave

This just hit me, but do you not understand the difference in the relationship that Trump has to his company compared to Tillerson to Exxon? Trump owns the Trump companies, which own highly illiquid assets. He can quit being active in the management, which he may not be much more than a figurehead as it is, but that does nothing to change his ownership. It is very difficult for him to cut ties in a short term basis without selling assets at a fire sale price.

Tillerson is just a manager at Exxon. If he doesn’t perform, they fire him, if he wants to leave/retire he quits. He owns stock that he’s received as incentive compensation over the years, but it is easily saleable and could be liquidated in a day without much effect on the price. It is incredibly easy for him to cut ties.

Yes, I do understand the difference.: old rolleyes:

Maybe he can cut "physical ties’, I don’t believe he was nominated for any other reason than his Russian ties.

Besides, once he’s no longer CEO, will he have to sell his stock? Will it still be a conflict of interest or will he be “clean”?

[LonghornDave]

@running_coach

Yes, I do understand the difference.: old rolleyes:

No offense intended, but your comments make it seem like you didn’t. I wasn’t intending to be a jerk in pointing out something so simple.

@running_coach

Maybe he can cut "physical ties’, I don’t believe he was nominated for any other reason than his Russian ties.

This moves on to the conspiracy theory end of the spectrum. Russia is a noteworthy, but far from the largest or most active areas that Exxon is active in. Exxon is far more active in the United States, for example, than in Russia. They’re Russian activities consist of offshore of Sakhalin and a joint venture with Rosneft. To put it in perspective, Exxon, per their latest annual report, has 28,641 producing wells in the United States. They have 367 total producing wells in all of Asia. Besides Russia, other Asian countries that Exxon is active in are Iraq, Azerbaigan, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Qatar, Yemen, Thailand, and the UAE.

Asia, of which Russia is only a part, is far below North America, South America, Europe, and Africa on the continents that Exxon is active in.

Exxon also has 23 refineries around the world, none in Russia. Exxon is a massive chemical company with 15 chemical complexes around the world, none in Russia. Exxon has 20,251 retail stations around the world, none in Russia.

Basically, it would be stretching it to say that 5% of Exxon’s value is tied to Russia. It is certainly less than that.

@running_coach

Besides, once he’s no longer CEO, will he have to sell his stock? Will it still be a conflict of interest or will he be “clean”?

Again, he would naturally want to sell his stock. Nobody would want their entire net worth tied up in their former employer. Even without the Secretary of State deal, he would almost certainly wind down his exposure to Exxon with his upcoming retirement.

Having said that, of course him retaining his stock would be a conflict of interest. That’s 95% of the conflict of interest that exists. If he retained his stock he could make decisions that would benefit himself personally at the expense of the U.S. He wouldn’t be clean at all if he retained the stock. But, why would he want to? Wouldn’t he much more naturally want to diversify it away from one single country that he no longer works for?

[elucidator]

If the point of the Arctic deal was to get more producing wells, then how is the current number of producing wells in Russia relevant? If you were accused of producing too much broccoli (which is to say,any) but you helpfully point out that you aren’t producing that much disgusting, repulsive broccoli…but skip past the part where you are trying to make a deal to plant a few million acres more…

Huh?

[running_coach]

@LonghornDave

This moves on to the conspiracy theory end of the spectrum. Russia is a noteworthy, but far from the largest or most active areas that Exxon is active in. Exxon is far more active in the United States, for example, than in Russia. They’re Russian activities consist of offshore of Sakhalin and a joint venture with Rosneft. To put it in perspective, Exxon, per their latest annual report, has 28,641 producing wells in the United States. They have 367 total producing wells in all of Asia. Besides Russia, other Asian countries that Exxon is active in are Iraq, Azerbaigan, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Qatar, Yemen, Thailand, and the UAE.

CNN

In 2013, Vladimir Putin awarded ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson the Order of Friendship, one of the highest honors Russia gives to foreign citizens.

The silver badge underscores the close ties that have existed for many years between Russia and Tillerson, the leading candidate to be President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of state.

The 64-year-old Tillerson, a lifetime Exxon employee, came up through the ranks by managing the company’s Russia account.

In fact, his close relationship with Russia is one of the major reasons Tillerson was selected to succeed Lee Raymond as CEO of Exxon (XOM) in 2006, according to Steve Coll’s book “Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power.”

Once he became CEO, Exxon bet billions on Russia’s vast but notoriously-elusive oil resources through a bold partnership with Russian oil giant Rosneft. Putin himself attended the 2011 signing ceremony for the deal with Rosneft, which is majority owned by Moscow.