----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Bitter Fruit
> On 11/28/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >The people pushing this war don't care much about the American economy > > >as a whole - their biggest friends are in the defense-and oil related > > >industries. This is a profiteers war. > > > > So, if I understand your point correctly, Bush went to war so that a few > > key industries could make about 10 billion per year in profit for a couple > > of years? He was not only wrong, but happily sacrificed thousands of > > lives, hundreds of thousands of dollars, much of the military readyness of > > the US, just so a few key friends could make, compared to the 11+ US > > ecconomy, chump change? > > > > In particular, if you compare the profits from this war to the chance of > > getting further tax cuts through, dosen't it seem like an inefficient way > > to get money to the wealthy? > > This was in response to your comment you cut off. Bush didn't care > about the economy as a whole, the people he most associated with like > the war business just fine. I realize you said that....but I wanted to be clear. He only associated with a small subset of the wealthy? Most people in the oil business assumed that the general effect of the attack would be an increase in oil production by Iraq, which would have a net effect of lowering prices and hurting the oil business. So, for Bush, the profits of military suppliers was much more important than the profits of oil companies, oil service companies, etc. He'd rather make sure that Seattle did OK than Houston, for example? > Second, do you deny the history our country has had with war > profiteers and the military-industrial complex? There has been war profiteering, no doubt. People have made money cheating the government on a variety of military procurement programs. IIRC, Truman became VP partially as a result of the exposure he got from uncovering war profiteering. But, there is a real difference between that and a president starting a war so a small subset of the rich can make some money, while other of his rich friends lose their chance at additional tax breaks. > Third - There had alreay been a plan in place for years by those who > felt they were unjustly out of power to remake the Middle East > starting with Iraq and seize control of the oil. You know, the word "control" is wonderously slippery and vauge. By control the oil do you mean, in decreasing order of amount of control. 1) Own the oil, make all profits from selling it? 2) Let others own the oil and sell it for a profit, but control the production rate and the prices? 3) Make sure that American based oil companies, instead of French based oil companies, British based oil companies, or Netherlands based oil companies have contracts to produce the oil. 4) Make sure that, whoever owns the oil, will see it on the marketplace as determined by their financial interests, and not use it as a weapon to obtain arms/concessions from other nations? 5) Make sure that Baker Hughes, instead of Schlumberger gets MWD business? :-) >The Bush team in military and foreign policy was stacked with this wahawk gang >who had their own reasons to going to Iraq and would also profit from a war. I'm curious to understand what you think the plan was. Did those folks deliberaly ruin the US efforts after the war to decrease oil exports from pre-war levels? Did they know that insurgents would bomb oil pipelines to restrict transport? The loss of exports, compared to the world consumption of over 60 million barrels/day, varied in 2004 and 2005 in the 1%-2% range. While that matters, it probably isn't the main cause of oil prices rising. The continued rise in consumption (3%/year) even in the face of higher prices affects the supply/demand balance significantly more. Since Iraq has tremendous potential to produce, and since the sanctions put a lid on production, the common wisdon among those who are in the oil business was that Iraq oil production would be higher two years after the war than the pre-war quotas. This leads to anothe rpoint. We have such overwhelming differences in our understanding of how the oil business works, that it really blows me away. My understanding of how the business works comes from experience (e.g. being in the Mid-East and talking to ex-pats and locals), discussions with a wide range of individuals in the business(including friends who have management jobs in service and oil companies), and critical reading of business analysis. Remember, my job depends on the state of the oil business, so I was very interested in understanding the ecconomics. What makes you so sure that all these scientists, engineers, managers (including regional managers), marketing analysis are all dead wrong about the basic economics of the oil patch? There is a lot of difference in the politics of folks at places where I've worked, but we have been able to arrive at a decent consensus concerning the basic economics. I've worked through the view you must have of us, and all of the views I come up with are quite uncomplimentary. I hope I'm just missing something. BTW, It's not that you think I am wrong....that's not insulting. It's that you appear to think that all** us folks in the industry are dead wrong about something that they should reasonably be expected to understand. Dan M. **I'm sure you can find a quote from someone in the industry who doesn't hold this view....it does employ tens of thousands. But, I think I've done at least a mediocre job of sampling the better educated people in the industry. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
