Third Party & Independents: Archives

Lisa,

I learned something new, thank you! Puts the whole green energy thing perspective, too, don’t you think? It’s scary and not all too wise to have so many of our eggs in an oil well.

So true Stephanie, and one of the reasons I also support alternative energy sources. Not to mention part of the problem is we don’t have enough oil refineries here in the US. Then add to that all of the designer fuel formulations.

Granted that’s a bit off topic from this, but one way to make our fuel prices drop and make the lack of refineries more of a non-issue would be to force only a few formulations as it would reduce cost and make them more efficient for the time being.

Lisa,

:-) Okay, you completely lost me at the “designer fuel formulations.” Are you talking jet fuel versus car fuel? Or, are you talking about something else, like racing fuel maybe?

Lisa

This would have sounded a lot better if you had left off the sources, especially the “Third World Traveler”. His last paragraph shows why he will remain – well – third world.

I always think conspiracy theories regarding things like currency, stocks or other fungible assets are especially funny. Anyone who actually knows this stuff would be too busy making piles of money to write any articles about it.

There were plenty of reasons to distrust Saddam Hussein. His support for terrorism, aggression against most of his neighbors, promises to kill Americans, genocide, ecological vandalism, seeking and using WMD (he certainly had them as late as 1998 and maybe later) etc. were ample reason.

Beyond that, if you traveled to Europe in 2002 – before the war, you noticed that the Euro was worth about 85 cents. If you went back two years later, you found that it was worth about $1.25 (and a dollar was about 85 Euro cents) So if the goal was to weaken the Euro, it didn’t take.

On the other hand, the Euro has its own problems coming up. They are unrelated to anything someone like Saddam could do. Consider the real power of someone like Saddam. Iraqi oil was/is worth about $20 billion a year. This seems like a lot, until you recall that Bill Gates gave about $22 billion to charity when he created his Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. (or George Soros and his friends spent that much to try to defeat George Bush last year. Good they didn’t do it in Euros).

Or let’s put the whole Arab oil world in perspective. All the Arab countries - oil-producing and others - together have a GDP smaller than that of Spain, sorry Andalusia. According to the UN’s Arab development reports the GDP in all the Arab countries stood at $531.2 billion in 1999- less than a single European country. Spain’s GDP for the same year was $937.6 billion.

A country like the U.S. just doesn’t go to war over $20 billion. The war was not about oil, either directly or through the currency markets.

Stephanie, there are currently at least 44 fuel formulations that are used in the United States yet a limited amount of refineries. Each time a certain fuel formulation is required it means down time and a switch over for that refinery to create that fuel.

Those are what the “designer fuels” are. They are special forumlations created for ecological needs for a certain area.

Jack, I included all of my sources realizing there would be some areas that would be discounted but there are facts within those sources that I felt important.

I’d also point out to you Jack that this is more than about 20 billion dollars. The whole US financial system is based on the need of other countries to have our dollar. If you eliminate the need for the dollar given it is no longer based on a gold standard? It collapses. There would be a huge drop in the value if these dollars that were no longer needed were dropped.

Stephanie, just one of the many sources out there that addresses this designer fuel issue:

Here

Also contains a link to a GAO report done in June 2005 on this issue.

Lisa,

IYO, would the price hike in forcing everyone to use the cleanest fuel be compensated for significantly enough by the reduction in “extra” costs for having so many different kinds of fuel? Meaning that using the cleaner fuel wouldn’t be extra-expensive, because fuel is already that much more expensive by needing to make these switches.

Extremely valid point Stephanie, and one I think should have been addressed. Let’s say the President and Congress demanded there would only be three fuel formulations, supply and demand would make them in the end cheaper than the current cost because there would be no change over or cleaning necessary to transition from one to the other. So it would make it much more efficient and in the end less cost compared to the current system.

Part of the reason for our high gas prices at the pump is the fact that we are limited as far as refineries. There have been no new refineries since the late 1970’s and several have closed to due to not being able to meet EPA requirements. It is not cost effective to build a new refinery and those that have tried have met with extreme resistance from ecological groups.

So it’s not just about getting the raw crude here and what it costs us, it’s about refining it once we have it. A fire or a shut down creates higher costs at the pump.

Let me get this straight. Your thesis is that it was right and reasonable for the U.S. to invade another country because that country had made an economic decision we didn’t like? That the best way to compete in a global economy when a new rival is rising is to resort to military force instead of trying to be better in the market? That other countries don’t have the right to make decisions about their economy without asking the U.S. for permission?

If so, then I can’t disagree more.

So Lawnboy you would prefer to see the United States fail because the whole basis of the financial stability of the dollar failed to have some sense of honor that it was not about money? You would prefer to see a return to the crash of the the past where the majority of our country failed?

Wars are fought for many reasons, some valid some not, however to me? Financial preservation is one that while not totally moral should be considered. That to me is a more valid reason than fake WMD or some bs about us trying to save Israel.

I realize we like to have the belief that we are more than about money but in the end it is almost always about money. Preserving the basic foundation of what the dollar is now based on thanks to the elimination of it being on a gold standard is important. So far there have been few that have demanded that we reform a basis of what our dollar is valued on to correct this. The reality is if the dollar is not the international monetary unit? We are doomed. Do we need leaders that try to address that? YES, so far? No one is listening.

Wow, a world where effectively devaluing currency, if I am to understand this article correctly, is an act of war. What a great idea!

Addressing this issue is one thing; waging war because you are no longer in a favorable economic position is monstrous.

Folks, you seem to be forgetting that designer fuels are not just for cleaner ecological reasons, they are also created to accomodate the various seasons. To keep the same efficiency and clean fuel in winter requires a different mix and refinement than in the summer.

Lisa has made one helluva an extremely important point here. Money has no intrinsic value. If it is not tied something that has, currencies are vulnerable to fluctuations and disparities between nations which have high demand essential resources and those that don’t, making oil one of those resources which can have an impact on the value of currencies. In fact, our oil strategic reserves serve not only to insure out capacity during temporary shortages, but, also a hedge against attempts to destabilize our currency based on oil supplies.

Great article Lisa, and excellent topic I am sure a number of folks would rather you didn’t write about.

Let me get this straight- we should risk the destabilizing of the Middle East, risk creating a terrorist haven, and client states for Iran, because of a difference in what currency is used to buy oil?

Our record deficits have done more to weaken the dollar than anything else. Going to war to prop up our currency is foolhardy at best.

Stephen, some say yes. Some say no. But the GOP claptrap that Iraq was not about oil, just doesn’t fly for a host of reasons. Currency and strategic military protection of the flow of oil were undoubtedly among the motives of Bush and Congress when they voted to invade. Oil to America is like blood to a human. You gotta keep replenishing the supply or die, economically speaking. It is a common belief regardless of its veracity.

While I admit going to war for monetary reasons seems (perhaps is) cold and heartless and symptomatic of corruption, at the same time I am quite willing to admit I don’t want to live through a major depression. I don’t want to watch my children starve and die. And, to say that many people haven’t gone to war for similiar reasons is a fallacy.

Stephen the primary reason the Treasury can keep printing dollars is the fact that the US dollar is the monetary unit the world needs. Think about it for a second, if the dollar was no longer needed and it was replaced by the euro what would happen to the value of the dollar? What would happen to the foreign companies that invest in not only the dollar but in the US?

They would sell. The euro was getting stronger and there was some talk of it actually being competitive with the dollar. That is no longer the case now and why? Because the first thing the US did was switch Iraq back to the dollar. Right after that most countries quit talking about switching to the euro.

Two points:

First, unless I’m misreading our President, George II went to war in Iraq to take out the guy who tried to take out his old man. Period.

Everything else - oil, WMD, democracy, al-Qaeda - was all window dressing. I don’t mean to suggest that they didn’t play some minor role. In fact I’m sure they did. But George II was going to finish the job his father started, come hell or high water, and probably believed, in his heart of hearts, that doing so would make the world a better and safer place in which to live.

Second,

Price affects demand, so if you want to reduce the demand for oil, you simply raise the price.

Therefore, Congress should institute a federal tax on gasoline and diesel fuel of $1.50 per gallon. Simultaneously it should institute an uniform “Commuter Tax Deduction” (CTD) of $5,000. Here’s how this would work:

According to the Federal Highway Administration, the average car burns 532 gallons of gas per year and the average light truck or SUV burns about 100 gallons more. Thus, a $1.50 per gallon excise tax would cost the average car driver about $800 per year and the truck/SUV driver $950. Since a $5,000 deduction will yeild a tax reduction of $1,000 or more, the combination of a $1.50 gas tax and the CTD actually generates a modest tax cut for the average commuter.

For those whose incomes are insufficient to pay taxes or benefit from the deduction, the Fed simply mails them a check for $1,000 when they file their taxes. For those businesses who rely on trucking, this tax will be deductible, of course, and any minor increases in the cost of transportation can be either passed along to their customers or borne by their stockholders as slightly reduced profits.

The bottom line is that, when the cost of buying twenty gallons of gas begins to approach $100, the transportation needs of huge numbers of people will begin to change. When consumer needs change, corporations (in this case automobile manufacturers) scramble to meet those needs. Hence car makers will be powerfully motivated to produce products that either consume oil much more efficiently or that generate power from another source of energy.

Governments should be used to create the parameters that will induce socially beneficial actions, and the mechanics of the marketplace should be used to devise the most effective solutions to these changing circumstances.

A couple of things to say…

1. Assume that this article is completely accurate (an conclusion that I need to think about some more before I make it), and that you are the President of the US. If what Lisa says is correct then you have fight that war.

When you are the man at the top looking down at millions of people you have to compare the loss of life if you do this vs. the loss of life if I do that. A financial collapse in the US would have result in a drop in the standard of living for millions inside and outside the US. People would die for reasons like, not having health insurance, not having enough ambulances, increases in crime rates due to the rise in poverty, etc.

It is actually possible to save lives by spending the lives of soldiers. That is what soldiers are there for, because they believe in what they serve enough to die for it.

Morality works from your marriage outward. Meaning if you have to choose to save your wife or someone else, you have a duty to save your wife first. If have to choose to save an American or a non-American, I have a duty to choose to save the American. If I have to choose to save a human or a Martian, I have a duty to save the human.

2. I am not sure that the US economy would go into depression if Euros became the required oil purchasing unit. The dollar trades on the capital markets like all other currencies. That means everyone who buys dollars share in the risk of market flucuations. I need to think about the ramifications a bit before I accept this premise at face value.

Lisa Renee:

In 2000 Saddam sealed his fate, this was well before any claims of WMD, he changed the petro monetary unit for his country to the euro. Other countries discussed this as well. Russia considered it, other countries were discussing it. This would have led to a huge financial crash for the United States. Our Saudi friends had promised us they would always make sure OPEC traded in US dollars, however that was becoming unsure.

Using your logic Let me ask you this question please, what right did we have to tell Saddam, what currency he must trade his product in? If he wanted Indian Rupees for it so be it, IT’S HIS TO BARTER. Give him the Rupees he asked for. How about this, what if he refused to export his oil anywhere Keeping it all for his use what would we have done then? Invade still? Thank God, whomever he/she is that we only have American Oil Companies competing for the Oil now, Who knows what we’d be paying for a barrel of oil if OPEC didn’t set the price in dollars.

Oh well, those are just my rantings and ravings.

As Always,
Wayne

I agree that oil was an important factor in Bush’s invasion of Iraq. I said so in a previous post. But to say that such a war is justified because it may prevent a depression in America, is monstrous.

In the first place, it’s only someone’s theory. How can we use a theory about what may happen, to kill people? This is similar to the theory Bush used - Iraq has WMD - to kill people.

In the second place, can’t we apply all the economic geniuses in America to find a way to prevent the depression?

In the third place, do we not give a damn about other people in the world besides us? I’ve been told that Americans are narcissistic, but I did not realize we were this bad.

In the fourth place, why do Americans worship money? Is money the most important thing in the world? Is getting more money a reason to kill people - as bank robbers sometimes do?

In the fifth place, is killing for money any worse than killing for what others consider to be their faith? This puts Americans on the same criminal level as the terrorists.

In the sixth place…. I guess this is enough. I’m disappointed.

Lisa-
The dollar is the currency of choice for much of the world. Starting a war to affect currency decisions is like tossing chainsaws in the air to hunt ducks.

This whole thing sounds like hypothetical situations from my old philosophy classes: what monstrous act are you willing to commit to achieve a great, if only potential, good?

If we’re willing to use war as an economic tool, why not up the ante? Why not just nuke Iraq? Exterminate its people so that we have sole control over the oil refineries at the expense of zero American lives?

OR we could try to find other economic means of achieving this purely economic end? Reduce our dependence on oil? Invest in other forms of energy? Try dealing with Iraq instead of dominating it?

At least those questions my professors used to throw at me were TRUE dichotomies: you had one bad choice, or another bad choice. Here, we are faced with only a false dichotomy: there are in fact a multitude of choices, and invasion is only one of them.

Why is war our solution of first resort?

Wayne, what right did we have to bomb Hiroshima? We did it because it was felt it would save American lives by ending the war sooner. Time and time again those in power make the decision that their own self-preservation is more important than another.

If you want to place blame on this situation it would squarely rest upon those who changed financial system.

Source

Has some of the history of the 1970’s when this happened and what the end result was.

Lisa

I hope I’m not being self-centered in assuming that last post was addressed to me and not Wayne, since nothing he said last had anything to do with bombs. Anyway, I’ll now so assume.

I’m not sure I support the use of nuclear bombs in any situation, but I’ll assume for the moment that it’s OK in a certain narrow selection of occasions. Nonetheless, I think you’re comparing completely different situations — military actions taken during a state of war are not comparable to military actions taken in response to a sovereign nation making a decision how best to dispose of its own resources. I think you’re on weak argumentative grounds there with the Hiroshima example.

I don’t find the type of decision you’re describing any better than a person going into a store and shooting the proprietor and stealing the goods he intended to buy because the proprietor elected not to take credit cards. I don’t think it’s the proprietor’s fault; it’s the person who needlessly resorted to violence who is to blame.

unkind k,

I guess part of the problem I have here, is that I don’t see Iraq as it was as a “sovereign nation.” The guy was gassing his own people, amongst other truly depolorable things. For me, one reasonably decent excuse and a job well done is all it takes to get my support for the disposing of Saddam. It’s just really disappointing that Bush couldn’t get the “job well done” part right. If he had, the nation would be much more united behind him now and people like Sheehan wouldn’t be getting the kind of press she’s getting now.

Stephanie:

No offense but that “gassing his own people” is a load of crap. You forget that this happened when Saddam was an “Ally” of the US. The US blocked the UN Security Council Resolution to condemn the action.

I am tired of the selective memory people have about Saddam Hussien.

Aldous

0.46%. That was the U.S. contribution to Saddam’s arsenal. Not much of an ally. During that same period, the Soviet Union and its allies supplied most of the weapons and most of the foreign expertise. That is what you call an ally. You may recall that President Reagan got in trouble with lefties for being “too agressive” against the Soviets.

I am also tired of the selective memory. Cut it out.

Aldous,

It was wrong for us to block it then. And it was wrong for us to leave him in power during the Gulf War. Just because our nation was wrong before doesn’t mean I support throwwing up our hands and saying, “Oh, well, leave the madman be.”

I was a child then and my voice didn’t matter. I’m no longer a child.

Selective memory has nothing to do with it on my part, sorry.

This is an interesting thread, but it still sounds a bit to me like chicken little.

Lisa, can you provide some links that talk about your assertion that we’d be thrown into a deep depression if the dollar fell 20% or so?

Thanks in advance.

I’m more frightened by Saudi and it’s potential for instability - rather than Iran or Iraq. Saudi is balancing on a very thin line between support for the current Western Focus and anti-Western sentiment. How much would it take to push Saudi over into civil war… who knows. How easy would it be for terrorist to hit of the few main arteries of the Saudi oil system - and effectively shut down oil production there for weeks? a month?

If oil production there became suspect, what would happen to the stock markets? the economy? Saudi seems to me where the huge risk lives.

tony,

“How much would it take to push Saudi over into civil war…”

As per the Princess Sultana Trilogy, it’s only a matter of time. Even the princes and princesses who live in luxury (though, not freedom) are starting to believe that their system of government is wrong. If these books are at all an accurate portrayal, it is only a matter of time.

I believe it was in Princess Sultana’s Daughters where it talked about an underground movement within the children of the wealthy elite to steer their country away from the restrictive government now in charge. The book didn’t go into much details, however.

While I agree with your points about the Iraq war being about currency, I disagree with your conclusion. Maintaining US economic dominance is not something I believe our government should be engaging in. Instead, I’d like to see us working with other countries for mutual benefit and gain. Our economic dominance has wreaked economic disasters elsewhere in the world.

Jack said, “0.46%. That was the U.S. contribution to Saddam’s arsenal. Not much of an ally. During that same period, the Soviet Union and its allies supplied most of the weapons and most of the foreign expertise. That is what you call an ally. You may recall that President Reagan got in trouble with lefties for being “too agressive” against the Soviets.

I am also tired of the selective memory. Cut it out. “

Foolish. Jack, you neglect to mention that the Presidents Reagan and Bush approved of billions of dollars in loan guarantees to Saddam in the 80s to spend on his war with Iran.

If you tire of selective memory, improve yours.