Incentive Disparity

[Michael Tee]

 $25 million doesn't seem to be fetching the head of Osama bin Laden, but Big OIl thinks that $5 million will be sufficient for the patrimony of the whole nation; via the Juan Cole web-site:

<<US Oil Companies Offered Five Million Dollar Bribes To Iraqi MP's?

<<Reported today on Akhbar Alkhaleej newspaper

<<31/01/08 "Roads to Iraq" --- - An Iraqi MP preferred to remain anonymous told the newspaper that highly confidential negotiations took place by representatives from American oil companies, offering $5 million to each MP who votes in favor of the Oil and Gas law.

<<The amount that could be paid to pass the votes do not exceed $150 million dollars in the case of $5 million to each MP, pointing out that the Oil law requires 138 votes to pass, which the Americans want to guarantee in many ways, including vote-buying, intimidation and threats!

<<Focusing on the heads of parliamentary blocs and influential figures in the parliament to ensure the votes, the Americans guaranteed the Kurdish votes in advance but they are seeking enough votes to pass and approve the law as soon as possible. >>

Of course, the opening offer is never meant to be taken seriously. 

This is "News That You'll Never See on CNN."

[yellow_crane]

Exxon announced today a yearly profit of 44 billion.

The biggest profit by a corporation ever.

Think gas will do down at the pumps?

[Michael Tee]

<<Think gas will do down at the pumps?>>

(deep in thought for one nanosecond) No, I don't think it will.

I'm a great believer in bikes, though.  Before my heart attack, I bicycled to work every day, weather permitting.

[Amianthus]

Exxon announced today a yearly profit of 44 billion.

The biggest profit by a corporation ever.

Not as a percent of sales.

Reported earnings were $40.6 billion on sales of $404.5 billion, which yields a profit of 10.0%. Most grocery stores make more of a profit than this.

[Plane]

$25 million doesn't seem to be fetching the head of Osama bin Laden, but Big OIl thinks that $5 million will be sufficient for the patrimony of the whole nation; via the Juan Cole web-site:

<<US Oil Companies Offered Five Million Dollar Bribes To Iraqi MP's?

<<Reported today on Akhbar Alkhaleej newspaper

<<31/01/08 "Roads to Iraq" --- - An Iraqi MP preferred to remain anonymous told the newspaper that highly confidential negotiations took place by representatives from American oil companies, offering $5 million to each MP who votes in favor of the Oil and Gas law.

<<The amount that could be paid to pass the votes do not exceed $150 million dollars in the case of $5 million to each MP, pointing out that the Oil law requires 138 votes to pass, which the Americans want to guarantee in many ways, including vote-buying, intimidation and threats!

<<Focusing on the heads of parliamentary blocs and influential figures in the parliament to ensure the votes, the Americans guaranteed the Kurdish votes in advance but they are seeking enough votes to pass and approve the law as soon as possible. >>

Of course, the opening offer is never meant to be taken seriously. 

This is "News That You'll Never See on CNN."

Interesting  , why do these guys need to be bribed?

Is it not under the thumb of the US president?

[Michael Tee]

<<Interesting  , why do these guys need to be bribed?

<<Is it not under the thumb of the US president?>>

Here you may be coming to the practical limits of U.S. power.  I was in a town in Greece where the Nazis did not get along with the Mayor and his council, so they just hanged the whole bunch of them and decided to govern by military decree.  The U.S.A. is just not going to do that.  We can argue WHY they won't, but the fact is that they won't.  They are such pious little phonies that they want to still crow to the rest of the world what good guys they really are.  They'll get the oil sooner or later anyway, and they'll still be able to lay claim to a phony moral superiority that's at odds with everything they ever do in the real world.

[Plane]

<<Interesting  , why do these guys need to be bribed?

<<Is it not under the thumb of the US president?>>

Here you may be coming to the practical limits of U.S. power.  I was in a town in Greece where the Nazis did not get along with the Mayor and his council, so they just hanged the whole bunch of them and decided to govern by military decree.  The U.S.A. is just not going to do that.  We can argue WHY they won't, but the fact is that they won't.  They are such pious little phonies that they want to still crow to the rest of the world what good guys they really are.  They'll get the oil sooner or later anyway, and they'll still be able to lay claim to a phony moral superiority that's at odds with everything they ever do in the real world.

We almost agree here.

We do want the process to appear to be genuine , the secret means of making the system seem genuine is to really make it genuine.

The members of the Iraqi Parliament ere selected by their people at election , if they take bribes they are in betrayal of their electorate and disappointment to the Americans who have given cash , sweat and blood to give them this opportunity.

I imagine this can be a failure mode , a few million is a big temptation even if it is dollars not Euros , but at least there is likely to be a competition between French ,Russian and American company bribery , no reason to give up all integrity cheaply.

[Michael Tee]

<<I imagine this can be a failure mode , a few million is a big temptation even if it is dollars not Euros , but at least there is likely to be a competition between French ,Russian and American company bribery , no reason to give up all integrity cheaply.>>

I don't know what play or movie I saw this in, but the idealistic young newspaper reporter is telling the jaded old politician in a whiskey-fueled moment of truth, "You sold yourself!  Like a cheap whore!" and the old politician draws himself up and says in a very dignified voice, "I am NOT cheap!"

[Plane]

<<I imagine this can be a failure mode , a few million is a big temptation even if it is dollars not Euros , but at least there is likely to be a competition between French ,Russian and American company bribery , no reason to give up all integrity cheaply.>>

I don't know what play or movie I saw this in, but the idealistic young newspaper reporter is telling the jaded old politician in a whiskey-fueled moment of truth, "You sold yourself!  Like a cheap whore!" and the old politician draws himself up and says in a very dignified voice, "I am NOT cheap!"

Hahhahahaha

I am hip , we have had a lot of this here, and I don't know where humanity is free of it.

I don't expect perfection , I hope we don't need to keep our hand in untill perfection is acheived , that is forever.

But if their integrety can be bought off , might they also be intellient? 
Can they take the bribe and still insist on terms good for their people?

I can imagine Iriquis settleing for less than perfect too , at some point good enough is good enough, and they can say that the US Army is no longer needed.

[Michael Tee]

<<But if their integrety can be bought off , might they also be intellient?
<<Can they take the bribe and still insist on terms good for their people?>>

sirs, they already HAD terms that were good for their people.  Under the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party, the oil was theirs.  They explored for it, drilled for it, pumped it out, sold it, all by themselves.  What deal could be better?  Getting to keep 40%?  Getting to keep 60%

ANY deal they make with the Amerikkkans is bound to be bad for them.  It's like the Mafia coming round to some little restaurateur he's gonna have a partner.  He doesn't HAVE a partner.  He doesn't NEED a partner.  But he's gonna have a partner.  And what you're really asking is can the guy take a partner and still insist on terms that's good for him and his family?  Can a rape victim give in to the rapist and still insist on terms that are good for her?  They're all basically at the mercy of the guy with the gun.

[Plane]

<<But if their integrety can be bought off , might they also be intellient?
<<Can they take the bribe and still insist on terms good for their people?>>

sirs, they already HAD terms that were good for their people.  Under the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party, the oil was theirs.  They explored for it, drilled for it, pumped it out, sold it, all by themselves.  What deal could be better?  Getting to keep 40%?  Getting to keep 60%

ANY deal they make with the Amerikkkans is bound to be bad for them.  It's like the Mafia coming round to some little restaurateur he's gonna have a partner.  He doesn't HAVE a partner.  He doesn't NEED a partner.  But he's gonna have a partner.  And what you're really asking is can the guy take a partner and still insist on terms that's good for him and his family?  Can a rape victim give in to the rapist and still insist on terms that are good for her?  They're all basically at the mercy of the guy with the gun.

You gotta be kidding.

Saddam was the owner and he used the oil to fiance war , then more war, then more war again. He used that oil to kill and displace Kurds , buy WMD , conquer territory , etc. I doubt that the People of Iraq got 30% unless you count Saddam as people then they probly got 60%.


He made deals with foreign partners to drill wells and lay pipe just as the Parlement will , the diffrence is that the new deal will have less Saddam skimming the profit.

If the Irqui parlement decide to drill with French bits Shlumberget is ready. If they want to do it all themselves they have a few years of building up to do.

I hope that they hold auction so that American , French , Russian and Chinees drillers can compete for the contracts , sooner is better there is a lot of repair work to finance.

[Michael Tee]

There's a huge difference between bringing in a contractor on a specific job and handing over a whole oil field to them to develop for a percentage in royalties.  The oil in the ground belonged to the people - - it was never sold.  By law it couldn't be sold to foreigners.  Sure the Iraqi government didn't use the money wisely - - blew it on wars, some of which the U.S. promoted and encouraged.   Does the U.S. government always make good use of its resources?  I'd say they've been known to blow huge amounts on war, killing 2 million Vietnamese for example.  Still, no one uses that as an excuse to give away national assets to foreigners.  Bush mis-used the tax revenues - - so let's farm them out to the Germans to collect, we'll get to keep 60% and the Germans, the suckers, will do all of the work collecting and still only get 40%.  YOur arguments just don't hold water.

[Plane]

There's a huge difference between bringing in a contractor on a specific job and handing over a whole oil field to them to develop for a percentage in royalties.  The oil in the ground belonged to the people - - it was never sold.  By law it couldn't be sold to foreigners. 

If the Iriquis are used to this idea , that may be the hold up. Discussing a reliively simple bill for more than a year indicates disagreement that is hard to resolve. If I were one of them I would be highly motivated to sell some oil quickly to get some cash into the government and some local people employed. If their choice is to hold the oil they may really get a better deal , but the waiting is killing.

 Sure the Iraqi government didn't use the money wisely - - blew it on wars, some of which the U.S. promoted and encouraged.   Does the U.S. government always make good use of its resources?

True ,so now you do unerstand why private exploitation can be trusted more than government exploitation. There was once a large oil reserve run by the Government here for the benefit of the people , we called it "Teapot Dome".

 I'd say they've been known to blow huge amounts on war, killing 2 million Vietnamese for example.

That isn't money , but if you want to make it money we were killing at bargan rates . 

Still, no one uses that as an excuse to give away national assets to foreigners.  Bush mis-used the tax revenues - - so let's farm them out to the Germans to collect, we'll get to keep 60% and the Germans, the suckers, will do all of the work collecting and still only get 40%.  YOur arguments just don't hold water.

 
If the government nationalised a lot of Capitol in the USA , the means of production and the resorces , the American People would loose out big time , we do that in part and we need to do it less ,not more.

BTW did you know that the English investor owns more farmland inthe USA than Ohio?
Germans buy a little less real estate, but they do buy some.

Where is the water you want me to hold?

Water is an increaseingly important and valuable resorce , Canada is well placed to exploit global thirst , who should get the wter ad who should get the cash?