Interview with the Master

[Plane]

<<Cutting off oil to a "rival " would be an act of war in any case , are youfamiliar with the Japaneese position at the beginning of WWII?>>

Yes I am.  Roosevelt placed a total embargo on all scrap iron shipments to Japan.  There was no attempt whatsoever to justify this in terms of an international scrap iron supply crisis.  It was a purely punitive measure and it would have justified a Japanese declaration of war (which they did not make.)

The situation would be a lot murkier in the Mid-East.  First of all the U.S. could hide behind the "sovereignty" of the Iraqi or Iranian government.  Secondly, this would not have to be a total embargo - - this could be an allocation of supplies unfavourable to (for example) Japan, but by no means a total embargo, and justification for preferences to other buyers could take hundreds of different forms, each one sufficient to engage a battalion of lawyers for the next hundred years.  Third, if the Chinese were finally moved to extreme measures, they would have to invade the Middle East themselves, a task made all the more difficult by the entrenched positions of the U.S. military.  In reality, this would raise the bar for an invasion quite a few notches; perhaps preventing an invasion in two hypothetical scenarios out of three.

Regardless of what actually transpires, to argue that physical control of the oil fields is not an advantage to the U.S. or anyone else is just plain foolish.  It's a huge advantage and almost everyone realizes that.  In support of the proposition, Chomsky very cleverly (IMHO) quoted Dick Cheney to prove his point.

We cut off oil sales to Japan too, there were iron and coal mines in captured China but for oil they needed to capture some more territory.

I don't see how you can so clearly see that sinking a tanker at sea is an act of war , but think that captureing an oil feild for the same purpose is not.

Hugo Cheves has just discovered that possession of Oil is not the leverage he thought it was , he can sell it to anyone or refuse to sell it to anyone and it makes little diffrence to us.

You think my ideas foolish because you are not getting them , keep trying.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't see how you can so clearly see that sinking a tanker at sea is an act of war , but think that captureing an oil feild for the same purpose is not.>>

I don't know what the point of this last remark of yours is, but quite clearly capturing the oil fields of Iraq was an act of war against Iraq but was not considered to be an act of war by any of America's commercial rivals.  It is obviously NOT an act of war at this point in time.  If Iraq was a major source of Chinese oil and the U.S. then decided to seize the Iraqi oil fields, leaving China no alternative source of supply, it could very well be taken as an act of war by China.  You seem, as usual, to be vastly oversimplifying things and ignoring context completely.

I'm not sure how your last comment was intended to bolster your absurd argument that there is no advantage for the U.S.  in controlling a major Middle East oil field but in any event whatever idea you were hoping to express through it is clearly invalid.

<<You think my ideas foolish because you are not getting them , keep trying.>>

Unfortunately, plane, I think your ideas are foolish because they are foolish.  Quite frankly, I think a debate about whether or not it's to the advantage of the U.S. or any great power to control the oil fields of the Middle East is like debating whether water runs downhill.

<<Hugo Cheves has just discovered that possession of Oil is not the leverage he thought it was.>>

Hugo Chavez does not control anywhere near the amount of oil that the owners of Iraq do, nor is it as strategically placed, with regard to America's main actual and  upcoming rivals.  However, his control of the Venezuelan oil fields is obviously enough of an inconvenience to the U.S.A. that they have already mounted one (thankfully unsuccessful) coup d'etat against him and more will undoubtedly follow.  However I will at least agree with you that the Venezuelan oil fields are much less important, geopolitically speaking, than the Mid-East oil fields.  That seems to be beyond dispute.

[Plane]

""Corrections usually happen because of a catalyst, and this may be it," said Ed Peters, chief investment officer at PanAgora Asset Management. "The move in China was a surprise, and when a major market has a shock it ripples through the rest of the market. With all the trade that goes on with China, there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction with that kind of drop.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street


China is haveing trouble , naturally we are also haveing trouble beause we are interdependant .

China is not worred that the US will "controll" oil to their detriment , we can and have been able to since WWII and they are more "vunerable " than ever to such a tactic .


But they are not worred.

Short of war, there is no situation (in reality)in which it would be an advantage to the US to stifle the growth of the Chineese economy.

If a war is going on then we would use the controll we already have to deny fuel to the Chineese military , this would not even be difficult.


Even so there are a lot better reasons to want China to grow rich thanthere are resons to prevent this.

I don't think you have the concept of  "rival" corectly interpreted .

"Controll " is a concept you need to work on too.

The USA has had the ability to turn off the tap since 1945 , but we still need more "controll" than that?

[Michael Tee]

<<China is not worred that the US will "controll" oil to their detriment , we can and have been able to since WWII and they are more "vunerable " than ever to such a tactic .>>

It's not what you could do to them since WWII that is important because for much of that time they were in a very junior position to you and did not consume anywhere near the amount of oil that they do now and that they will need in the future; times change, plane, and the relationship between China and America now and in the future is nothing like what it was for most of the years following WWII.

The fact of the matter is that America HAS moved on the Iraqi wells and would love to move on the Iranian wells also.  This is obviously not to secure America's supply as it is to control how much gets through to India and China.  So even if China is NOT worried about American moves on Middle East oil (which is itself an absurdity) the Americans themselves clearly are very anxious to secure these resources before China and/or India can.

<<Short of war, there is no situation (in reality)in which it would be an advantage to the US to stifle the growth of the Chineese economy.>>

Get real.  It's to the advantage of ANY competitor to stifle the competition's productive capacity when the competition cuts deep enough into its own markets.

<<Even so there are a lot better reasons to want China to grow rich thanthere are resons to prevent this.>>

Oversimplifying again, unfortunately.  Sometimes Chinese prosperity can help America, sometimes not.  Your "one size fits all" concept that Chinese prosperity will always be of benefit to America is extremely simple-minded.  If that prosperity comes at the cost of Americans, either through taking away U.S. market share or in outbidding America for scarce natural resources, in either case, it could be very hurtful for America.

<<I don't think you have the concept of  "rival" corectly interpreted.>>

Good, then perhaps you can tell me where I have it wrong.

<<"Controll " is a concept you need to work on too.>>

I would presume that Dick Cheney also has to work on that too, then, since according to the quote from him that Chomsky cited in the interview, Cheney believes that physical power to disrupt a pipeline is a potential tool of blackmail and intimidation.  How much more powerful a tool of blackmail and intimidation is control over the oil at the source?  Common sense alone should have given you the answer, it shouldn't have been necessary to trot out Dead-Eye Dick as a source.

<<The USA has had the ability to turn off the tap since 1945 , but we still need more "controll" than that?>>

Of course you do - - as I've pointed out, the only way you could have turned off the tap without controlling the oil at the source would be to intercept shipments between Middle East vendors and Chinese buyers, which would be an obvious and immediate act of war.  Now you can do it just by not selling from the wells - - not necessarily and not as obviously an act of war and even if it should be taken as an act of war, you will still have the huge advantage over the Chinese or Indians of defending your holdings from entrenched defensive positions at the wells.  If you merely intercepted the shipments without being entrenched at the wells, you could be involved in a battle for the oil fields on more or less equal terms with Chinese and/or Indian invaders.  The advantage of getting in there first and establishing your bases there is unmistakeable.

[Plane]

<<Short of war, there is no situation (in reality)in which it would be an advantage to the US to stifle the growth of the Chineese economy.>>

Get real.  It's to the advantage of ANY competitor to stifle the competition's productive capacity when the competition cuts deep enough into its own markets.
[/quote]


Think about that a bit, this is not really true , except in the very narrow and rare circumstance in which trade is a zero sum game.

Right now (if you will read at the link I provided) China is haveing an economic hic up. Naturally this drags down our stock market.

When Japan had an economic crash abour fifteen years ago , who benefited?

Not us, not anybody .


Tradeing partners are not "rivals " in the sense that they are competeing like poker players to get the whole pot, they are more like associates who co-operate to fill the pot and split it .

This may be kinda complex but I am shure that Mr. Chomsky could understand it , except that his meal ticket is filled by misunderstanding it.

[Michael Tee]

<<When Japan had an economic crash abour fifteen years ago , who benefited?

<<Not us, not anybody .>>

I don't think either one of us knows enough about the situation to determine whether the U.S. or anyone else benefitted from Japan's economic crash "about 15 years ago."  We don't know, for example, whether or to what extent Japan and the U.S. were competing for the same markets or for the same resources.  We don't know if the Japanese crash was due to inability to acquire raw materials or finished goods necessary to their economy or to some other cause.  (And this would be important since the benefit of choking off a competitor may be something that the U.S. has not yet been able to do to Japan and thus we don't have any practical experience of what the actual result could be.)  In fact we don't even know if it's true that the U.S. did NOT benefit from Japan's economic woes.   


<<Tradeing partners are not "rivals " in the sense that they are competeing like poker players to get the whole pot, they are more like associates who co-operate to fill the pot and split it .>>

In unrestrained global capitalism, nations which manufacture the same types of goods or export the same kinds of raw materials are competitors and aim at maximizing their own market share.  If they form cartels to split the pot, it is because too much energy is being wasted in competition.  If one side possesses the option to choke off the other (which would exist after an American grab of the Mid-East oil fields but would not exist before, except as an act of war) then there would be much less incentive for the stronger side to enter into a cartel, which would not be as profitable as forcing the other side out of the competition and securing all of their former customers.

<<This may be kinda complex but I am shure that Mr. Chomsky could understand it , except that his meal ticket is filled by misunderstanding it.>>

You would like to make it complex but it is relatively simple and Mr. Chomsky understands it perfectly.  Common sense tells me that if there is a widget market that both the U.S. and Japan are selling to, if the operating costs of the Japanese widget factories can be doubled or tripled, while the American costs stay the same, the Japanese factories will ultimately have to raise their prices or go broke, while the Americans can continue to sell at the former market price.  Common sense tells us that the Americans will necessarily gain some  of the former customers of the Japanese, which means more profits on sales to the Americans, less to the Japanese.  This is hardly rocket science.  Any businessman can understand it perfectly, I understand it and Chomsky understands it.  So don't worry about Chomsky's meal ticket - - if Chomsky were unable to understand it, his readers would have him pegged for a total idiot and his meal ticket would in fact become worthless.

[Plane]

- - if Chomsky were unable to understand it, his readers would have him pegged for a total idiot and his meal ticket would in fact become worthless.

Exatly what I have done.



Today was rougher than yesterday on our stock market , reason being that China is haveng trouble and investors are harmed.

It will be hard to sell American Widgets to broke Chineese , is that too complex for Mr. Chomsky?

Broke people buy less .
Prosperous people buy more.
Good business is good for business generally.
Prosperity amoung any customer base is good for all of their supplyers.
China has been buying a lot of Soybeans that we are going to have to keep now .

Can you imagine  situation in which Chinas economy cashing would be good for the USA?
You have imagined an imaginary situation , in reality we are interdependant and becomeing more so.

[Plane]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/28/D8NIKJTO0.html


Japan and Russia sign trade deal.


This is bad for who then?