Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
If what they want is "energy security," the last thing they should have done is to make war on Iraq, let Israel go out of control (like now), and angle for sanctions and then war on Iran. What they should have done is to invest in Iraq and Iran, even though the terms may not exactly be to their liking.
. Shouldawouldacoulda... I qualified "energy security," with "in the long run" (like sometime before the oil runs out). The neocons are concerned with "energy security" for the next one hundred years. I think it's more than obvious they don't give a damn about the price of gas at the pumps or consumer related issues affected by the cost of oil today, that's micro-economic, related to their macro-economic global vision of the US as world energy/economic power. In a despotic state, what the general population thinks of oil prices matters not. The privileged will get their gasoline, and the thermostats in their homes will still be set to 78 degrees. .
As for "oil price stability," those who benefit the most from it are oil producer nations -- provided that oil prices get stabilized on a relatively high side -- and industrializing nations like China and India. That's why Venezuela proposed that OPEC and consumers jointly attempt to stabilize the price at $50 per barrel: http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2006/04/03/afx2644022.html. (Why $50 per barrel? That's the threshold of profitability for Orinoco tar.)
. Oil producers and "industrializing nations" are not the only party that benefits from oil price stability, the ability of large industrial manufacturers (whether US, or *producing product for US markets*) to assure a steady flow of power for a consistent cost is important as well. IMHO, from a governmental standpoint, in the mid/long-term, the stability of oil prices is more important than it's monetary value. Orinoco tar... it comes complete with dirt gravel and twigs. Value added! Leigh http://leighm.net/
