Re: Cheney's Halliburton to Control Iraqi Oil?

Andreas Pour wrote:
> James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>>Andreas Pour wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What exactly is the argument?  That having control over so much wealth makes
>>>democracy impossible?  If that is the case, does control over a $1 trillion
>>>budget not also make democracy impossible?  So you admit that the US is not a
>>>democracy?
>>
>>We are very close to the line but have not crossed it.
> 
> 
> Right, so try running for President and see how far you get - and make sure your
> policies do not meet the approval of the CFR, BTW, to make it, shall we say,
> extra challenging (i.e., impossible).
>  
The 'line' is when over 50% of the voters pay NO taxes and I don't 
think that FICA counts.
> 
>>>Or is there some magic line between $1 trillion and the value of
>>>Iraq's oil fields where suddenly democracy becomes impossible?
>>>
>>
>>No, there isn't any difference of kind, only a difference of degree.
> 
> 
> After writing that I realized that, in the case of Iraq, the oil is worth only
> about $60 billion on an annual basis, so, in fact, even with full control over
> the oil, assuming the pundit's argument is correct, Iraq should be much more of
> a democracy (using your "difference of degree") than the US.  Or, did I
> misunderstand the argument?
> 
You would need to express that on a per capita basis since Iraq is a 
much smaller country than the US.
> 
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>As to the best way to do it, would be to bid out contracts to *operate*, not
>>>*own*, the oil-fields.  That way the surplus spread (Market_Value -
>>>Extraction_Costs - Transportation_Costs) goes to the government,
>>
>>That is what I thought that the US was doing.
> 
> 
> That's not privatizing.  

We are NOT privatizing the oil fields (at least for now) we have hired 
a company to run them and the amount from your equation will go to the 
Iraqi people less a few percent for administration.

> Privatizing goes to who owns the oilfields and hence
> gets the spread.  

Actually, it is a question of who owns the oil -- the mineral rights 
-- and that is the Iraqi government.

> And keeping it nationalized is definitely what was promised,

Well that is what we are doing for now.  But, I think that proper 
privatization would result in a larger revenue for the Iraqi Government.

> but, I don't expect that promise will be kept, something will "come up" or so,
> or some pundit will say its "incompatible with democracy" and so the US oil
> companies have to steal the oil for the Iraqi's own good or some such other
> crap.  And the media will say, "Yes, that's right, for the Iraqis' own good, we
> are such great kind people to care so much for the Iraqis that we would even
> take their oil from them, you know it hurts us more than it hurts them", or will
> they not even hint at having done a wrong?
> 
Nobody can steal the oil that is in the ground.  And there really are 
NOT any US oil companies.  The seven (now six) 'sisters' are all 
multinational companies.
> 
>>>and the
>>>government needs not charge taxes, and, in fact, can provide a number of social
>>>services, such as free education, a free highway system, free health care, and
>>>other things which might actually benefit the Iraqis.
>>
>>Unfortunately, this large amount of socialism does make democracy
>>difficult.
> 
> 
> Free roads and education and health care is socialism?  

In the strict sense of the word, yes any free service provided by the 
government is socialism.

> You should look up the word.

Yes I did and I mean it in the economic sense not the political sense.

If the government owns and administers something for the benefit of 
the people, that is an instance of socializing that and is an instance 
of socialism.

 > In any event there are free roads and education in the US, free 
health care too
 > o a very limited degree, so I take it the US is socialist?  Does the
> word have no meaning?
>  
Yes it has meaning and free health care provided by the government 
directly financed by taxes is properly called 'socialized medicine'.
> 
>>And this will still be the case if they privatize the oil fields since
>>there would most certainly be a large royalty or severance tax on the
>>oil pumped.
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm sure the Iraqis will be thrilled to be able to get a small part of what
> should be all theirs.  "Don't be mad, I only stole all your furniture and
> possessions, you still have the foundation to your house!"  Theft is theft, even
> if you leave crumbs behind.

Who said that it would be a small part?  I didn't.  But perhaps you 
think that the "profit" will be much more than I do.  This is a common 
mistake made by leftists -- they do not understand how the market sets 
the price of a natural resource.

--
JRT


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.