>Oil cartels who are at the supply end - I mean the Saudis, the Nigerians, the Russians, the Canadians <g> the Mexicans and the Venezulans are pretty big determinants in the price of oil. No doubt about that. Instability in any oil producing region gives them an excuse to manipulate the price. But they don't need particular actions by the US goverment to make that happen.

I understand that oil cartels are at the supply end. But I understand they only set production limits, which can of course affect prices.
The big oil companies all have contracts with these places. Even if those contracts have clauses for percentages of selling prices, all that means is that 2 'people' divide the pie instead of one.
And I'd sure like to know how the price of oil is really set. I mean, who are these people? Do they work for oil companies or get kickbacks from them or what? I mean, China sells its gas for something like 25 cents a litre and here we pay $1.00. Sure, taxes go some way, but what else?
And the fact that any sneeze can set oil prices rising out of control is ludicrous! We've all come to accept silly excuses as to why the market fluctuates or why oil prices vary so much. It's all a real crock of crap that needs fixing.
I saw a guy on TV last Wednesday, a Wall Street trader. He was saying how, business-wise, he and his colleagues were elated when 9/11 happened because they knew gold would go through the roof. He described similarly about the Iraq war, having seen the "benefits" of the first Gulf War and how oil might even go to $60 or $70 a barrel, and he was giddy describing the euphoria.

>
>It is not in the best interests of the US to try to establish any kind of hegemony. As Iraq amply demonstrates, it's more trouble than it is worth. The interconnectedness of multinational corporations make it unprofitable to do anything that disrupt markets. There is plenty of money to be made by just doing business without having the additonal overhead engendered by instability . Sure, security companies, those who deal with rogue regimes under sanction ( Oil for Food ? ) , or amoral German and French chemical cartels who would sell sarin to the devil himself benefit from security problems, but most business would prefer a non-war environment.

I wish that all was true. But i'll need lots of convincing.
Many people holding powerful Administration posts now are all signers of a ~1991 memo to President Bush (I) pushing for a full flexing of U.S. muscle to ensure supremacy "to protect U.S. interests". Presidnet Bush rejected it, but President Bush II either accepted it or accidentally put the foxes (signers) into the henhouse.

What has your government done for you lately? Kept you safe from attack? Is that it???
What has your government done for corporations lately?... Too much to list here!

And don't be so quick to condemn the French or the Germans. In some cases their sales heads were feted with lavish parties and huge "gifts" AT THEIR U.S. HEADQUARTERS for setting sales records, the bulk of the sales going to Iraq and other countries under U.S. and U.N. sanctions. And surely the U.S. had backdoor sales of its own. Wasn't President Clinton heavily criticized for aprdoning a person who traded with the enemy. The only problem was that guy got caught.
You must know that a corporation has NO MORALS and that only the $$$ rules. Yet you seem to not only accept, but laud, the interconnectedness of corporations. A sweatshop pieceworker in Honduras get 74cents as the finished price for a ladies jacket that sells for $175. in the U.S. Tell me corporations are "good".
Whenever anything "bad" happens, the GDP goes up. Does that makes sense to you?

>
>The problem is, when you have kakistocracies like N Korea, Iran etc. threatening unspeakable events in the future, and a Europe that has relied for so long on external protection that they are too impotent or corrupt to address the problem, the world's only superpower is placed in the position of taking both the responsibility and the heat. Frankly, I'd prefer making North Korea's nuclear weapons the sole responsibliity of Canada, peace in the Middle East the responsiblity of France, and rebuilding Africa the problem of the former colonial powers. Do you think they're up to it?

The thing about the U.S. and its importance in the world is that President Bush II has turned it all upside down.
Where once the axiom was roughly 'with great power comes great responsibility' has changed into 'with great power we can do whatever we want'. This is not an endeaaring posture to those of us less fortunate. Especially if we have something one of your corporations covets!

The "war on terrorism" is a god-send to the corporations and really not required (at least in the form chosen by the U.S.) except to enrich the rich (corporatioons) while letting the pols tell us all how safe they're keeping us. How often have you heard something along the lines of 'when it comes to safety, no price is too high'? This is just what the corporations want everyone to believe. But why is it that all that dough gets spent on friends' projects rather than things that really are security holes?

cheers
>
>>SNIP>
>>>But if there were ever a case of "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" it is in western society, since power is so diffuse. Even if one sees the US as a corporate oligarchy, it is certainly one constrained by so many powerful forces that is must behave itself in a way quite surprising for so much power. As a historian I am fascinated by so much power excercised so responsibly ( by historical - not morally absolute - standards. )
>>
>>Historically I believe you are dead on... counting from the 19-teens to today.
>>But "historically", too, it's taken not long at all for the U.S. to flex its muscle now that it is the lone superpower on the planet! Contrary to your statement above there are NO CONSTRAINTS - internal ones - preventing the U.S. from overrunning the planet. There may be some coming, in view of the success in Iraq, but none yet to speak of. It's all in the President's hands.
>>
>>There are some who feel Afghanistan and Iraq are just a warm-up. And let's face it, corporations make out like bandits in war, and especially in this war.
>>I assume you're aware that the private "security" firms operating in Iraq are not subject to the laws of Iraq. Actually I should say they weren't and I'm not sure if that's changed since they got "their" government there.
>>
>>>
>>>Our great War for Oil has resulted in record gas prices. Either we are not very good at wars of aggression or perhaps that really wasn't the primary motive. ( a real War for Oil would entail seizing Saudi Arabia, expelling the Saudis, and taking control of foreign workers who actually make the place work anyway <g> ) If our goals in Iraq were entirely selfish, the smart play would have been to either ally with Saddam or, after overthrowing him, ally with the Kurds, hold the north and let the Shiites and Sunnis have at it. That would have been pretty cynical but would definitely have been to our advantage.
>>
>>Again, a product of the system. The only reason for record gas prices rest entirely with the oil companies! Since they own both ends of the supply chain they are most pleased to have any rumour/innuendo cause a rise in the price. And they've shut lots of refineries to ensure that supply is always marginal. War is win-win for corporations, so don't expect any serious kind of pressure to find alternate methods to take root any time soon.
>>
>>>
>>SNIP