SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3525)7/31/2002 5:48:55 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
$6 or $60

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Columnist
The New York Times
July 31, 2002

Reading the papers lately, I've lost track of whether the Pentagon plans to invade Iraq from three sides or four, and whether we will be using Jordan, Kuwait or Diego Garcia as our main launching pad. But one thing I haven't seen much planning for is the impact an attack on Iraq would have on the world's oil market. Depending on how the war went, that impact could be very bad and lead to a sharp spike in oil prices, like $60-a-barrel oil. But — wait a minute — it could also be very good, and lead to $6-a-barrel oil that would weaken OPEC and, maybe, also weaken the Arab autocrats who depend on high oil prices to finance their illegitimate regimes and buy off opponents.

Raising this oil question is not an argument against taking down Saddam Hussein. He's a bad man, building dangerous weapons, who has raped the future of two generations of Iraqis. The whole region would be improved by his ouster. It is an argument, though, for thinking through all the dimensions of any attack on Iraq. We're not talking about a war in Tora Bora here. We're talking about a war in the world's main gas station.

"A proposed attack on Iraq is an extraordinarily high-risk economic adventure that could either destabilize the governments of one or more oil exporting countries by creating a prolonged period of low prices, or, if things went wrong, lead to a prolonged disruption of world oil supplies, which could be even more devastating," says Philip K. Verleger Jr., an oil expert and fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Let's start with the $60-a-barrel scenario. (The price today is in the mid-$20's.) While the Pentagon keeps leaking its war plans, no one ever writes about what Saddam's war plans might be. What if Saddam responds by firing Scuds with chemical or biological warheads at Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oilfields? The world market could lose not only Iraq's two million barrels a day, but millions more. And what if the war drags on and we have as much trouble finding Saddam as we've had finding Osama?

Don't kid yourself: If prices skyrocket because of a war in the Persian Gulf, Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria and others will cut back their output and keep prices high to milk the moment for all it's worth.

The scenario that could produce $6-a-barrel oil goes like this: Iraq under Saddam has been pumping up to two million barrels of oil a day, under the U.N. oil-for-food program. Let's say a U.S. invasion works and in short order Saddam is ousted and replaced by an Iraqi Thomas Jefferson, or just a "nice" general ready to abandon Iraq's nuclear weapons program and rejoin the family of nations.

That would mean Iraq would be able to modernize all its oilfields, attract foreign investment and in short order ramp up its oil production to its long-sought capacity of five million barrels a day. That is at least three million barrels of oil a day more on the world market, and Iraq, which will be desperate for cash to rebuild, is not likely to restrain itself. (Now you understand why Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait all have an economic interest in Saddam's staying in power and Iraq's remaining a pariah state, so it can't produce more oil.)

In addition, notes Mr. Verleger, if we invade Iraq in the late winter or spring, when world oil demand normally declines, OPEC countries will have to slash their own production even more to accommodate Iraq. This would be coming at a time when non-OPEC countries (Russia, Mexico, Norway, Oman and Angola) have been steadily boosting their output and will continue doing so. Most OPEC countries, however, can't cut back any more to make room for them. Venezuela is broke. Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia need cash to deal with all their debts, their masses of unemployed and new infrastructure demands. (Watch Saudi Arabia. King Fahd is now gravely ill in a hospital in Switzerland, and the struggle to succeed him is in full swing.)

Bottom line: A quick victory that brings Iraq fully back into the oil market could lead to a sharp fall in oil incomes throughout OPEC that could seriously weaken the oil cartel and rob its many autocratic regimes of the income they need to maintain their closed political systems. In fact, give me sustained $10-a-barrel oil and I'll give you revolutions from Iran to Saudi Arabia, and throw in Venezuela.

If that scenario prevails, you could look at an invasion of Iraq as a possible two-for-one sale: destroy Saddam and destabilize OPEC at the same time. Buy one, get one free. But you better prepare for the consequences of both.

nytimes.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (3525)7/31/2002 7:21:24 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Economists believe growth slowing, but no more recession

By KEN MORITSUGU
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Jul. 30, 2002

WASHINGTON - New government data coming out Wednesday is expected to confirm that the U.S. economy slowed in the spring, and some forecasters worry that growth could remain tepid for the rest of the year.

Analysts don't believe the economy will return to recession after a brief recession last year, but some say the recent slide in stocks could trim 1 percentage point off growth in the second half of the year.

The Commerce Department will release its first estimate of second-quarter gross domestic product on Wednesday. Most forecasts were for 2 percent to 2.5 percent growth at an annual rate, down from 6.1 percent in the first three months of the year. GDP, the total value of all the goods and services produced in the United States, is the broadest measure of the overall economy's performance.

A drop in growth from 6.1 percent to the 2 percent to 2.5 percent range would not be as dramatic as it sounds.

In evaluating the prospects for sustained economic growth, analysts look more closely at a component of GDP called final sales - the combined spending of consumers, businesses and the government - which grew at a 2.6 percent annual rate in the first quarter. Many forecasters believe final sales dipped in the second quarter, with a drop in consumer spending overwhelming a long-awaited pickup in business spending.

"Everyone is looking for a second-quarter slowdown. It's just a question of how big," said Cary Leahey, an economist with Deutsche Bank in New York. "The worry is it will be maintained in the third quarter, because the confidence numbers have been knocked down."

Consumer confidence fell sharply this month, largely because of the stock market decline and public concern about corporate scandals, the Conference Board, a New York-based business research group, reported Tuesday.

The group's index of consumer confidence dropped to 97.1 in July from 106.3 in June, a larger decline than analysts had anticipated.

The index is still above levels generally associated with a recession, but the decline suggests that consumers will "tend to curb their spending in the absence of offsetting incentives," said Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's Consumer Research Center.

The plummet in consumer confidence dampened investor enthusiasm after Monday's strong rally. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped 31.85 points to 8680.03. The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite index edged up 8.94 points to 1344.19.

Analysts are divided over the impact of the stock market decline on the economy. Some say it could be minimal, while others believe it will lead to spending cutbacks by both consumers and businesses.

The stock market's fall has driven down mortgage and other interest rates, offsetting some of the negative economic impact. Homeowners who refinance their homes at lower rates wind up with more cash in their pockets.

"The great irony of the stock market woes is that consumers went out and refinanced again," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Bank One in Chicago.

However, Merrill Lynch chief economist Bruce Steinberg believes that stock market losses now outweigh housing market gains for consumers. "At this point, the loss of wealth is so large that it will reduce growth," he said.

Both Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank expect to cut their second-half growth forecasts by about 1 percentage point after examining Wednesday's gross domestic product data.

The chances remain slim, though, that the stock market decline will drive down spending so much that the economy will fall into recession, analysts said.

"You can't rule it out when you have this kind of shock to the equity market, but I think it's not that likely," said James Glassman, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase in New York.

The second-quarter GDP report will be posted on the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis Web site: bea.doc.gov