Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (4969)	8/21/2002 1:19:56 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Corporate interest in Iraqi oil By SEAN GONSALVES SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Tuesday, August 20, 2002 I consider myself an aspiring devotee of what Gandhi termed satyagraha (truth-force), which in pop politics is described with ambiguous phrases such as "passive resistance" and "civil disobedience." Call it what you want. I have no ideas for a better word to describe the "experiment in truth" conducted by Gandhi -- a truth Gandhi himself believed was most powerfully present in Jesus, President Bush's favorite political philosopher. But I'm not a pacifist -- an admission that seems to confuse a good number of intelligent people. Gandhi himself said: "Manslaughter may be necessary in certain cases. Suppose a man runs amok and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who dispatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." It's been said non-violent tactics are hopelessly naive because the adherents will be crushed by their enemies and many innocent people would die. If that were skeptics' true concern, why not apply the same logic to war? In the 20th century -- the bloodiest century in human history -- anywhere from 80 percent to 90 percent of all war casualties were non-combatants. Some will say non-violent action works with democracies but not against dictators. Well, they'll have a hard time explaining how in 1944 dictatorships in Nicaragua and Guatemala fell in a matter of days by way of Gandhian methods. So I still hope against hope that "regime change" in Iraq can be brought about through non-violent means. Of course, it may come down to war. And if it does, we should at least be telling ourselves the truth. Even my 12-year-old daughter can see through the simplistic good-versus-evil analysis. So let's stop beating around the Bush and at least have a candid discussion before we allow privileged men sitting in plush, air-conditioned offices to send other people's sons and daughters off to mortal combat. Shouldn't we be having a vigorous debate about the oil politics fueling this conflict? After all, the five permanent member of the United Nations Security Council are all scrambling for economic control of Iraq's oil reserves. Read the industry mags and you'll quickly learn that Iraq possesses the second largest oil reserves on the planet, currently estimated at 112.5 billion barrels, or about 11 percent of the world total. Many experts believe that Iraq has more undiscovered reserves, which could double its total petrol production once vigorous prospecting resumes. That would put Iraq up there with Saudi Arabia as one of the world's most profitable oil sources, according to industry experts. Oil companies are drooling at the prospect. One industry insider called it "a boom waiting to happen." There's also the fact that five companies dominate the global oil industry. In order of size, the firms are Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch-Shell, British Petroleum-Amoco, Chevron-Texaco and TotalElfFina. A recent report assembled by political scientists and church officials points out: "U.S.-based Exxon-Mobil looms largest among the world's oil companies and, by some yardsticks, measures as the world's biggest company. The United States consequently ranks first in the corporate oil sector, with the United Kingdom second and France trailing as a distant third. Considering that the United States and the United Kingdom act almost alone as (Iraq) sanctions advocates and enforcers, and that they are the headquarters of the world's four largest oil companies, we cannot ignore the possible relationship of (military) policy with this powerful corporate interest." And let's not forget that U.S. and UK companies had a three-quarter share in Iraq's oil production before the 1972 nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Co., when the Iraqi government began to make steps to gain greater control of its oil resources. In a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Chevron CEO Kenneth Derr candidly remarked: "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas -- reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." He then voiced his support for the current sanctions regime. Condoleezza Rice, perhaps the president's most influential national security adviser, was a board member of Chevron before going to work in the White House. Chevron even named one of its supertankers in her honor. Now, anyone acquainted with the history of Middle East oil politics knows that U.S. policy-makers' interest in dominating the world oil industry goes back to when Rice was a mere twinkle in her father's eye. But given all these corporate scandals and the close ties that the Bush administration has with big oil, don't you think we owe it to ourselves, and especially to the young men and women in our armed services, to thoroughly investigate this stuff? To date, Congress and the "liberal" media have, unfortunately, generated more heat than light on this story behind the story. --------------------------------------------- Sean Gonsalves is a columnist with the Cape Cod Times. E-mail: sgonsalves@capecodonline.com seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (4969)	8/21/2002 2:24:34 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Fed Officials See Bumpy Recovery Wed Aug 21,12:17 PM ET By Victoria Thieberger READING, Pa. (Reuters) - Senior Federal Reserve ( news - web sites) officials said on Wednesday the current low level of borrowing costs should foster continued economic expansion, albeit a halting one, a sign the central bank is in no rush to cut interest rates. In their first public comments since the central bank last week left interest rates unchanged at four-decade lows, Fed officials conceded the recovery so far had been slower than expected, but said the central bank should not try to smooth out "every bump" in the road to recovery. U.S. Treasury bonds sold off after the remarks dashed traders' lingering expectations for a rate cut in the near term. The Fed officials also played down the risk of deflation, or a broad-based decline in prices, in the U.S. economy, saying the stagnation that has plagued Japan for a decade was exacerbated by structural problems unique to that country. "I believe the Fed's current monetary policy stance is appropriately supportive of the recovery process," said Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia President Anthony Santomero, a voting member of the Fed's interest-rate setting committee. He told a business breakfast here that he expected economic activity to gradually pick up through the rest of the year and return to trend growth of 3.0 to 4.0 pct in 2003, adding it was "most unlikely" the United States would fall back into recession. The policymaking FOMC last week opted to keep borrowing costs unchanged at 1.75 percent, but shifted its balance of risks to say weakness was the greatest threat facing the economy today. This left the door open for the central bank to add to the 11 interest rate cuts it made last year, but the FOMC signaled it was in no hurry to lower rates by saying the current level coupled with underlying growth in productivity -- or output per worker -- "should be sufficient" to foster growth. ON THE SAME PAGE The cautiously optimistic tone was echoed by Chicago Federal Reserve President Michael Moskow, who said he expected the U.S. economy to keep growing. But he warned excess capacity throughout the economy, especially in telecommunications, could drag on investment and the path back to potential growth could be rocky. "The Fed cannot -- and should not -- try to smooth out every bump," Moskow told the Fox Valley Chamber of Commerce ( news - web sites) in Appleton, Wisc. He is not a voting member on the FOMC this year. After a bounceback at the start of the year, economic growth slowed sharply in the second quarter to a 1.1 percent pace, and more recent economic news on employment, manufacturing, consumer confidence and weekly store sales has all been weak. A growing number of analysts believe the Federal Reserve may lower rates again before the end of the year to kickstart the recovery. The FOMC has three more scheduled meetings in 2002, the next one on Sept. 24. Separately, San Francisco Fed President Robert Parry said the Fed has lowered interest rates enough to help the economy. "To me, I have great difficulty characterizing this period as a period of a credit crunch," Parry told news wire Market News. "So it seems to me that action on the part of the Federal Reserve is not called for." Both Moskow and Santomero said the risk of deflation in the United States was low, though Moskow added this was something the Fed must monitor. Though prices are falling across a number of goods categories, the huge services sector still has rising prices. "The possibility of deflation is very very low. The U.S. economy is responding to relatively aggressive monetary and fiscal policy," Santomero said in response to a question after his speech. He added that inflation generally declines in the early phase of economic recovery, and that is what the U.S. economy is experiencing now. Santomero said Japan's situation was "quite distinct" from the U.S. one, saying the decade spent in and out of recession there owed much to "unique" structural issues. The aggressive monetary and fiscal easing in the U.S. since early 2001 has had an effect, with government spending lifting real demand and consumers responding to low interest rates, he said. The Philadelphia Fed president said he did not agree with those who worried that with interest rates already at four-decade lows, there was not much more room left to ease if necessary. "I am confident the tools we have available will be effective in leading us to recovery," he said.