The geo-politics of oil

[siaisjack]

by peacfully he means china selling weapons to genocidal goverments which use them to slaghter there subgects?

[canadastreetmedia]

this man has some good advice for america

better information and ideas than the american politicians who front for the oil companies interests seem to talk about.

[peymaania]

This is all fine, but the majority of U.S. Congressmen and Women are BEYOND

rationality. For the most part they are Greedy, Self-Absorbed Lawyers without

any sense of proportion, decency and

are driven by ignorance and stupidity.

But the fault lies with American people

for voting for these people time and again.

[Hithard177]

Peymaania, elected officials are caught in a trap, a game that has strictly defined yet unstated rules. Vote out Democrat A, vote in Republican B, and policies A-Z continue unaffected. Vote out Republican B, Vote in Democrat C, and the game goes on.

Until the power of money to fund elections is changed, the game will not change. Voting is now meaningless, unfortunately. Need drastic campaign finance reform NOW!

[Jmriccitelli]

If you really want a book on oil and how in controls the geopolitics of the world, read Anthony Sampson's book,"The Seven Sisters." It will blow your mind. It's not even published anymore, but Amazon sells it used!

[critics11]

Now NATO Moved In When Their Are Less Amount Of Terrorists They Are Still Struggling.From Here We All Can Guess Or Visualise How Difficult It Would Be For NATO To Give Strong Hand To Russians.

[critics11]

Nato Joint Forces Of USA And Britain Are Still Fighting Hard When RUSSIA Almost Reduced Or Minimised The Terrorism When Terrorist Activities In Afghanistan And Neighbours Were Peak Russia Fought Against Them Alone.

[critics11]

One Thing Sure If RUSSIA Do Get Involve Along With Other COUNTRIES To Fight Against Terrorist Terrorism Will Get Dimnish Completely Russian Troops Left Afghanistan When Nato Moved In.Whatever It Is It Would Be Hard For NATO To Defend RUSSIA If Another WAR Errupts.

[critics11]

As Russian Diplomacy From Very Long Duration They Do Believes In Storaging,Reserving The Valuable Resources Even Do They Have Plenty Of Barrels Of Oil And Nuclear Enrichment Instead Of That Vladmir Putin Diplomacy Is Although Different From Other Countries Diplomat.Putin Never Gets Involves In Any Kind Of Joint Alliances Always Do Believe In To Fight Alone With His Millitary Armed Troops.

[critics11]

So As For Now Election Campaign Is Going On In America Russia Took The Advantage Of This Duration In Very Good Way While Trading With Those Small Countries.

[critics11]

Well I Suppose Now What All Developed Countries Are Doing Now That Is The Exchange Of Ammuniation,Warfare Devices With The Small Countries Who Are Rich In Oil,Mineral,Energy And Other Resources.

[AcePilot101]

Oil is a valuable commodity. It has made many nations very wealthy. Not just the USA but Venezuela, Iran, China, Russia, etc.

There are more than 50 Muslim nations around the world and they have been taught to hate Jews and Christians, specifically Israel and the United States of America.

Stop living the lie; get off the US-bashing and "socialist" propaganda. Only democratic capitalism can create wealth and jobs. Socialism is a dead end, Marx was a liar!!

And the NDP is just a bad joke.

[randompal]

Marx believed in what he preached, therefore he was not a liar. The world always was, and still is, full of liars. The liars have been Marxists, Communists, capitalists, and the list goes on..

[UR123GoFly]

However, those of us who grew up in Communist countries have a "different" experience than those who are sitting in the university library, wearing their CHE T-shirt while the parents are paying the bills. We had "learned" about Marx/Engels/Lenin the hard way.. Please, do not preach us what Marx wanted to do.. it is immaterial.. What happened is what counts.. the 30-40 million who had been killed by Stalin, because they did not "understand" Marx.. They did not "appreciate" Lenin.. So they died !

[randompal]

funny, your English is quite good for someone who grew up in a communist country!

[randompal]

Besides, you misunderstood my simple message, which was that Marx was nothing more than an eccentric philosopher, ultimately dying in total poverty. Poor guy believed in everything he wrote, so calling him a liar is pointless. Lenin and Stalin, they were the liars. But not any more than the agents of Satan that run the  military industrial complexes of the world, past and present. Go chew on that you "victim" of Marxism and stop crying me a river - my parents escaped from a socialist country too

[polygamous1]

a cia sectet document revealed in one of John Pilger's documentaries can only be applied with the power of the military simplified: you have the water all farmers need to grow their crops you keep raising the price to almost starvation level for the farmers they will attack u n take the water BUT if u have the military power you starve/control n enslave them for u r benefit

[ATOMOGAMO]

NO WAY THE OLD GUY ...

[copcorona]

right on. America is doomed unless the people rise up and change America. Vote for change! Ron Paul maybe Obama maybe (I don't trust that slick lawyer) But a vote for the old guy is a vote for the continued decline of America.

[GFY1954]

...AMEN!

[JohnnyRock2000]

Canada is 2nd in the world of oil reserves in the world, next to Saudi Arabia. 99% of it is shipped to the U.S....then we buy half the oil we need back from them. Hey...we're nice guys.

[JohnnyRock2000]

Not a bad idea...

The U.S. uses 25% of the world oil and therefore is made into a national security issue.

So the answer is for America's government to guide the use of oil in America.

Unfortunately the U.S. is quite conservative in nature to change in the short term.

Changing their currency freaks them out (dollar bills and coin currency looks the same over the years while the world adapts). They can't even get a grip on the metric system.

[BlueEagle8]

It's all about the petro-dollar. One reason we invated Iraq was because they stopped accepting dollars for their oil. Iran has done the same. That's why there is urgency to invade Iran.

[JohnnyRock2000]

BlueEagle8 Yes, I have heard that...but not many know about Iraq and Iran using the Euro.

And pardon me....it is invaded, not invated.

[moejardines]

I question his expertise when he says that oil is no more important to the USA than other countries. Here's why: There are 1/4 billion passenger vehicles here, and our entire infrastructure, from sea to shining sea, is built around the needs of vehicles, not human beings. I'd be curious how common a daily 100 Km commute is in say China or Germany, compared to the USA where that's as common. Rural Americans often commute 200km/day. We are a nation of heavily armed oil junkies.

[JohnnyRock2000]

If gas was a lot more expensive years and years ago the country would have adapted in many ways....gas alternatives, better mileage, employment close to home, shorter driving vacations etc.

There is adaptation going on now in the U.S.....SUV's and truck sales have tanked.

PS....a gallon of gas costs the average Brit about 10 bucks. Yup!

[moejardines]

CAPS LOCK IS STUCK BRO!!!!

[leoduser]

I see the oil issue here, but I can't seem to find the news in it. Opinions are ok, but where are the facts/news?

[thbyrnes]

I strongly disagree with his proposed solution. A free market would solve the problem. But first you must acknowledge that the US is NOT a free market.

Get rid of the Federal Reserve and all the laws that stiffle the creative man and let the market set the price. If we cannot afford high gas, the use of Oil will lower.

NO SOCIALIST STATES!!!!

[Renegen1]

Hey smartass, it's more fuel efficient car REGULATION that solved the last oil crisis. Fuel efficiency hasn't change much since too. The technology isn't difficult to develop.

[endo1ver]

The last oil crisis ended when the Saudis started shipping oil again at the rate they did before they created the crisis to begin with. Bottom line we need our own source of oil just like we did then.

[TimberGeek]

Agreed, if the government weren't so tightly intertwined with big oil then big oil would have adapted to market forces long ago or perished. We'd certainly have a more efficient supply chain and a more diverse energy portfolio.

[freedomthrough]

@thbyrnes I can't believe people still preach this kind of thing in the 21st century. A free market is a completely theroretical concept that has been tried and failed many times. The reason: Capital accumulation and concentration. If you can counter those two through rational taxation and active government economic policy, you could keep a market, but stifle the rise of major corporations. That, i believe, is a way to a somewhat free market.

[Pippilly]

This guy is beating around the "Bush"

[hypnofan35]

i'm not so sure oil has a primary importance for the United States. They plan on stealing it and selling it. What's more the delivery is fairly safe. Those two palm islands on the near side of the Dubai peninsula are going to be deep water tanker ports while being disguised as resort islands. The look semi impregnable to me. You would just about have to nuke them to knock them out. They are just in too perfect of a place, and it is silly to believe anything the government says.

[wasy35]

we haven't suffered enough, different construction of state will never happen.

[FreeTheTruth1]

dang.. US 5% population uses 25% of world oil. hollycow...we are an engery hog.

[turkeyjurker]

don't believe the hype. this is an incredible over simplification of US oil usage.

[TheCZMan]

I would gladly read about an unsimplified version of US oil usage. Which gives the real figure of US oil usage. By the way, which is?

[RAPMONSTAR]

theyr already regulating the internet

[RAPMONSTAR]

Hugo Chaves '08

[RAPMONSTAR]

so theyr capitalising off of others countrys natural resource welth...

[oldhacks]

the US military uses 55% of our oil supply. funny how Al Gore conveniently left that out of his film...

[bbburton]

I was with him up to the point that he said the gov should regulate energy. That's the crux of the problem today; to much gov regulation. I would rather see the market place regulate energy. When Bush became president big oil moved into the White House. When gas gets to $8 a gal, I bet you'll see a hell of a lot more respect for energy usage. The fact is there is no gas shortage. I can buy as much gas as I want at $4 a gal. All of this is artificial thanks to Bush and Company.

[davood1357]

good work

[uru86]

I believe that there is a false premise in this whole series, it presupposes that the US is purely looking out for its own interests. Fact is that the US is acting for the interests of the entire capitalist system, thats what a hegemon means. The US in the MIddle East is there so much for its own corporations as it is for Japan or even China. It does not want to see China have to fill a void that it left in the Gulf, thus it does the work for them. Its a rational FP for a hegemon.

[GirlyVoice]

I'm not sure that's really true since the US's enemies are not opposed to or obstacles to capitalism. Perhaps you could clarify.

[uru86]

These so-called "enemies" of the US are really competitors, especially in an era of corporate statism. The US wants to control international capitalism and to control its competitors by holding the trump card of controlling the transit lanes of oil and its primary interest is the profitability of its own corporations, which heavily invest in the political parties at home. Additionally, the US has to maintain its model of capitalism, neoliberalism, something that another power could subvert.

[gizmo2084]

uru86,

I would say do you, "Yeah, and?" I'd agree with what you said. But the only thing you are explaining is the nature of global capitalism. But the problem with hegemonic capitalism is that, minus its own inherent problem of CEO vs worker imbalances and the problem of "Legal Persons," but mix in OIL consumption...and you'll have a major US *only* problem. It just so happened that the US is the #1 in consumerism and the pinnacle of liberal capitalism.

...continued...

[gizmo2084]

...then mix the US military (17-24 year old solders dying for dishonest reasons) and a foreign polity that was never clear in its intentions. Well, you have a situation that leave a bad taste in my mouth. The US is seen as a giant "Marie Antoinette" telling the world: LET THEM EAT CAKE.

This is changing though. Slowly but surely. But at a price of American prosperity.

[uru86]

gizmo2084:

No, I am explaining a form of global capitalism. Capitalism is not homogenous, and the nature of that form of capitalism is dependent on which nation is hegemonic at that period in time. The capitalism of a Chinese hegemon will be different because China maintains a different model of capitalism than the US, i.e. more industrial. Thus it will demand different forms of accumulation and imperialism than contemporary American hegemonism.

contd

[uru86]

Its a fantasy world if you think that other nations are really against American overconsumption, it has been American overconsumption of goods that allowed countries to grow. Without American consumption there would be no German, Japanese, or Chinese economic miracles. There is a reason these countries blindly support American deficits, because its their surpluses.

[gizmo2084]

No. The over consumption will not continue. It's not sustainable. Why? We're talking about that "oil" problem again. Remember that? You need to learn how to distinguish "oil" consumption from our normal consumerism. You seem to want to just pretend that oil is not an issue.

Your comparison to China is a perfect example of the difference. Yes, I know about China. They are going though a accelerated version of the industrial period. Your point is?

[uru86]

Giz:

Are you seriously trying to separate the consumption of oil from "normal consumption" whatever that is? Modern consumerism is premised on the petroleum economy, without that consumerism as we know it is dead. Secondly, what do you get about China, because it has nothing to do with what I said? Overconsumption is what the ENTIRE system is premised on, without it...capitalism itself would end.

[gizmo2084]

The balance of this consumption will be less defendant on US vs the rest of the world over time. I was accusing YOU of separate the oil consumption (which you stated that the premise of this video was incorrect) from other products. Either way, the consumption will transfer from US to other growing countries.

Again, you are just rehashing what we already know. "net neutral effect, and because oft he size of the BRIC economies populations...a net negative in the long run."

I repeat,yeah and?

[uru86]

Captain obvious, what points are you trying to make? Where did I disagree with anything you said? You are trying to bifurcate oil and "normal" consumption, I was the one who pointed out that illogical statement. The premise of the WHOLE SERIES, if you read my posts you would have noted that, is about US FP as some relic of the 1930s, it totally ignores that pivotal role of the US in the global economy. My point is the world will still consume more. Same problem, different cup nothing is solved.

[uru86]

I suggest, in order to make points and not fantasy arguments that aren't there you read my posts again. :)

[gizmo2084]

Captain obvious? Ha ha! That's what I was accusing you of doing. That's why my first post to you was. Yeah, and? Your points are validating the video series. Thank you very much! :)

One note. The "My point is the world will still consume more" it true to extent. But there is a thing called being informed consumer. And there's a difference between using products in a gluttonous way vs a more conserving way. And that's based on the individual behaviors of a country...

[gizmo2084]

"what points are you trying to make? Where did I disagree with anything you said?"

By the way. I think we're talking about the same thing. Just explaining them differently.

[gizmo2084]

Regarding your comment about fantasy word and your use of the phrase "other nations." Again, these "other nations" do not have factories of people creating "oil" on an Assembly lines. It'd be nice if China could just "make oil" by putting a few parts together. Again, oil is central.

You missed my point when I brought up Marie Antoinette.

No matter what. The US standard of living will go down while the rest of the world goes up. Meaning we'll be less important in the long run.

[uru86]

Unlikely, there does not seem to be any alternative form of energy cheap enough, or efficient enough, or plentiful enough to supplement oil. The Chinese consume more oil per dollar than any Western nation, and its CO2 emissions are higher per dollar as well. Thus, as the rest of the world "goes up" and the US supposedly "goes down" there is a net neutral effect, and because oft he size of the BRIC economies populations...a net negative in the long run. Think logically, and make a point :)

[gizmo2084]

"alternative form of energy"

At what point did I bring up alternative energy?

[GirlyVoice]

That still means that the US is purely looking out for its own interests though.

[uru86]

Thats right...its not irrational, but what I am saying is that the interests of the US is really the interests of the capitalist world-order as it stands now, i.e. neoliberal globalization. If the US was really harming a great power, don't you think there would be MUCH greater levels of competition and militarism than there is? The US serves the interests of world capital, which-by virtue of its position-is its own interests.

[GirlyVoice]

I'm not sure I understand how it's enemies are getting in the way of neo-liberal globalization

[uru86]

B/c neoliberal globalization is based on finance, and exacerbating the negative terms of trade forcing nations into debt and further into dependence on American capital. With the BRIC countries, that bond is breaking and thus so is American hegemonism. What keeps the system going at this point is American military prowess.

[TheCZMan]

" believe that there is a false premise in this whole series, it presupposes that the US is purely looking out for its own interests. Fact is that the US is acting for the interests of the entire capitalist system, thats what a hegemon means."

Well, if this series is based on this premise, then they are right.

An hegemon is purely acting for its own interests. That some under influence entities can align, close, render their best interests similar to the hegemon in order to protect themselves

[TheCZMan]

from the hegemon's actions is a different issue.

A hegemon acts for its best interests only, if other actors manage to align their best interests to the hegemon's, it does not mean that the hegemon is acting for all the actors. As shown many times through the US discourse, the US would gladly do without all these countries aligning on the US to preserve their own best interests by making them similar to the US hegemon.

[norbu2006]

Put 2 and 2 together. What is the purpose of military action, if the consequence is to increase the price of oil? Assume rationality.

[YasinIsse]

first

[zeyshaan]

genius indeed, wat an accomplishment and ur comment was so insightful as well, great work

[MuslimGhost]

Hahahahaha

[YasinIsse]

Thanks for your kind comment. I do try!

[zeyshaan]

try harder next time... there is definitely room for improvement