WB: The Politics of Scarcity

April 25, 2006

Billmon:

Moral of the story: superpowers that have to import 10 million barrels of oil a day can’t indulge in Wilsonian foreign policies, or even maintain the pretense of indulging in Wilsonian foreign policies — at least, not for long. Addicts can’t afford to be idealists. Just ask any of the other junkies.

The Politics of Scarcity

Posted by b on April 25, 2006 at 07:35 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Things have gotten so bad that this post gives me hope. Wouldn’t it be great if we had a president who was “cautious and realistic,” even if he/she was an S.O.B.? Unfortunately, I don’t see much of these qualities in either party, with Hillary trying to move to the right of Bush on Iran.
No, what will probably move Washington back to the reality-based community will be an economic crisis. Perhaps not even that.

Posted by: Vin Carreo | Apr 25 2006 8:00 utc | 1

Thats why the Iran bluster is just that — to protect the current investment now in jeopardy — Iraq. The problem with gas prices (3.30 where I live) is that its not ideological, its real everyday reality. And like those of Mexican identity of late, or the teenagers of the early-er Vietnam era, real consequences tend to wake up those hypnotized in their soporific slumber — like my momma used to do with a glass of cold water. $20.00 a barrel pre-war, enough said.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 25 2006 8:42 utc | 2

Ten million barrels every day come floating across either the Atlantic or Pacific oceans and on to our shores.
Interrupt, even delay that pulse of black blood, and we go into internal combustion. Institutions fail. Governments fall.
No military effort, of any type or on any scale, can guarantee those ten million to us. Not while they float here from foreign shores. Not while other nations could use that same cargo. Not when they can deny it to us so easily.
Russia and China are both closer to the Middle East and Caspian Basin than we. They can walk to it; we cannot.
Russia and China will be happy to let the Middle East’s oil reserves be distributed according to who can pay for it. They can; we cannot.
That leaves war our only option. We have no choice.
Except, of course, for The Choice.
The Choice . . . Jeezus has it come to that? Could real Americans actually make The Choice?
The Choice to do without those ten million barrels a day?
The Choice to begin now to not need them? The Choice to live closer to work, ride light rail, insulate our homes, fly less, send less than half of every dollar to the Pentagon, and use those funds instead to pay for a new energy independent infrastructure?
Holy Switchgrass, Batman — war is easier to sell than The Choice.
What if the American people up and did that? What if they all up and said to hell with this Empire bidness. We are a nation, not masters of the planet. Let’s act like it.

Posted by: Antifa | Apr 25 2006 10:39 utc | 3

A betting man would probably wager that Bush won’t sink to Nixonian levels of unpopularity
I’ll take that bet.
I believe W stands a damn good chance of Tricky Dick-like numbers.
The lower Bush goes, the more forcefully he stays the course, which means things are going to get worse, perhaps much worse, in the next thousand days. One thing’s for sure, with this guy running the show, things aren’t gonna get better.
23 here we come.

Posted by: Night Owl | Apr 25 2006 13:37 utc | 4

I’m an artist, and I ditched all my poli sci classes in college, so excuse the ignorance. But I have to ask, regarding approval numbers:
What the hell do they have to do with anything, besides keeping pollsters and statisticians employed?
30% or 60%, the administration blatantly caters to their wealthy masters and the Dems have no backbone (or inclination- let’s be honest)to seize the advantage and start working for change.
Nothing changes. Nothing will have changed after the mid-term elections, and nothing will change in 2008. So why all the high-fiving about Bush’s low approval numbers? All it means is we’re all fucked, and 32% of the sample is either in cahoots or too stupid to know it.
Will America rise up off her couch when the disapproving make up 70% of a sample? Not so long as the bread & circus continue.

Posted by: dave | Apr 25 2006 14:23 utc | 5

Since the 2004 election, Bush’s numbers have glided downhill at the rate of one point per month, every month, without a hint of anything beyond a dead cat bounce. I can see nothing on the horizon that will interrupt this trajectory – there are no more elections in Iraq to hang symbolic victories on, the hurricane season is just around the corner, gas prices are on a relentless uphill trajectory ( which will kill any possibility of military action against Iran ), and there is no domestic policy programme beyond dog-whistles to keep the most rabid section of the base at heel. Daddy’s friends are not coming to the rescue this time around.
This is an administration that has no powers of recovery, and the glide path will continue – so Bush will be at or below thirty by the November elections – unless there’s another botched hurricane disaster recovery operation, in which case it could be in the low 20’s.

Posted by: dan | Apr 25 2006 14:25 utc | 6

Without a doubt, attacking Iran would be the geopolitical equivalent of a junkie’s going for last “big score” before they swear off the stuff. Janice Joplin found it to be effective. I suspect it would do the same for America’s standing in the world and what’s left of its global hegemony.

Posted by: PrahaPartizan | Apr 25 2006 17:11 utc | 7

So why all the high-fiving about Bush’s low approval numbers? All it means is we’re all fucked…
True, but it helps to laugh through the tears.

Posted by: Night Owl | Apr 25 2006 17:39 utc | 8

dave- at issue is that all members of the house have to go back to their town hall meetings to hear their constiuents say that Bush sucks, and the bolder among them can say…why haven’t you people in the House investigated this crap? Why do you not impeach Bush for lying about war, but you impeach Clinton for a blow job lie? (and btw, have you, Congressman/woman lied about a blow job?)
…that sort of thing for Congresspeeps facing a November election.
And, if you really wanna do something, you can do the netroots thing. Dean rewrote biz as usual, imo, and that’s why he was railroaded out of the primary running. things can be different.
things changed when the Republicans were able to harness the pissed-offedness of the Talibornagains. If the dems don’t yet know what power is available to them, then they don’t need to be politicians, because politics is about power…who gets to decide what this country is like.
So let your “representatives” know what you want this country to be like. Or run for office. (Not for me, tho. Sorry, I inhaled and enjoyed it, plus there are all those…hazy moments I don’t want to have to explain to my children…)
On a more serious note, the book When Society Becomes an Addict is pretty interesting. The Republican Party is the elephant in the living room, the dems are the enablers, and we’re too scared to do an intervention. The elephants won’t go without a fight.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 25 2006 17:51 utc | 9

Posted by: Diogenes | Apr 25 2006 20:27 utc | 10

By Seldon, Billmon is speaking my language! Just replace Asimov’s Mule with our own Chimp, and it is perfect. Have to go now. Time to build a wind mill and split some more wood! Have to finish before the Trantor Chamber of Commerce has its meeting tonight! Hell I’m just nostalgic. The last time Asimov wrote to me 20 years ago was to answer my questions about Foundations Edge. I do miss him. He died too young.

Posted by: Diogenes | Apr 25 2006 20:30 utc | 11

I mostly agree with Dave that we shouldn’t be too happy about returning the enablers to power. But anytime anyone in power gets prosecuted, or brought down a notch or too — Well, that is like spring, or william carlos williams perverbial ripe plum: delicious in and of itself 😉 slurp….

Posted by: Malooga | Apr 25 2006 20:48 utc | 12

Where could a gal find a graph which plotted the cost of a gallon of gasoline in America against the political calendar down through the last, say, 50 years? When I looked, briefly, at this relationship, it appeared that when a Republican took office, oil first went up in price, then dropped as mid-term and/or general elections approached. When Dems. took office, oil price would spike, sometimes alarmingly just before elections.
But I’m no wonk, so I could be all wet.

Posted by: zenda | Apr 25 2006 22:09 utc | 13

Chris Rock on Bill Maher 19 Aug 2005 interrupting chat about whistleblowers being accused by Rove of treason:

ROCK: I think this expensive gas is treasonous. [cheers] [applause] It’s killin’ me.
HUTCHINSON : You’re practical, man.
CONWAY : Do you have…
ROCK: Gas is now cocaine now, man! [laughter]
CONWAY : Do you have another bit tonight?
ROCK: No!
CONWAY : Other than gas? Just gas?
ROCK: Yeah, Yeah. I’m with the people. The people care about gas. [cheers] [applause]
HUTCHINSON : He’s right on that.
ROCK: You can talk about this politic shit all you want. Most suckers want some cheap-ass gas. [laughter]

@Antifa: Yes. It is time for The Choice. Either the entire US mobilises into a military machine a la WWII or it steps back from GDP and goes for GSI (gross satisfaction index) as a measure of well-being and policy. This may not be as brutal as we fear. I believe that a “big” part of the huge per-capita share of energy and other resources consumed by the USA is actually the military itself, securing access to those same resources.

Posted by: PeeDee | Apr 25 2006 23:02 utc | 14

@zenda
you may find what you are looking for at gasbuddy.com.
I haven’t had time to really give it a go going over yet…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 25 2006 23:06 utc | 15

@PeeDee
I believe that a “big” part of the huge per-capita share of energy and other resources consumed by the USA is actually the military itself, securing access to those same resources.
You’re right. The figures I heard from a supposedly reliable source last yr., were that if mil. were a nation, it would be 7th largest consumer of oil on the planet.
To make sense of anything, we’d need to see a breakdown of use by sector. And don’t forget that Industrial Ag. is a gross consumer of oil. For each 1kcal of food energy produced it used 10kcal of petrochemical energy. Start by switching to Permaculture, radically reduce the military, & switch to small cars. Then let’s see what we need to do. Bring factories home & locating them regionally is another superb way to save.
CONGRATULATIONS GERMANY on the Birth of Your New Baby Car!! Needless to say, you’re wayyyy ahead of Detroit, but hopefully it doesn’t have that goddamn Mercedes Engineering.
German Loremo AG will introduce their ultra Efficient Car at the Motor Show 2006 (site) in Geneva next week.
The car start-up developed a light-weight passenger car with outstanding aerodynamics. The Loremo LS is powered by a 2 cylinder Turbo Diesel engine with 20 hp and 160km/h top speed. The amazing thing is that the Loremo only needs 1.5l per 100km. This is approx. 157MPG!
The Toyota Prius hybrid has only 55MPG (combined city and highway).
With one tank (20l) you could drive 1,300km.
Loremo AG plans to sell the Loremo LS for less than 11,000 Euros (~$13,000).

Posted by: jj | Apr 26 2006 1:31 utc | 16

zenda
This one goes back to 1990.
it seems to support your theory at first glance

Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 26 2006 8:14 utc | 17

Dune went beyond Foundation. Aracus prooved that it is not who can control the oil that wins; it is who can disrupt the control of oil that wins.
Only the stupid would think we could prevent its disruption. It was cheaper to just pay for it rather than war for it.
A government of total dickheads.

Posted by: yoduuuh | Apr 26 2006 9:13 utc | 18

@jj – That car will only be available in 2009, probably. I am on their list to buy one.
But the principle is right. Gas consumption is mainly influenced by 3 factors: weight, rolling resistance (i.e. tires) and aerodynamics.
I have taken the backseats out of my (already small and lightweight) car as I nearly never need them. So thats another 100 pounds less to push around. I also use the smallest possible tires. Doesn´t look impressive, but I do get around with better than 40 mpg in real life, mostly city, traffic.

Posted by: b | Apr 26 2006 11:31 utc | 19

And anywhere US Special Ops go, the FARC (or local equivalent) is sure to find them.
Colombia’s oil-related civil war has already raged for 30-odd years.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Apr 26 2006 21:23 utc | 20

Back to Main