Who needs a war for oil? (The American Conservative, USA)

Who needs a war for oil?  ("The American Conservative", USA)Americans suffered decades of constant hype about the need to wean the United States from their "addiction" to oil. Certain prerequisites vary depending on the critic: the left emphasize the environmental and social amenities mass transport system in the European style, while the right-wing worried about oil from the standpoint of national security. Yet both camps agree on one thing: if you throw a South American liberal economy as it is, it will be very much dependent on oil and therefore the federal government should play an important role in its regulation.

As a specific example, consider a group nedavneshnego entitled SAFE, which means "Securing America's Future Energy" ("Securing America's energy future"). It is not so long ago posted the report entitled "The New South American oil boom" states:

Caused by "perfect storm" of prices, technologies and capabilities [nedavneshny growth] domestic production [of oil] is significant and has major positive implications for the economy of the country. … But these positive aspects are constrained by the realities of the global oil market, especially in light of the continuing inconstancy in oil-producing regions and rising demand in China, India and other emerging markets. Most importantly, the report looks at the myth of "energy dependence", with all this emphasizes that even a substantial increase in domestic production fails to fully protect the country from such costs as the highest dependence on oil prices and the continuing instability of, capital flight abroad and the obligation on the military to ensure the the security of global oil supplies. [Emphasis creator]

What I have highlighted in bold is a familiar accusation. When defenders of the environment, for example, complain about the "subsidies for Big Oil," they use the same approach and the allegation that military U.S. budget indirectly support the price of oil cheaper for motorists than this "really is" to bring oil market.

At this point there are a few problems. In 1-x, it's just not true that for "security" of global oil supplies need military action. Make out worst-case scenario: foreign oil supply mode, which is at the current time ally of the United States, goes into the hands of people who do not tolerate the U.S. government — what will happen?

Well, if the hard-liners in a new mode zahochut make a symbolic gesture, they might block oil exports to the United States. (Hugo Chavez has threatened to do it a couple of years back, though, note that he did not carry this risk.) And yet, because oil is a fungible product, all this will end what will happen reconfiguration of global oil shipments. More precisely speaking, the new regime will exercise his oil in other countries than the U.S., while other oil-producing countries to change the direction of their own self-exports to these neutral countries to concentrate more on shipments to the United States to cover the shortfall. Oil is not completely interchangeable — will have to be aligned refinery to process other types of crude oil — a hypothetical but our regime fails to cause a lot of harm alone embargo against the United States.
If this mode is really a hypothetical problem has desired to deliver a South American motorists, he would have had to turn away a hundred percent on oil exports. In this case, the entire world would experience thirst for oil and the price of oil would rise. Yet the pain would not have been limited to some U.S. would suffer any country-oil consumer. And most importantly, the greatest pain he would have felt unfriendly regime. Refusing to sell its oil abroad mode would block and its own primary source of income. Think of it this makarom: what is the point in the capture of an authoritarian government apparatus and the oil-rich country, if not in the awarding of oil revenues?

These reflections are not hypothetical. In the real world — that make the U.S. government and its allies, when they want to punish the regime of the Middle East? Why, they try to prevent these regimes to sell their oil, imposing sanctions against them. This proves that, at least, from the standpoint of national security prohibiting, for example, Iran to sell its oil causes more harm to Iranians than the Yankees.
Do not get me incorrect, I'm one hundred percent agree that multinational oil companies often work very splotchenno with governments when it comes to military action in the Middle East. But the essence is that the "war for oil" are conducted for who will assign the proceeds from the sale of oil, not whether to sell it at all. And, of course, a direct result of various bombing campaigns, etc. is the reduction of world oil production in the short term, which increases the price. Whether it is a military action against Iraq, Libya or Iran, the Western military operations cause the suspension of exports and lead to higher prices.

Stupidly worry about aggressive regimes that hoard their oil, to spite the Yankees. And yet, even if to the horror was founded, the decisions are not very reasonable. If America's oil consumption really is subsidized to the real time operations of the U.S. Army, then the solution is to stop these military operations. Let these foreign regimes will end its oil supplies in the U.S., so prices have gone up and the South American motorists have realized that they need to move to electric or run on natural gas buses or something else that would be appropriate to answer.

In reality, they say critics of the market actually follow: "The U.S. government must punish the Yankees for the introduction of such quantities of oil — maybe a means of raising the tax on gasoline, the introduction of an absolute cap and trade emissions and the consumption of taxpayers' money to search for other types of fuel — as in the unlikely event the U.S. Government had no choice except to waste a billion dollars of taxpayers on the army, keeping oil prices artificially low. " All behold the contradiction in this position?

In an unregulated market is the futures contracts and other markets transactions with derivatives, that assist to anticipate the variability of demand and prices. Given all this, if the Yankees really have more economic sense to swiftly abandon gasoline-powered vehicles, then market forces will lead to this result. If one of the "distortions" in this design are the large U.S. military spending, then a more natural solution is to reduce these costs, rather than giving the federal government more money and power, that they interfered in the energy sector.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: