Supply and Demand

I'm not seething with anti-Saudi resentments like various folks on both sides of the aisle, but insofar as Mark Steyn wants to engage debates with his readers about the best ways to stick it to Riyadh, someone might as well explain basic economics to him:

And, besides, the premise is completely false: If you trade in the Expedition for a Honda Civic, that oil you save won't stay in the ground and thus impoverish the Saudis; it will merely be sold to the Chinese and Indians and other fast developing nations who will replace America and Europe as buyers of the cheapest and most easily extractable oil in the world. So the sheikhs will be as rich as ever and funding as many Islamist nutters. But we'll be driving worse cars and feeling virtuous.

Yes, it's true that US reduction in demand for oil won't necessarily reduce the aggregate quantity of Saudi oil reaching world markets (it sort of depends on a lot of factors), but reduction in the demand for oil reduces the price of crude and therefore the revenue of oil exporting countries. It does so, moreover, whether or not the oil exporting country in question specifically exports oil to the United States. And, indeed, even if total world demand doesn't go down because rising Indian and Chinese demands exceeds the reduction in US demand, that still leaves oil prices lower than they would have been had the US not reduced its demand.

Comments

Plus, Honda Civics are BETTER cars than Expeditions, so his "worse cars" comment doesn't make any sense either.

Posted by beckya57 | August 8, 2007 9:01 AM

..and furthermore, if you don't buy that vial of crack, someone else will, and the nation's drug problem will continue. So smoke up!

The point of reducing dependence on foreign oil is not that it lowers the price, but makes the US less vulnerable to oil-producing nations using their oil for political leverage. A point which which seems, to judge by the quote, to have not at all occurred to Mark Steyn.

Posted by James Gary | August 8, 2007 9:05 AM

What becky said. The beauty of getting out of the big truck/SUV mindset is that you get to drive better, lower maintenance vehicles. I went from Chevy truck to Honda Civic when I was 19 and never looked back. So unless Mark Steyn is hauling lumber or machine parts or something, he's smoking two kinds of crack.

Posted by justin | August 8, 2007 9:11 AM

How much of the crude price depends on various reported reserves in the ground? Many nations have overstated their known reserves. These exaggerations have been reported on by numerous industry trade publications and are certainly known by every intelligence agency and government in the world. Does the lack of a generalized public knowledge of this depress values? Were it known would a simmering panic or lack of confidence in the oil market escalate prices?

Posted by steve duncan | August 8, 2007 9:15 AM

Evidently Mark Steyn is a Very Serious economic thinker.

Posted by Andruw | August 8, 2007 9:25 AM

If you invade a country to bring democracy there, the other countries will become less democratic.

Posted by gregor | August 8, 2007 9:29 AM

I think this misunderstanding has something to do with Mark Steyn being a quite competent obituary writer who's a near-total idiot when it comes to political and policy issues that actually affect the living.

After all, he's the guy who said back in April, 2003: "In a year's time, Iraq will be, at a bare minimum, the least badly governed state in the Arab world and, at best, pleasant, civilised and thriving. In short: not a bad three weeks' work."

Posted by brucds | August 8, 2007 9:39 AM

It's rather interesting that Mr. Steyn is not on the same page as some of his fellow conservatives, like James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney who are pushing plug in hybrids as a national security issue to reduce dependence on imported oil.

Posted by SLC | August 8, 2007 10:05 AM

James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney who are pushing plug in hybrids as a national security issue to reduce dependence on imported oil.

Yeesh. If Woolsey is pushing hybrids, maybe I should sell mine.

Posted by goethean | August 8, 2007 10:10 AM

It is also worth noting that OPEC doesn't like to see the price of oil get too high. They like it high enough to make their cash, but if it gets too high, countries like the U.S might seriously try and ween themselves off of the stuff. So...in short, even the Saudis recognize the Mark Steyn is full of it.

Posted by musa | August 8, 2007 10:14 AM

Yeesh. If Woolsey is pushing hybrids, maybe I should sell mine.

Posted by goethean | August 8, 2007 10:10 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Woolsey also advocates abstinence. Guess I have my marching orders for tonight.

Posted by steve duncan | August 8, 2007 10:18 AM

We should try to develop alternative energy technologies because:

1) When the oil runs out -- and it will -- our children will not be driving Honda Civics . They will be walking or riding horses amidst the fiery battles and starvation of a collapsing civilization.

Our stupid leaders leaders are not just wasting $Trillions of tax dollars -- they're wasting TIME. Time which is shrinking even faster than the oil deposits of Saudi Arabia.

2) We don't just buy oil from the dictators of Saudi Arabia,Kuwait, UAE,etc. We have to prop them up -- keep them in power with military power both obvious and covert. Which enrages the people that are shafted by those dictators.

That is one of the 3 main grievances that provoked the Sept 11 attack. That's why almost all of the hijackers were Saudi.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 10:20 AM

Re goethean

Apparently Mr. goethean is not in agreement with the old saw that even a stopped 12 hour clock is right twice a day.

Posted by SLC | August 8, 2007 10:38 AM

The point of reducing dependence on foreign oil is not that it lowers the price, but makes the US less vulnerable to oil-producing nations using their oil for political leverage. A point which which seems, to judge by the quote, to have not at all occurred to Mark Steyn.

I think you missed Matt's point. Reducing dependence on foreign oil is great, but it won't reduce the clout of the producing countries for the very reason Matt mentions.

Even if we got 100% of our oil from domestic sources, they could still use production cuts for political reasons and it would have the same effect.

Unless we are considering nationalizing our oil companies which doesn't seem very likely.

Posted by Davebo | August 8, 2007 10:46 AM

It is also worth noting that OPEC doesn't like to see the price of oil get too high. They like it high enough to make their cash, but if it gets too high, countries like the U.S might seriously try and ween themselves off of the stuff.

I think the main reason OPEC tries to keep the price of oil getting too high is because after a certain point, the high prices start leading to serious enough inflation that they can't buy that much more with the extra revenue. It's more valuable to bring prices down a bit, have almost as much buying power, and then remind other governments about how you "helped out with prices" next time you want a favor.

Posted by MattT | August 8, 2007 10:52 AM

I have read more than a few arguments and historical U.S. foreign policy declassified documents suggesting that the U.S. and British foreign policy establishments are not interested in Saudi Arabia primarily because its oil comes to the U.S., but so that they be able to control where its oil goes, on what structure and forms its tyrannical regime is based, and where its oil profit investments go.

Posted by El Cid | August 8, 2007 11:02 AM

Ideally we would not be dependent on imported oil. But it does not follow that we shouldn't be buying imported oil.

Wouldn't we be better off saving our own resources and using Saudi oil than sucking every last bit of domestic oil reserves out of the ground?

Yes, we need to stop being hogtied over a barrel because of our absolute crushing need for Middle-Eastern derived oil. There are political costs to that need that clearly endanger our security. But the solution offered by so many, to search for and exploit every last source of carbon in North America will just lead to a future in which the US has no reserves of oil, coal, or gas.

Who knows what use future Americans will have for hydrocarbon chains? We've got to reduce our need for oil to the point that Saudi oil is sufficient for our needs. Let's suck them dry instead of ourselves.

Posted by Curt M | August 8, 2007 11:04 AM

"I think you missed Matt's point. Reducing dependence on foreign oil is great, but it won't reduce the clout of the producing countries for the very reason Matt mentions.

Even if we got 100% of our oil from domestic sources, they could still use production cuts for political reasons and it would have the same effect.

Unless we are considering nationalizing our oil companies which doesn't seem very likely."

Posted by Davebo

That argument makes only sense if the US only switches from foreign oil to domestic oil. But that`s not the point. The point is to be less dependend on oil, period. The less oil we need (regarless its source), the less sway have oil-producing countries over us.

Posted by Patrick | August 8, 2007 11:08 AM

I think you missed Matt's point. Reducing dependence on foreign oil is great, but it won't reduce the clout of the producing countries for the very reason Matt mentions.

I was trying to differentiate between the clout that oil-producing countries have from selling oil, to whoever (which as Steyn correctly notes, the US has little control over), and the clout that they have from our need for oil, at whatever price.

I feel my crack analogy still holds-- the price of the product is less of an issue here than our dependence on the pusher.

Posted by James Gary | August 8, 2007 11:15 AM

Re El Cid's comment "I have read more than a few arguments and historical U.S. foreign policy declassified documents suggesting that the U.S. and British foreign policy establishments are not interested in Saudi Arabia primarily because its oil comes to the U.S., but so that they be able to control where its oil goes, on what structure and forms its tyrannical regime is based, and where its oil profit investments go."
-----------
I think El Cid makes a very good point. If the US controls the oil deposits of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the Caspian Sea , then it has the EU and China by the short hairs.

That can sometimes be a dangerous strategy. It was Roosevelt's blockade of Middle East oil to Japan that provoked the Pearl Harbor strike. Although there's no denying that the Japanese Empire at that time was a vicious ,aggressive regime.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 11:37 AM

As long as oil is vital to the world economy, the Saudis will have substantial power. Unless, of course, the U.S. could stop using oil entirely, so that the world price would drop by, say, 50%. Is that going to happen soon?

Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 8, 2007 11:53 AM

Re Don Williams

1. Apparently, Mr. Williams is unable to distinguish between "running out of oil" and peak oil. There is no danger of "running out of oil" at any time in the foreseeable future. The problem is peak oil, that is, the the point at which the rate at which oil can be produced falls below the demand. Peak oil, however, is very much on the near horizon, given the increase in demand in China and the coming increase in demand in India. Far more likely then Mr. Williams decendants having to ride horses or bicycles is the possibility of a three way war between the US, China, and India over access to Middle East oil. It is for that reason that it is in the national interest to reduce dependence on imported oil through conservation practices (and to encourage China and India to do likewise).

2. Mr. Williams makes the claim that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the US blockaded access to Middle East oil. I must admit that that's a new one on me. I was under the impression that the issue was that the US refused to sell oil (believe it or not, the US at the time was a net oil exporter) and scrap metal to Japan due to Japanese agression in China. Most of the criticism of Roosevelt over the years has been that he waited far too long to stop the oil and scrap metal sales and was thus guilty of appeasement.

Posted by SLC | August 8, 2007 12:10 PM

It's pretty telling that, in the course of not knowing what he's talking about, Steyn manages to mock MIT. "If you cut out the liver, the spleen will step up to compensate. Jeez, I thought you went to Harvard Medical!"

Posted by Jalmari | August 8, 2007 12:28 PM

This is where all of Matthew's commenters deride him for making an "Econ 101" argument, right?

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | August 8, 2007 12:29 PM

I think the main reason OPEC tries to keep the price of oil getting too high is because after a certain point, the high prices start leading to serious enough inflation that they can't buy that much more with the extra revenue.

Even now, with near record oil prices, many oil-exporting nations have seen their purchasing power fall due to the weak dollar:

The falling US dollar is lowering the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries’ purchasing power by up to a third, making the powerful oil cartel more reluctant to increase production and cut prices.

Although oil is trading near last August’s record $78.65 a barrel, Opec calculations show that, when adjusted for the weaker dollar and inflation, an average of the 12 Opec members’ crude oil prices has fallen in the past year.

The adjusted “Opec basket price” averaged only $43.60 a barrel in June compared with $44.30 a barrel in the same month last year, according to the organisation’s latest monthly report.

Growing trade between Opec members, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, and the European Union is aggravating the problem because the pound and the euro have risen.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/743a52a2-3959-11dc-ab48-0000779fd2ac.html

Posted by blah | August 8, 2007 12:52 PM

RE SLC's comment "Apparently, Mr. Williams is unable to distinguish between "running out of oil" and peak oil. There is no danger of "running out of oil" at any time in the foreseeable future. The problem is peak oil, that is, the the point at which the rate at which oil can be produced falls below the demand. Peak oil, however, is very much on the near horizon, given the increase in demand in China and the coming increase in demand in India. Far more likely then Mr. Williams decendants having to ride horses or bicycles is the possibility of a three way war between the US, China, and India over access to Middle East oil."
------------
Actually, the REAL definition of "peak oil" has nothing to do with demand. It is defined as the point at which oil production starts to DECLINE --per the Hubbert model. This model correctly predicted that peak oil for US domestic production would occur around 1972 -- which it did. Peak oil for total world oil production is predicted to occur around 2010 --although some think it has already occurred.

Which is very unfortunate --because, as SLC correctly noted, oil demand from several Billion people in India and CHina is about to explode as they modernize -- move from bicycles to Toyotas.

Peak Oil does not mean we immediately run out of it -- it means that it becomes more and more expensive to obtain. Partly because of declining supply but also because it becomes increasing difficult to extract. Instead of drilling a hundred feet and having a gusher --as in 1920 Texas -- you have to drill several thousand feet and inject water to force it out. Or drill out on the continental shelf. Or extract large amounts sulfur from marginal deposits.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Yes, one way to gain the same share of a rapidly shrinking pie is to fight a nuclear war. Turning a hundred cities into radioactive ash certainly reduces demand for oil -- and probably the supply as well.

Hopefully, we can be more creative than that -- can develop substitutes that do not force nations into desperation. Substitutes that we can even SELL to India and China and make a PROFIT -- instead of taking out a $1 TRILLION loan from foreign investers and having our economy hostage.

But to do that we should be investing a $450 BILLION a year into research and advanced technology -- instead of consuming it in a wasteful stupid war in Iraq.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 2:30 PM

Re Don Williams

1. Mr. Williams is technically correct in his definition of peak oil (i.e. the point at which the rate of production of oil maxes out), although it is highly likely that the demand for oil will actually exceed the supply before the total output of oil maxes out. There are some commentators who refer to this crossover point as peak oil, although a better term would be desirable.

2. I'm not quite sure what Mr. Williams has in mind as a substitute for oil, at least in the transportation sector. As Mr. Yglesias has pointed out, producing ethanol from food stocks looks to be self-defeating. Liquefying coal also doesn't look promising. The only possibility I see here is extraction of natural gas from coal. It would appear, based on the experience here in the DC area where WAMTA is now running about 1/3 of its' bus fleet on natural gas, that natural gas might be a feasible alternative, at least for commercial vehicles and locomotives.

3. I'm not very optimistic about electric cars, based on the slow pace of battery development over the last 30 years. It will take a substantial breakthrough in storage capacity for electric cars to become a feasible alternative to the internal combustion engine, not to mention the problem of generating electricity; currently, the US and China are depending much too heavily on burning coal which is the only energy source in plentiful supply in both countries.

4. Here is where the plug in hybrid can act as a bridge to a fully electric car. There have been Toyota Priuses and Honda Civic hybrids which have had their battery packs replaced by more advanced ones which can be recharged from 110 volt household current. However, these replacement battery packs are current far too expensive (> $5000). Here is where some judicious spending by the DOE might pay off, although I understand that Toyota is hot on the trail of a possible breakthrough.

Posted by SLC | August 8, 2007 3:07 PM

RE SLC's comment "Mr. Williams makes the claim that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the US blockaded access to Middle East oil. I must admit that that's a new one on me. I was under the impression that the issue was that the US refused to sell oil (believe it or not, the US at the time was a net oil exporter) and scrap metal to Japan due to Japanese agression in China. "
-----------
SLC should look at the US Foreign Policy Encyclopedia, topic "Oil" for the article explaining the complex constraints oil has imposed on major powers over the past 100 years.

The US was a major exporter of oil circa 1941 but not the only exporter. Either the Dutch East Indies in Indonesia and Iran could have more than supplied Japan's needs. However, Roosevelt imposed an EMBARGO on Japan -- and got Netherlands and Great Britain to go along. No hard -- since Netherlands and Great Britain depended upon Roosevelt to save them from Hitler. So Roosevelt not only shut US sales of oil to Japan --he blocked Japan's access to oil from other suppliers as well.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 3:13 PM

PS Forgot to mention in above -- Great Britain controlled the Iranian oil industry in 1941.

It should also be noted that Japan changed her policy of isolation and embarked on an imperialist conquest of China only after seeing how the Western powers(USA, Great Britain) had carved up China and after Commander Perry's gunboats had visited Japan. Japan's imperialism was partially driven by fear that she was next on the Western Powers list if she did not make a preemtive move.

Something they leave out of the US History books when talking about the "Day of Infamy".

Our national leaders have almost always been lying shitheads who con our ignorant citizens into unnecessary wars for the sake of wealthy interests. Roosevelt's support of Great Britain was probably because JP Morgan put more money on the table than did Bayer.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 3:22 PM

Nuclear energy is the only way to go.

And electric cars / mass transit are "economically infeasible" only because our leaders disguise the high cost of Middle Eastern gasoline by taking $3 per gallon at the pump -- and another $38 per gallon off of our income tax returns. (to pay for military operations in the Middle East)

If the true cost of protecting Big Oil's Middle Eastern investments showed up at the pump, people would switch to electric cars overnight. NOTE that I'm not talking about raising the price of gasoline -- I'm just talking about removing the market distortion that HIDES from people the enormous cost they are already paying.

By say, imposing a "defense surcharge tax" on gasoline of $38/gallon to pay for our defense budget -- and by giving people a $8000 to $30,000 credit on their income tax. They could use the credit to buy gasoline -- or not.

What's hilarious is that it is the richest taxpayers who are being deeply screwed by our pathological subsidy for Big Oil.

THEY don't need that much gasoline -- but they are paying HUGE amounts on their income tax to pay for military operations in the Middle East.

Bush has hidden that from them for the moment by stealing $Trillions from Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds. But if Democrats are in power, then the rich will get soaked to pay off at least some of Bush's $3 Trillion in IOUS.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 3:55 PM

I'm sure that we have lots of young geniuses who could come up with even better solutions to our energy problems --if they were working on them.

However, a genius is smart enough to know that the money lies in being a con artist of some kind -- a hedge fund manager , for example. If you go deeply into debt to get a PhD in High Energy Physics, that merely condemms you to a blue collar living standard competing with tens of thousands of similar PhDs from China and India.

Our national leaders are destroying this nation in the long run with how they structure incentives in this country. With their stupid, selfish corruption,actually.

A feudal lord was greedy, but he had enough sense to look after his serfs and his estate. To exercise good management.

Our capitalists, by contrast, are a bunch of frenzied shortsighted cokeheads and heroin addicts who shit in their own BMW -- because they figure they will simply move on and buy another one tomorrow. Emigrate.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 4:03 PM

Re Don Williams

"Our national leaders have almost always been lying shitheads who con our ignorant citizens into unnecessary wars for the sake of wealthy interests. Roosevelt's support of Great Britain was probably because JP Morgan put more money on the table than did Bayer."

Gee, Mr. Williams isn't blaming the US involvement in WW2 on the Jews. He must be getting weak in his old age. Instead he blames it on J. P. Morgan. How about blaming it on Hitler, the real culprit. If Mr. Williams thinks that the US could have avoided a war with Germany and Japan in the event of British and Soviet defeats, he is living in a dream world. But then of course, in the Williams make believe world, Hitler wasn't such a bad guy. After all, he set up the Volkswagon company, did away with unemployment, and built the Autobahn. What do you want, blood?

Posted by SLC | August 8, 2007 5:36 PM

As aways, SLC shows his ignorance of History.

Yes, Hitler was bad. But he would not have rose to power if the US government had restrained the greed of bankers at Versailles and had avoided the misery in Germany that John Maynard Keynes clearly forecast. Try reading a little. Try reading Keynes "Economic Consequences of the Peace." Keynes was AT Versailles, remember??

It seems odd to me that the way to deal with Hitler was to start a war with Japan on the other side of the world.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 5:43 PM

Re Don Williams

1. I am a little confused about Mr. Williams claim that the US forced the Netherlands to desist from selling oil to Japan. I seem to have a vague recollection that the Netherlands was occupied by Hitler in May of 1940, some 18 months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Is Mr. Williams now claiming that the US pressured Hitler to refrain from selling oil from the Dutch East Indies to his ally Japan?

2. I find it amazing that Mr. Williams finds all kinds of excuses for the actions of Germany and Japan. It appears that in the fantasy world that Mr. Williams occupies, Roosevelt and Churchill are the bad guys while Hitler and Tojo are the good guys.

3. By the way, I would be curious as to what Mr. Williams, conspiracy buff that he is, thinks about the accusation that Roosevelt and his administration knew about the impending attack or Pearl Harbor and kept the information from Short and Kimmell who were in command there, as claimed by Robert Stinnett in a book written a few years ago. The purpose of this alleged deception, of course, was to enable the US to enter the war against Germany.

Posted by SLC | August 8, 2007 5:57 PM

Re SLC's comment "I seem to have a vague recollection that the Netherlands was occupied by Hitler in May of 1940, some 18 months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Is Mr. Williams now claiming that the US pressured Hitler to refrain from selling oil from the Dutch East Indies to his ally Japan?"

-----------
Sigh.
You ought to use the "Preview feature" before you post, SLC. Else, people
will get the idea that you are not very bright.

Yes, the Netherlands were overrun by Hitler in May 1940. But the government of
the Netherlands CONTINUED to fight the war from London and from it's colonies. Including
the East Indies (Indonesia). Dutch resistance fighters were trained and parachuted into the Netherlands throughout the war.

In July 1940, the Dutch East Indies redirected exports
from Japan to the US and Britain as part of the war effort. Japan negotiated
with the East Indies from July 1940 until June 1941 for aviation fuel. When
the negotiations collapsed, Japan decided to seize the East Indies. Knowing that
this would provoke the UK and US to retaliate, it decided at the same time to
attack the US. The East Indies were invaded AFTER Pearl Harbor and not totally
subdued until March 1942.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 6:36 PM

Re SLC's comment "I find it amazing that Mr. Williams finds all kinds of excuses for the actions of Germany and Japan. It appears that in the fantasy world that Mr. Williams occupies, Roosevelt and Churchill are the bad guys while Hitler and Tojo are the good guys."
-----------
You don't find it "amazing". In my opinion, you will seize any opportunity to make false smears against me simple because I note that Americans should be loyal to America -- not to foreign countries -- and that there is plenty of evidence that our national leaders betray the people of this country for special interests like the Israel Lobby and Big Oil. For money.

I never said Hitler and Tojo were good guys. I have said that unjustified aggression and imperialist theft by the US government which dumps death and misery onto foreign people is not in the national interest -- because it leads foreign people to support leaders like Hitler , Tojo and Bin Laden as a means of defence and revenge.

I have also argued -- with evidence -- that our leaders frequently lie to us when they want to wage a war that will enrich some but which will be bad for the country.

But I believe in looking at the evidence. I know of no evidence that proves Roosevelt KNEW Pearl Harbor was about to occur. However, I think he definitely knew that he was provoking the Japanese into war. To some extent, his measures could be justified by Japanese atrocities in China.

But the US imperialism in China decades earlier were not justified. Nor was Perry's gunboat diplomacy in Japan. Japan decided to end hundreds of years of isolation and embark on imperialism because it saw that as its only way to defend itself against Western imperialism.

The fuse to Pearl Harbor was lit when our rich merchants decided to go on a money hunt in Asia and our government decided to use military force to back them.

Posted by Don Williams | August 8, 2007 6:52 PM

Re Don Williams

1. As usual, Mr. Don Williams is so busy blaming those devilish capitalists for all the troubles of the world (when he's not blaming the Zionists), that he shows himself to be completely out of touch with reality. The reason why Hitler came to power is very simple. The Western powers, namely the US, Britain, and France failed to win a decisive victory in WW1. If Germany had been completely defeated and totally occupied, as it was during and after WW2, Hitler would not have been able to get away with his stab in the back claims. What did Hitler say in his speeches during the 1920s? German soldiers won the war on the battlefield but the victory was thrown away by the traitors back in Berlin. Roosevelt and Churchill did not make that same mistake in WW2; they demanded unconditional surrender and rejected any attempts at a negotiated settlement. Or, as one historian put it, you don't negotiate with Hitler.

2. Surprisingly enough, I agree in part with Mr. Williams that the economic sanctions imposed on Germany after WW1 didn't help matters. However, Mr. Williams conveniently forgets that the guy who wanted to go soft on Germany, namely Woodrow Wilson, suffered a stroke and was for all intense and purposes incapacitated. With him out of the picture, there was nobody to stand up to Lloyd George and Clemenceau and impose a soft peace. By the time Harding was elected in 1920, isolationist sentiment had set in and the new administration was uninterested in arguing with Britain and France over the matter. I would also point out that the relative power of the US vis a vis Britain and France was not even remotely as favorable to us in 1919 as it was in 1945. For instance, the British navy in 1919 was still greatly superior to the US navy. Not true in 1945.

3. Well, Mr. Williams continues to lambaste Roosevelt for stopping oil and scrap metal sales to Japan. His unfriends on the other side of the political spectrum lambaste Roosevelt for not stopping the sales sooner. Poor old Franklin, damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

Posted by SLC | August 8, 2007 8:37 PM