It seems that back in 1998 when Osama bin Laden was outlining his objectives one of them was that oil should cost $144 a barrel just like it does now. Of course one assumes OBL had real rather than nominal prices in mind, so we still do have a bit of a ways to go.
« Helms and Nicaragua | Main | Starbucks's Second Wave »
Mission Accomplished
05 Jul 2008 01:11 pm
Comments (14)
In all fairness, doesn't seem all that likely that Bin Laden orchestrated the massive growth of developing world economies that drives up demand for energy.
I love the idea of OBL in a cave checking with Bureau of Labor Statistics data on inflation. What a stickler.
The falling dollar accounts for a good chuck of higher gas prices:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/05/crude-awakening.html
In all fairness, doesn't seem all that likely that Bin Laden orchestrated the massive growth of developing world economies that drives up demand for energy.
But it does seem increasingly likely that Bush and his friends would check up om Bin Laden's goals to make sure they get achieved, just so Bush and his buddies can get the pleasure of feeling like they maximally pissed on all us suckers, yet we still ate it up.
OBL wanted a certain price but did not predict it so I am not sure it means anything that the price is there now. Certain other people predicted $20 oil if we invaded Iraq. They were able to keep their TV network and the ability to afford $144 oil.
This is one of the things that drives me nuts about a lot of the left - the kind of comment Swan made - which goes right to the top of the Democratic hierarchy - the assumption that conservatives are out to hurt the country.
While I disagree with nearly everything Matt advocates for, I don't think he wakes up thinking "how can I wreck the country today?" Rather, I think he's simply wrong about various policy positions. Much of the left, on the other hand, believes that most of us on the right are actively trying to harm the country. This makes rational dialogue difficult.
To show how this extends up the Democratic Party, let me quote Howard Dean:
"Our moral values say it's not OK for 10 million children to go to bed hungry every night and that somebody better stand up and do something about it"
Unlike Howard Dean, and Swan, and way too many people on the left, I don't think the people who disagree with me are bad people out to harm the country. Maybe we can have a rational debate when your side of the aisle comes to the same conclusion.
I see your point, James, but Democrats spent most of the Iraq debate being openly accused of treason by some of the less palatable Conservative figures. So, even though I doubt that you made or supported those allegations personally, you're stuck looking like a pot calling the kettle black now.
the assumption that conservatives are out to hurt the country.
Does it really matter what conservatives claim to believe in their "heart of hearts"? At the end of the day, their behavior is indistinguishable from someone who wishes to harm the country.
I'm sure Bill Clinton will tell you that, deep down, he loves Chelsea and Hillary, but at the end of the day, he had no problem getting a blowjob from another woman.
So who cares what conservatives say or think? What they do to the country is pretty damn shitty, and their morals are pretty darn warped.
Tyro says it better than I would. Especially since Robertson is one of the worst right wing fucktards on this blog, prone to denouncing everything as if it were deliberate attempts to sabotage the US and turn it into an Islamic caliphate.
So fuck him.
I would just add the line Ayn Rand used to use: the fact that a Nazi concentration guard brings his mother flowers doesn't make him any less evil.
Of course, I can't distinguish the Democrats or the so-called "left" from the Republicans in terms of how much damage is being done to the world, but that's just me and my Transhumanism - and the fact that such distinctions are ultimately irrelevant when it comes to chimpanzee behavior.
"I see your point, James, but Democrats spent most of the Iraq debate being openly accused of treason by some of the less palatable Conservative figures."
There's a rather large difference between a conservative pundit making claims, and the head of a party doing the same. As I said before, I don't question the motivations of liberals; I question their policy prescriptions based on what I see as the likely outcomes. Many people here, on the other hand (such as Hack, above, who can't manage a full paragraph without swearing) just assume the worst of their opponents.
For people like Hack - and too often, Matt, and large parts of the Democratic party - "you're either with us or your against us" is right in line with their thinking.
You really haven't convinced me that you're any different.
To clarify that a bit: you just spent a whole post preaching a high principle, then turned around and selectively applied that principle to only one party.
I don't intend to debate you any further. If you post honestly reflects your world view, you are a fool. Otherwise, you are a troll or a hack.
Yep, Iraq being a veritable oasis of stability and peace in the Middle East has been a boon to the world oil markets.
Someone mentioned on another thread that it was amazing that there were people who could type but not think - James Robertson's posts prove that this is a widespread problem.
Oil companies have basically been shut out in Nigeria due to political instability and (yes) attacks from local militants. Nigeria provides roughly 10% of US oil. Al Qaeda is not responsible in said case, but people understand the political importance of oil.
Reducing demand would be a good way to disempower these groups.
Comments closed July 19, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What you don't seem to understand at all is that a lot of that increase is driven by the growing wealth of India and China. Which has exactly zip to do with the war on terror or bin Laden.
Posted by James Robertson | July 5, 2008 3:01 PM