Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Funny how that works indeed
Posted by: McQ on Friday, September 15, 2006

From Thomas P M Barnett's blog:
More profit equals more oil found. Funny how that works!
ENERGY: “Devon Energy Dives Into Deeper Waters: Gulf of Mexico Discovery May Help Company Join the Ranks of Major Oil Producers,” by Angel Gonzalez and Russell Gold, Wall Street Journal, 12 September 2006, p. A14.
I know, I know. Please send me all those emails on Hubbert’s Curve again!

This can’t possibly be the market working.
Heh ...
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Must have missed the NYT article yesterday about the Interior Department Inspector General’s report, huh? There’s no free-market anywhere within thousands of miles of the oil industry.

More profit = more oil found does not establish a free-market mechanism, unless you prove that the equation *doesn’t* work for Saudi Arabia’s ARAMCO.

Of course, first you have to demonstrate that there’s a causal mechanism here at all, and it’s not just correlational.

Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
The exploration industry is gun shy, they have been snakebit by the market in the past, and only a confident forecast of $60+ bbl oil for the foreseeable future will get US deep oil and shale oil production going again.

Call me a pessimist, but if this starts happening, we’re in trouble.

All of the infrastructure investment into expensive oil needs to be directed to alternative fuel sources, otherwise, we are literally throwing money into the ground. No matter how much oil we pull from the gound in friendly places, we are still dependent on the world oil market. Unless we nationalize oil production (which would be idiotic for several reasons, both political and economic), our domestic producers will still be selling oil to the highest bidder, whether it is US or Chinese buyers, and the Middle East will still impact global pricing.

Our way of life was in jeopardy in 1941, our very survival as a society was threatened, and our nation embarked on a scientific project of unprecedented scope, the Manhatten Project. Today, our society is again in jeopardy, not specifically from an enemy, a bunch of suicidal lunatics can hurt us, but not destroy our society, but our dependence on oil will slowly but inexorably reduce our quality of life to the point that we will go backwards 6 or 7 decades unless we move in a new direction.

If we took all the resources that we have expended in Iraq in the foolish hope to stabilize the entire region, and applied every cent to development of alternative fuel sources and the corresponding infrastructure, we would have moved toward a much more viable and permanent solution, and would have also moved to rendering the instability in that part of the world irrelevant.

Written By: CaptinSarcastic
URL: http://
I believe in Barnett’s vision of "interconnectedness," but deplore his political choices. Christ, he endorsed Kerry in ’04.

And, despite his allegiance to market forces, the gist of his policy recommendations is to prod an expensive, tax-payer-funded, activist, US government to increase "connectedness" through stage-managed magnanimity.

Our tsunami relief in SE Asia was a perfect example of the type of transnational charity Barnett thinks will endear Americans to the world. And it’s a perfect example of how, the more America gives, the more we’re "hated."

Barnett posted a poll of Indonesians last week that shows we’re liked less by them now (after saving their tsunami-ravaged bacon) than we were four years ago. Then, paradoxically, Barnett uses this "poll" to argue that Joe and Jill six-pack USA should give the world even more, and that - gee whiz - John Kerry would have done things better.

Huh? According to Barnett, Indonesians are proving Jan Egelend’s slur correct. If only America wasn’t so stingy, the "Gap" would "like" us more. If we bring them candy and flowers, they’ll shuck-off Islamo-socialism and, um, just like that, become "Core."
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
I believe in Barnett’s vision of "interconnectedness," but deplore his political choices. Christ, he endorsed Kerry in ’04.
I think we agree here, Steve. I like how he’s put it all together and explained it. I think he’s on to something in his theory. However I’m not buying his solution(s) either. But then, I need to study it a lot more than I’ve been able to before I can render a final opinion.
Written By: McQ
I’m impressed by his delivery and his scheme’s reliance on free enterprise, so I’m keeping an open mind, too

But, I keep stubbing my toe on his plan’s resemblance to a global welfare scheme, with America bank-rolling the venture. In his Sys-Admin policy prescriptions, Barnett offers a re-packaged Transnationalism (an impression that is coorborated by Barnett’s endorsement of "Global Test" Kerry) and, as a result, his plan is vulnerable to nationalist, conservative, and libertarian critiques.

Unfortunately, the bulk of published essays about Barnett’s theses seem fawning and uncritical. He’s an adept presenter and speaker, he sports a solid presence on stage, and his initial "Core-Gap" analysis seems correct to most. This potent combination appears to anesthetize most analysts’ critical-thinking skills.

I’d pay big bucks to read a paring analysis of Barnett by, say, Krauthammer, or Captain Ed, Victor Davis Hanson, Jeff Goldstein, Mark Steyn, or you guys. The blogosphere tends to deliver, so I’m staying tuned!
Written By: Steve
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks