04-03-2003, 04:15 PM
Just one point about the long term oil issue. I have every reason to believe that any 'new' Iraq will stay in OPEC as a method of exercising power, even though the internal OPEC squabbling will never go away. I could be wrong.
The long term oil opinion in your post, while it has merit, strikes me as actually missing the bigger picture: global, not US, economy. If the global cost of oil goes down, the global economy may be a bit more robust. However, Mexico and Venezuela stand to lose a bit if the cost to produce goes down . . .
Every trading nation, US/France/Germany/UK/China benefits from a more robust global economy. I am not convinced of the efficacy of a 'global trickle down effect' as each nation has different, or no, controls and constraints on pure capitalism. As well, environmental regulation enforcement is extremely unevenly applied from a global context.
Pure and unconstrained capitalism is to me a frightening thought: without checks and balances, it would usher in a new global aristocratic class (who says it does not already exist?) and increase the global gap between rich and poor. We could devolve into a global feudal structure, or mayhap an oligarchical structure, if unfettered and completely unrestrained 'pure capitalism' were to become the golbal norm. While I am not a socialist, there are elements of the socialist model = state provided public education for one = that I find very appealing. I am not sophisticated enough to have a strong position on universal health care, although that too has some strong points. Of course, as with any 'public program' it has its merits and demerits, and works better in some places than others.
The long term oil opinion in your post, while it has merit, strikes me as actually missing the bigger picture: global, not US, economy. If the global cost of oil goes down, the global economy may be a bit more robust. However, Mexico and Venezuela stand to lose a bit if the cost to produce goes down . . .
Every trading nation, US/France/Germany/UK/China benefits from a more robust global economy. I am not convinced of the efficacy of a 'global trickle down effect' as each nation has different, or no, controls and constraints on pure capitalism. As well, environmental regulation enforcement is extremely unevenly applied from a global context.
Pure and unconstrained capitalism is to me a frightening thought: without checks and balances, it would usher in a new global aristocratic class (who says it does not already exist?) and increase the global gap between rich and poor. We could devolve into a global feudal structure, or mayhap an oligarchical structure, if unfettered and completely unrestrained 'pure capitalism' were to become the golbal norm. While I am not a socialist, there are elements of the socialist model = state provided public education for one = that I find very appealing. I am not sophisticated enough to have a strong position on universal health care, although that too has some strong points. Of course, as with any 'public program' it has its merits and demerits, and works better in some places than others.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete