Higher Gas Prices: The Failure of Free Markets and Reaganomics

It is the failure of free markets and Reaganomics that is driving up the prices of oil, food and just about everything else. Instead of making markets efficient, free market policies such as deregulation have made special interests richer and made the majority of people vulnerable to market manipulations by speculators and large corporations.

The solution to reducing the price of gas and basic foodstuffs begins with educating the public about the failure of free market ideologies. As progressives, we need to show how Reaganomics and free markets have created the mess in which we now find ourselves. We can do this by pointing out how people spouting off the benefits of Reaganomics are responsible for higher gas prices, higher food prices, war and other economic hardships.

Reawakening the Industrial Giant

The progressivism of the New Deal that brought the US to greatness in the post-World War II period began unraveling in the 1970s with the advent of free markets. In 1973 President Nixon abandoned the Bretton Woods Fixed Exchange system that had regulated trade and exchange rates since 1944. This tied the determining of exchange rates to the markets and de facto transferred decision making from government to the markets. Money, no longer tethered to governments or to gold, was free to do as it would, and it immediately began setting the tone in global markets. Our current modern era of hyper-capitalism was unleashed.

In the 1980s President Reagan accelerated the shift to free markets and the transfer of power from “we the people” to corporations and the wealthy. In his inaugural speech he said, “[G]overnment is not the solution to our problem… It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden.”

What Reaganomics did was give greater strength to markets and reduce the power of government to govern, regulate and protect. This made both government and its citizens increasingly vulnerable to exploitation. It did not take long for the effects of Reaganomics to be felt. Within his two terms the US went from being the world’s largest creditor to becoming its largest debtor.

Rationale for Free Markets

The idea behind Reaganomics is that the market is the best arbiter of decisions; the market knows best how to efficiently allocate resources for the greater good. As Adam Smith said, “By [man] pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”

Reagan claimed that getting rid of oversight and regulations governing corporations would lead them to innovate and expand, benefiting the US overall. By reducing taxes, capital would be freed up for investment and spur economic growth, creating jobs and wealth and benefiting the whole of society.

Selfishness and Predatory Policies

Instead of society benefiting from self-interest and deregulation “we the people” have been held hostage by special interests and speculators. With government being dismantled, corporations found it in their “self-interest” to buy influence in Washington so that they could limit competition, overturn consumer safeguards that hurt their bottom line, win perks and garner lucrative contracts with little oversight.

By transferring power to the private sector the Reagan Administration reduced the power of fiscal policy (taxes) in favor of monetary policy and in doing so gave enormous power to the Federal Reserve. Monetary policy uses interest rates and money supply to affect the economy versus fiscal policy that uses taxes to influence growth. The problem comes, as it did with the Greenspan Fed, when monetary policy focuses exclusively on keeping inflation low to the benefit of wealthy stock owners versus increasing the money supply to spur growth and create jobs.

Since the 1970s the number of lobbyists on K Street in Washington has mushroomed to over 30,000, and the capitol is awash with special interest money. The only comparable period that comes close according to ex-Republican strategist Kevin Phillips was the Gilded Age. It is this, what Phillips calls plutocracy, and rule of money that has helped precipitate the rising prices of oil and basic commodities.

“Big Three” AutoMakers: The Demand Side

In the 1980s General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, “the Big Three,” decided that instead of making fuel efficient cars that would have reduced our foreign dependence and demand for oil, they opted to maximize profits by pushing Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs). SUVs are considered trucks and are not used in determining an auto manufacturer’s mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for its fleet. Consequently, manufacturers could promote gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and not worry about the impact on the CAFE average of their fleet. Nor did they have to increase spending on research and development in creating new fuel-efficient cars. That is why beginning in the 1980s there was a big marketing push by the Big Three for people in the US to buy trucks and SUVs. They succeeded: by the end of the 1990s their sales of SUVs and light trucks were overwhelmingly higher than cars.

The Big Three have consistently lobbied against increases in federal miles per gallon standards and higher pollution standards. The strategic decisions of the Big Three to focus on currying favor in Washington and to rely on loopholes to circumvent CAFE regulations over the last few decades have contributed to higher gas prices by not helping reducing our demand.

“Big Oil”: The Supply Side

Big Oil has a long history of money influence in Washington. It is widely reported that within months of taking office Vice President Cheney led a task force to determine the nation’s oil policy by enlisting the oil behemoths. In 2006 the Wall Street Journal reported that Big Oil’s lobbying efforts paid off in the form of no tax increases and the retention of incentives. Many believe that the war in Iraq was about oil.

Big Oil has no incentive to increase the supply of oil because it would help reduce prices at the pump and hurt its bottom line. Democrats have begun pointing out that a lot of the federal land available for exploration of natural gas and oil remains unexplored. Similarly, it has been decades since the last gas refinery was built.

What is telling about Big Oil is that the industry’s research and development (R&D) spending as a percentage of revenues has been consistently in single digits for over a decade. As the Financial Times of London noted, “Relative to revenues, oil companies’ R&D expenditures are strikingly low.” In April oil executives balked at Congressional requests to use part of their windfall profits from higher oil prices to increase R&D spending on finding alternative energy sources and other measures to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Instead they opted to buy back shares and increase dividends to the benefit of their shareholders.

Speculators

Nowhere have the effects of removing what Reagan referred to as the impediments of government been felt more than in the financial markets. The emphasis on deregulation has been heavily in favor of corporations and large pools of capital. Deregulation has spawned new industries and financial products such as derivatives (financial products like options whose value is based upon the underlying value of another security such as a stock) which were nonexistent in the early 1970s and today are valued over $596 trillion. In the foreign exchange market alone – where only currencies are traded – the daily trading volume is 16 times the amount of goods and services created daily and a multiple of that for the goods traded globally each day. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. Add privatization, securitization and new commodity products and you now have a world where anything and everything is traded. Arguably it was President Reagan who accelerated the cross border movement of capital when he ran the US deep into the red and eliminated taxes on treasury bonds to entice foreigners to buy them.

Speculators are why the price of oil has recently spiked. As the Times of London noted, it has been speculators that have been able to do what the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries could not do — raise the price of oil.

Markets are fickle, but they can sense blood (opportunity). They have also become so large that they can themselves drive prices regardless of the underlying supply and demand equation. For example, speculators overwhelmed the United Kingdom in 1992 and forced it to drop the Pound’s link to European currencies, and in 1997 Asian currencies were attacked.

We are told that the story line behind oil’s recent rise is increased demand from China and India. No doubt this is true. More importantly, speculators believe this, so they have been buying. There has also been a diversification of portfolios to commodities that has contributed to higher demand for oil.

Large price increases always draw in new buyers. There has been a rush of speculators and others looking for profit. Corporations dependent upon gas to operate their businesses have begun to trade oil. All of this has helped raise prices and in doing so has securitized our lives and basic needs, unknowingly making us all part of a world casino.

Reducing our Vulnerability

Reaganomics and the push to free markets has securitized our lives and made us vulnerable to the whims of speculators and special interests. Reducing the price of oil and basic foodstuffs is about ending the cannibalistic push for deregulation.

To bring democracy back to the US and free ourselves from the chains of special interests we need to educate people about the hypocrisy and evils of free markets and deregulation. We do this by exposing the conservatives, Reaganites and their ilk for the mess they put us in. We need to show all those that have party or group affiliations to Reagan principles for what they are — a failed parasitic policy.

We must not be swayed by false short-term delusions of hope such as offshore drilling. The surge of deregulation and free markets is what put us in the mess we are in.

Reaganomics has been an abysmal failure. Only by addressing the fundamental causes can we hope to find a solution.

The preceding is from Syracuse Peace Council’s September Peace Letter.

Madis Senner is a former global money manager turned Seeker. As a Keeper, he takes care of, and maintains, several sacred sites. His fourth book, Sacred Sites in North Star Country tells the role greater New York State had in shaping the world (birthplace of the Women’s Movement/Democracy/religions/more) and where to experience that consciousness. You can learn more about his thinking and about Mother Earth here. He writes periodically on progressive issues on his blog, The Metaphysical Progressive. Read other articles by Madis.

25 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Michael Dawson said on September 4th, 2008 at 9:42am #

    “Speculators are why the price of oil has recently spiked.”

    Balderdash. Peak oil — it’s real. Check into it.

  2. Deadbeat said on September 4th, 2008 at 9:57am #

    Balderdash. Peak oil — it’s real. Check into it.

    I have doubts. Chavez remarked that Venezuela had at least 200 years of oil and now with oil prices so high it makes the price of Venezuelan heavy oil competitive.

    I has been shown, Dr Petras has written here and there has been other articles which clearly shows that demand for oil has not gone up at the level to justify the price rise. These articles have definitely linked the price rise to the U.S. destabilization of the Middle East.

  3. HR said on September 4th, 2008 at 11:29am #

    If I recall correctly, by the end of the 1980s, fuel efficiency for autos was pretty good here. During the 1970s, Detroit adopted a ploy of building detuned 1960s junk that would barely run in the hope that the public would rebel against the newly enacted, strict antipollution laws. The public instead opted for Japanese cars, which easily met pollution requirements, got excellent mileage, were extremely dependable, and had plenty of power.

    Beginning during the late 70s, and through the 80s, Detroit began seriously playing a game of catch-up (though many of “their” offerings were rebadged Asian or European vehicles, or equipped with Asian or European engines). It was not until the 90s that Detroit began our love affair with inefficient, hulking SUVs. And, it’s been downhill since. My old Ford Probe GT, purchased in 1988, still gets 28-33 on the highway at speeds of 65 and 55 mph, respectively, and performs like a 60s muscle car if I have the need, or whim. It easily blows away my neighbor’s 3-year-old, 12 mpg, V-8 SUV.

  4. Deadbeat said on September 4th, 2008 at 1:11pm #

    HR,

    I agree with what you’re saying. A lot of the pollution controls devices and injectors that cars are equipped today IMO are unnecessary. Methanol (not Ethanol) can be blended with gasoline which can reduce emission and reduce oil consumption.

    If we had remain on track with the fuel efficiency goals set in the 70’s cars today would be getting something like 100 miles/gallon. Or at least those were the goals that I recall. After Reagan become President those goals were abandoned and never restored. Which is another reason I have doubts about the claims of “Peak Oil”.

    However I’m convinced that the recent spike in oil prices is not related to increased demand.

  5. HR said on September 4th, 2008 at 3:12pm #

    Deadbeat, As you say, prices for oil products are NOT related to demand, and rarely have been. Every year for the last couple of decades, we’ve heard the old saw of supply and demand being the cause for the summer price increases, yet I have not heard any reports of gas lines during the spring and summer months, which would actually be an indication that demand is outstripping supply. I suspect that the price increase during the summer is just a way of increasing the increase in gasoline profits that occurs naturally with hotter weather, which causes gasoline to expand and become less dense, meaning less fuel is contained in each pump-measured gallon than in the winter, at least here in the U.S., where temperature compensated pumps are not used. And, periodically, we hear from politicians and oil-company apologists that overall refining capacity is too low, another lie, since refinery limitations have not resulted in shortages, excepting contrived ones when, for some “unknown” reason, several refineries found themselves down for “maintenance”, at the same time. This occurred even though overall demand has increased dramatically over the last 30 years, while refining capacity stayed about the same. Again, even then, there were no lines, just higher prices.

    As an aside, I inherited something like one-three hundredth of an interest in two old oil wells that my grandfather had acquired prior to the Great Depression, when he went broke. In the 60s, my dad would get checks of around a dollar or two every few months as oil royalties on those old wells. It was kind of a family joke that we were oil tycoons. Then, in the early 70s the checks stopped, until the late 90s, when a relative decided to see if the wells were still pumping. After a modest lump-sum payment covering the prior three decades of uncompensated pumping, the checks, around $30 each, started arriving two or three times per year. Now, since prices have skyrocketed, no checks have arrived in the mail … because these wells are idle, as are hundreds, probably thousands, of others, here and around the world. They are idle because we have not been in a low-supply situation, any more than we are in a low-refining-capacity situation. We are in a greed and profit-making situation, one driven in large part by speculators on the oil futures market. And, no one seems to care.

    Concerning alcohol as a fuel, I guess it’s OK for newer cars, but older vehicles will experience rusting of metal gas lines, and deterioration of fuel hoses, and less efficiency. Alcohols don’t have the energy content of gasoline, and a lot of, by some estimates more, fossil fuels are needed to produce the alcohol than the energy that results from distilling the alcohol. In short, it’s a scam.

    Finally, with better ignition systems, better fuel metering systems (like multiport fuel injection, and better engine control systems (computers), the need for add-on emissions systems parts has pretty much become a thing of the past. My old 1989 Probe (12-valve, 2200 cc, 4-cylinder, turbocharged) has port fuel injection, which has functioned without a hitch for over 160,000 miles, something I have never experienced with carbureted vehicles. It has NO add-on emission parts, other than exhaust gas recirculation, controlled by the computer, and a positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve, which vents the crankcase MUCH better than the old road-draft tubes of pre-1963 vehicles. Incidentally, the solid-state ignition system has functioned perfectly over all these years and miles, something that would NOT have happened with the old points-and-condenser ignitions used up to the late 60s.

  6. Deadbeat said on September 4th, 2008 at 4:55pm #

    HR,

    Thank you very much for your analysis. It is extremely informative and why I’m grateful that DV permits reader comments. Thanks for the correction regarding Alcohols. This was being touted as a solution to the oil crisis in the late 70’s since I recall being told that the Indy racers use Methanol instead of gasoline. Perhaps I was mistaken.

    Overall we’re on the same page and I’m in total agreement with you that there is no supply/demand crisis and there needs to be a renewed interest in automotive mileage standards. Apparently your old Probe shows that it can be done and that it is not pie-in-the-sky.

    Thanks,
    Deadbeat.

  7. Max Shields said on September 4th, 2008 at 5:07pm #

    Talking about peak oil being or not being is just another religious war – like global warming is real or not.

    Chavez has 200 years of oil if it’s not gobbled up by China, India and the West.

    This argument that there’s plenty of oil is simply an argument to say that American wars are all about ideology and Israel.

    We have seen 700 years of conflict built on Feudalism and natural resource hegomony; primarily a Western export.

    Land is the basis for all wars. By land I mean control over valued natural resources. Oil is one of hundreds of thousands of resources that are the primary target of Western preditory capitalism. This is not new. Israel is an extension of the West and the licensing and privatizing for a few of natural resources is a Western tradition. Just as the European settlers in Africa and the Americas viciously moved to take preditory land grabs as they raped and settled the land from coast to coast, then moved outward to the rest of the world. It is an ugly cancer.

  8. Deadbeat said on September 4th, 2008 at 5:45pm #

    Max says…

    This argument that there’s plenty of oil is simply an argument to say that American wars are all about ideology and Israel.

    That right Max keep doing what the Left does best… obscure, distort, deflect and diffuse. How “Chomskyesque” of you.

    The issue of Peak Oil is being used to obscures the fact that the recent rise in oil prices has nothing to do with supply and demand forces. I guess your fear is that if it is not supply and demand then it must be for some other reason.

    There are plenty articles here on DV with makes the argument that the reason for the oil price rise has more to do with unregulated speculators and the destabilization caused by the U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

  9. Max Shields said on September 4th, 2008 at 7:01pm #

    Deadbeat “That right Max keep doing what the Left does best… obscure, distort, deflect and diffuse. How “Chomskyesque” of you.”

    You’ve got this one-note about “left obscuring…”. Most of those articles are written by Petras who sees things through the same narrow prism as you’ve accustomed yourself to.

    Hegemony and wars over natural resources have been going on for many centuries. Claiming that Venezula estimates 200 years of oil sounds like the Republicans “drill drill drill, we got plenty of oil”. The lord god made this oil for the human specious to sip as fast and furious as he can greedily consume and poison the air and water and food we eat and drink. “Come” this god says, ” there is more and more and more. Fill your body with the riches of black gold..”

    To understand the limitations of fossil, you need to first understand the consumption rate that is growing expotentially year in and year out and how that consumption effects the ecosystem. Together you’re lucking if you have 20 years.

    Since you know that there is an endless supply (7 generations is considered sustainable) than I guess you can provide us with tomorrow’s weather report. I say this because those who have studied peak oil for years (other than the oil industry) strongly disagree with your postion. Start with Richard Heinberg’s work http://www.richardheinberg.com/ He’s no Chomsky.
    Max

  10. Deadbeat said on September 5th, 2008 at 1:05am #

    Oh I get it Max what you are saying is that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of Peak Oil and not because of the neo-cons/Zionist agenda of Middle East hegemony. And that the recent spike in oil prices is not due to unregulated speculation and the threat of invading Iran but due to dwindling supplies as the planet runs out of oil which will inevitably leads to more war and “Imperialism”.

    If that isn’t Chomskyesque I don’t know what else is.

    Here’s an article from Ismael Hossein-Zadeh which provides a respite from the Chomskyesque doublespeak you constantly promote.

  11. Max Shields said on September 5th, 2008 at 7:18pm #

    Deadbeat the problem is you don’t get it.

    Since you don’t think the USA is an imperialist empire and that Israel is the (primary if not only) reason we have been fighting wars; and that there is no connection between our military industrial complex and US monopolistic corporatism, there’s little use in discuss these matters.

    Yours is a fanciful world, void of historical facts, I’m afraid.

  12. cg said on September 5th, 2008 at 8:03pm #

    Mentioning “historical facts” in any reference to the Israeli Khazars is an oxymoron.

  13. Deadbeat said on September 6th, 2008 at 1:07am #

    Max opines…

    Yours is a fanciful world, void of historical facts, I’m afraid.

    For the sake of argument lets assume you are right Max and that the reason for war at the turn of the 20th Century is the same as the turn of the 21st Century. Then if we look at the racist aspect of Zionism we see that the War in the Philippines has the same racism attached to it.

    Oh but that NOT the conclusion you hope for your readers to draw Max because your agenda is to CONCEAL, OBSCURE, DISTORT, DISTRACT and DIFFUSE any notion that Zionism played any role in the War on Iraq. Your “Peak Oil” ruse is yet another in the long line of ruses coming from the Left in the same vein as Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky.

    Since you don’t think the USA is an imperialist empire and that Israel is the (primary if not only) reason we have been fighting wars;

    No Max. Your assertion is your consistent distortion and Chomskyesque doublespeak. The real issue which you go to great length to obscure is that Zionism (and its racist aspects) is a MAJOR problem WITHIN the United States. It was the impetus that pushed for the War in Iraq. Why Max do you engage in selective fact selection like ignoring the Project of the New American Century which was written, published and deployed by American Zionism.

    American Zionism has been a major blind-spot on the Left and it is the major reason why the anti-war movement has been marginalized. Your arguments only confirm why there will NEVER be unity on the Left. It it demonstrates that the Left cannot be trusted. The Left shows that it is all to willing to abandon comrades willing to speak out against Zionism and racism. The Left shows that rather than confront this issue it will use sophistry and twisted doublespeak in order to obscure a racist ideology that has gain enormous power and influence in the United States.

    Yet recently rather than confront racism we now see a spat of articles from Left-wing writers engaging in some of the most retrograde and reactionary “blame-the-voter” rhetoric. If this is what is a reflection of the Left today then I don’t blame the voters for voting for Obama because there is nothing “Left” of the Democrats. Failing to find anything “Left” of the Democrats it would seem that voters are making the “best” choice.

  14. Max Shields said on September 6th, 2008 at 8:32am #

    Deadbeat,
    “For the sake of argument lets assume you are right Max and that the reason for war at the turn of the 20th Century is the same as the turn of the 21st Century. Then if we look at the racist aspect of Zionism we see that the War in the Philippines has the same racism attached to it.”

    I’m saying that the “reason” for war has been the same for EVERY century. The cause(s) of war do not change it’s skin for each century. I also do NOT think that racism is the CAUSE of war; nor ideology (except in the broadest sense of that word). I do not think fascism, communism, or even capitalism per se causes war. I don’t think neconservativism nor neoliberalism per se are the cause but they are tools used to justify the aggressive invasive quest to “own” the world’s resources.

    I do think monopolistic economics and a ruling class cause wars. The rest is pretext. I do NOT believe that human beings are innately wired for war. Quite the contrary; but they are wired for security and defense and if those “wires” are charged through messages (propaganda) human beings will respond. This is like our current “food system”. Left to our own we’d eat a healthy well balanced diet. But we are “wired” for fats and sweet flavors to take us through winter months, etc. That “wiring” has allowed our food system monoplist to inject artificial sweetners to increase intake, and thus increase food purchasing.

    Over 700 years from the Middle Ages (and before) and on, a hierarchy of power has been built around the privitization of natural resources. Laws hae been carefully and continuously crafted to support this takeover and a legal and police and military system enforces it. There is NO human wealth WITHOUT natural resources. This powerful class has always operated under that basic premise. And it operates today under that premise.

    Licening of the commons and technology concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. In order to sustain that grasp and to grow it, wars are waged.

    That is the “reason” for ALL wars regardless of ideology or religion. Israel is an imperialistic nation-state. It’s domain is the Middle East. It employs racism and terrorism and whatever else will work to extend its grasp on resource control.

    I’ll grant you that oil is a simplistic way to provide casuse for the US invasion of Iraq. It is a short-hand that speaks directly to the centers of power who want to control as much as use resources in that region and elsewhere.

    Imperialism is the word used to describe monopolistic and preditory capitalism. If that is broken, if we unleash the monoplistic wealth-making of natural resources in the world and make it accessible to us all, we would end war and poverty.

    I don’t know what Chomsky or Noami Klein has to say about this. I don’t much care; though I think they’d find it reasonably compelling. As far as blind spots – in this case, and in my opinion, that’s a specious argument.

  15. Max Shields said on September 6th, 2008 at 10:14am #

    DB, you continue to talk about a “left” like there’s a connection between The Nation and Chomsky. I don’t even know that Chomsky considers himself a “leftist”.

    When you talk about the “left” are you talking about Tom Hayden? Do you think Petras is an American “leftist”. If so, and since you seem to hang on to each and every word he utters, is he a good “leftist”? Is Petras part of the “anti-war” movement? If so, how so?

    Do you think that all the protests outside of the Dem and Repub conventioons were blacked due to a “leftist” conspiracy? Do you believe the media is “leftist” as the Repub propaganda would have us believe?

    DB, who is the real obscurist here, you who see a conspiracy by a nameless “left” or those who wish to look squarely at history and piece together a semblance of understanding – that we did not just arrive at this place, but evolved over millenium?

    Today is the culmination of millions of yesterdays, of choices and decisions.

    I’ve made clear my positions on Zionism, Israel, Imperialism, and the USA. To continue to mix those into what appears to be very weak argument – at least as you present it – seems to belie an obscurist agenda. Repeatedly using Chomsky – someone you seem more willing to bring into the discussion – is but a red herring.

  16. Deadbeat said on September 6th, 2008 at 1:23pm #

    DB, you continue to talk about a “left” like there’s a connection between The Nation and Chomsky. I don’t even know that Chomsky considers himself a “leftist”.

    Max, at best, you are in severe denial which only goes to prove my point and suspicions about the “Left”. Chomsky is a self described “Libertarian Socialist” who has spent his entire career using his criticism of U.S. policy and sophistry to deflect the problem and power of Zionism within the U.S.

    I’m not the only one point this out. You can read critiques from Dr. Petras, Jeffrey Blankfort and others. I even posted a link to a CounterPunch article that clearly questions the “War for Oil” canard that you choose to promote here on DV. So to make it appear that I’m alone in my critique is ridiculous.

    Why is Chomsky significant? Because Chomsky provides the gateway and introduction for many people to left-wing politics. Because the “Left” has limited media access Chomsky becomes that beacon where most folks who considered themselves left of the Democrats get much of their information.

    In fact listening to Alternative Radio jus this week, David Barsamian, listed among his most important American guests as Chomsky, Naomi Klein and Howard Zinn. How’s that for irony. But what that means is that they REPRESENT the “informed” voice of the Left. The main point for “voters” looking to educate themselves as they move from Liberalism to a more Left-wing ideology will more than likely travel through these gatekeepers.

    DB, who is the real obscurist here, you who see a conspiracy by a nameless “left” or those who wish to look squarely at history and piece together a semblance of understanding – that we did not just arrive at this place, but evolved over millenium?

    No Max yours is a position of denial especially the denial of racism as it is now constructed in the United States . This is what makes your stance untrustworthy of building the kind of solidarity needed to confront power.

    And as for Zionism Max, it didn’t take 1000 years for Zionism to achieve the influence and power that it now has in the United States. How it achieved such heights is that people like you used various kinds of ruses (like using the deflector word “conspiracy”) and sophistry to deflect and diffuse awareness.

    The problem with such labels as “Imperialism” is that it is deliberate sophistry intended to conceal the role Zionism played in the War in Iraq. And as I pointed out in my previous post which you chose to ignore is that RACISM has played a common denominator in War and Imperialism.

    I’ve made clear my positions on Zionism, Israel, Imperialism, and the USA

    Max what you have made clear is your intention to obscure Zionism as a major problem and force in the United States. Zionism is the dominate racist ideology afflicting the United States today and one that you want to at best ignore and at worst obscure.

  17. Max Shields said on September 6th, 2008 at 6:32pm #

    Deadbeat, as I said, Chomsky, Zinn, Klein have nothing to do with what I’ve posted and everything to do with your limited world view.

    The sooner you get over your obsession the sooner you’ll be able to make sense of our history…perhaps.

  18. Deadbeat said on September 6th, 2008 at 7:15pm #

    Deadbeat, as I said, Chomsky, Zinn, Klein have nothing to do with what I’ve posted and everything to do with your limited world view.
    The sooner you get over your obsession the sooner you’ll be able to make sense of our history…perhaps.

    Max what is limiting are your arguments and your view of politics in the United States which btw has a major effect on the world scene.

    You can label it “Imperialism” and “Empire” all you want to in order to obscure the truth but that doesn’t alter how Zionism has become a major driving force behind “Empire” TODAY. Empire and Imperialism do not occur in a vacuum Max. They requires a motivating force.

    Your claim is that the motivation behind Imperialism and Empire for all epoch are is the same of which you claim it to be for land and resources. However Max those who FIGHT and DIE in Imperialism’s quest are not necessarily motivated by the same forces that drive the ruling class.

    Racism and nationalism however are very powerful forces that can be used to motivate the working class to kill and be killed by each other no less.

    But let’s take a step back. Your introduction into this this tread began with this comment…
    This argument that there’s plenty of oil is simply an argument to say that American wars are all about ideology and Israel.

    In my discussion with HR, Israel wasn’t even mention. In fact I don’t think I mention Israel once. What I did mention was that I had doubts about the premise of “Peak Oil” and that the recent rise in gasoline prices is not attributed to raising demand or dwindling supply. Unfortunately Max it was you who got on the defensive about Israel (Zionism) and introduced it into the discussion.

    That should come as no surprise when it is clear that your agenda is to obscure, deflect, distort, dismiss, and diffuse the influence that Zionism has in the continuation of Imperialism in the 21st Century. If there is any one who is “obsessed” it is you Max. You are “obsessed” with denial and deflection.

  19. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2008 at 7:06am #

    Deadbeat, you’re being coy. We both know your repeated case against “oil” is a way to say that it is an “obscuring” of the “real” reason why the US is juggling a number of wars.

    I agree that racism (fear) and ideology can be the narrative which propels war and conflict. But it is not the motive behind it. Zionism is a manifestation of imperialism. Neoconservativism is a manifestation of imperialism as is neo-liberalism.

    I would not make “peak oil” as you have, an ideology. “Peak oil” is NOT a counter argument to Zionism. Peak oil is not the reason why we’re in Iraq. Hegemony is all about control of regional and global resources.

    Hegemony is, at bottom, the American Global Strategic Policy. On the one hand, there is Zbigniew Brzezinski (Obama) and than there is Randy Scheunemann (McCain) – both are American imperialists with slightly different takes on where next. No one would ever call Brzezinski a Zionist (as in Israel first)!

    American imperialism is rooted deep from its inception of colonial conquests which follow the same pattern as the colonization of Africa, Asia, the ME and Central and South America. Policy doctrines have been fashioned and updated, all calling for American exceptionalism and expansionism. These set the stage for our policies.

    But behind all this is the privitization of natural resources the world-over. That dates back to centuries before the “founding” of the American continent. This is the basis for ALL power and wealth. Doctrines, ideologies, racism play their important bit parts.

    While Chomsky or Zinn or Klein hit on these themes and maybe worthy of note but in NO WAY discredit the credibility of this factual history that precedes the existence of USA. Because they are intellectual Jews you see a conspiracy. I say it’s IRRELEVANT!! Why because they’re among many many non-Jews who have provided substantial support for this history.

  20. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2008 at 10:34am #

    Just one point (and I hope this doesn’t become a central issue here, and a continued red herring on the subject at hand); Chomsky, Zinn and Klein are not cross-checking one another.

    All three have condemned Israel with regard to its relationship with the region at large, Palestinians and Lebanon, in particular.

    Zinn doesn’t focus on Israel; and Klein is a borrower of ideas. Her book on Shock Treatment was document thoroughly by Greg Grandin in his superb book – Empire’s Workshop, Latin America, The United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism.

    Chomsky was once a leading linguist; his interest in US foreign policy goes back at least 40 years. He doesn’t belong to any organized group; he’s a kind of lone-acedemic “wolf”. While he’s condemned Israeli policies, he believes in a two-state solution and he does down play the importance of AIPAC in US foreign policy. I don’t agree with the two state solution; but if the majority of Palestinians support it, who am I to argue. I think AIPAC is a cancer on American polity.

    I think Chomsky and I agree that even if Israel and AIPAC have a significant voice in American politics and Middle East policy, the fundamental policies that give AIPAC credence existed long before there was an Israel or AIPAC.

  21. cg said on September 7th, 2008 at 2:42pm #

    “I think Chomsky and I agree that even if Israel and AIPAC have a significant voice in American politics and Middle East policy, the fundamental policies that give AIPAC credence existed long before there was an Israel or AIPAC.”

    Exactly correct, Max.

    Could it be the same “voices” whose “fundamental policies” existed long before AIPAC or Israel have become AIPAC, Israel and Zionism?

    And could the Russians say the same about Bolshevik and Communist “voices?”

  22. shabnam said on September 7th, 2008 at 6:13pm #

    One of the rationales underlying the Iraq invasion has been said was due to energy policy, delivered in May 2001 by vice president office: “The NEPD Group recommends that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy.” America has had an explicit policy for the last 24 years—the “Carter Doctrine”—which states:
    “An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
    But in the absence of outside force and presence of weak Iraq and deep penetration of American power in the Persian, military bases and economic influences, it is difficult to understand why the United States had to invade Iraq to ‘control the natural resources.’ Thus, regarding the influence of the ‘Jewish lobby’ on foreign policy of the empire especially in the Middle East and Africa many people believe that the Zionist neocon are responsible for the invasion of Iraq and now the same group are behind the force who is pushing for an assault on Iran.
    This policy is pushed by Aipac where has taken American foreign policy, especially in the M.E and Africa, hostage and is waging Zionist war to achieve its goal of ‘The greater Israel’ which is hidden under another name ‘the greater middle east’. This plan relies on destabilization and partition of the regional states like Iraq, Iran, Sudan to break up strong states into smaller pieces to help Israel realize its project: “the strategy of Israel in the 1980s” where is based upon changing the middle east map. We have seen Iraq where is divided under the phony ‘federalism’ designed by another Zionist, Leslie Gelb, into 3 regions with Kurdistan, a Zionist spy network, with oil wells, where has created great opportunity for Israeli intelligent agency and business community and has given Israeli Jews access to buy land in Kurdistan on Iraqis’ expense who had to flee their country and become refugees. This is one of the Zionist objectives where was realized by Iraq invasion.
    No one denies that countries have only permanent interest not enemy or friend, therefore, people are surprised to see the US had to invade to secure its energy needs because since the invasion the US has allowed its enemies to improve their economy, due to higher price of oil, and improve their status but the US not only has lost its credibility and its status in the region and beyond but also has weaken its economy.
    Joe Klien has said: “ The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives — people like [independent Democrat Sen.] Joe Lieberman and the crowd at Commentary — plumped for this war [in Iraq], and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties.”
    Klein was a supporter of Iraq war in the beginning to turn against it later. So even Klien thinks The Zionists were behind the war for the interest of Israel. The fact is that the foreign policy in the Middle East is dominated by pro Israel. The Zionist lobby is more powerful than the oil lobby. Otherwise Bush should have improve relation with Iran where hold large amount of oil and gas resources and has the best location to transfer oil and gas to Europe. Instead the Zionist administration of Bill Clinton and now George Bush have passed resolution after resolution through the Zionst congress to bring Iran to her knees to secure the interest of an apartheid state and steal Iran’s historical position as power of the region for Israel. Michael Klare another Zionst gatekeeper who popularizes the slogan “no blood for oil” argues that Iran has vast oil and gas reserves which are largest oil reservoir in the world, Only Saudi Arabia, possess more. With this much oil – about one-tenth of the world’s estimated total supply – Iran is certain to play a key role in the global energy equation. (Michael Klare: ‘Oil, Geopolitics, and Coming War with Iran). American companies could have been helping to exploit these vast resources thereby making huge profits. In stead, the Zionist lobby is passing one resolution after the other to keep American companies away from Iran and loosing their profit shares compare to the US enemies such as Russia and China. China. “According to the Department of Energy, Iran supplied 14 percent of China’s oil imports in 2003, and is expected to provide an even larger share in the future. China is also expected to rely on Iran for a large share of its liquid natural gas imports. In October 2004, Iran signed a $100 billion, 25-year contract with Sinopec, a major Chinese energy firm, for joint development of one of its major gas fields and the subsequent delivery of LNG to China. (Michael T. Klare ‘Oil, Geopolitics…with Iran)/ Why the United States does go against its interest? Why Stupid Bush does not understand that a weak Iran is not in the interest of the United States? A weak Iran is only good for Israel and Russia. If America’s foreign policies were being determined by the oil industry then the American government would have developed a friendly relationship with Iran to help with the transportation of oil from the Caspian sea through Iran which hold the BEST location, thus, the most economical route to carry oil and gas to Europe and international oil markets, therefore, the most profitable. Why the empire does goes AGAINST her INTEREST? Michael Klare like other gatekeepers hides the Israel lobby and does not bring Israel into his ‘analysis’ like other gatekeepers.
    http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/7990

  23. Max Shields said on September 7th, 2008 at 7:38pm #

    shabnam: “But in the absence of outside force and presence of weak Iraq and deep penetration of American power in the Persian, military bases and economic influences, it is difficult to understand why the United States had to invade Iraq to ‘control the natural resources.’ Thus, regarding the influence of the ‘Jewish lobby’ on foreign policy of the empire especially in the Middle East and Africa many people believe that the Zionist neocon are responsible for the invasion of Iraq and now the same group are behind the force who is pushing for an assault on Iran.”

    It is “difficult to understand” when you begin with the assumption that the US invaded Iraq purely at the urging of Zionists/AIPAC.

    No one, most definitely not me, disagrees that necons were for invading Iraq long before 9/11.

    The US invaded Iraq in 1991. It is fair to say that that invasion has been continuous to this day. In other words, the invasion of Iraq did not begin in 2003 because it was never concluded in 1991. We can all speculate on what “really” caused that initial invasion and its continuation throughout the Clinton administration until it was escalated in 2003.

    A lot of different factions were long for the invasion of Iraq. “Reasons” may have differed, but there was a convergence on the push to invade.

    Now, from my perspective, I do not think that any invasion is justifiable of any place on the planet. Period. So, invading Afghanistan was no more justififed than invading Panama, or Granada, or through proxies in Central America and else where throughout South America or East Timor or Somolia or Yugoslavia/Bosnia. The list goes on and on.

    What was behind all of those invasions across the planet perpetrated by the USA? Was it Zionism or AIPAC?

    As horrific as that invasion into Iraq has been for the Iraqi people, it is no less so for all of the other places the US has invaded and bombed and otherwise tore apart. These wars are about control.

    I see nothing in your argument that demonstrates that the USA has nothing to gain by taking control of the region. Carter’s doctrine is but one doctrine, Reagan had his doctrine, as did Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. The common thread is not zionism but imperialism. How it is achieve is the difference between Scheunemann (McCain and Brzezinski (Obama). The overarching mission is the same; only the operational targets differ.

  24. Shabnam said on September 8th, 2008 at 9:47am #

    Max you are correct when you write:
    “The US invaded Iraq in 1991. It is fair to say that that invasion has been continuous to this day. In other words, the invasion of Iraq did not begin in 2003 because it was never concluded in 1991. We can all speculate on what “really” caused that initial invasion and its continuation throughout the Clinton administration until it was escalated in 2003.”
    We can even go deeper into the past to look at Iran-Iraq war which deliberately made longer, 8 bloody years, and as Henry Kissinger, one of the neocon, said: “let them kill each other off” to weaken both countries to improve Israel position in the middle east against Arabs and Iranians. However, it was during the Bill Clinton, the most Zionist administration ever, where Zionists gained the upper hand. Everyone remembers, the dual containment of both Iraq and Iran designed by Martin Indyke sought to contain Israel’s most important strategic adversaries. These countries were not the US adversaries. The neocon pro Israel’s position gained upper hand to direct the foreign policy of the Middle East and Africa including Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, north Africa as well. Martin Indyke, the founding executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an Israeli think tank and Aipac spinoff became an important figure who served as special assistant to Bill Clinton in directing the US policy regarding Iran and Iraq. Today Martin Indyke is director of another Israeli think tank, the Saban Center for Middle East policy. Step by step the Zionists managed to design policy where put the interest of Israel ahead of the interest of the Americans with the help of the Zionist congress.
    Max, the problem is that you repeatedly assume imperialism === grab of the resources. Why the imperial power does want to grab resources? The empire wants to control the resources to strengthen its position and maintain the status quo. Right? If set of policies since the Clinton administration on Middle East have weaken the US position in the region and contributed towards strengthening its adversaries’ position then why does the empire continue to stay on the same path to help its own demise? The history tells us that always there have been conflicting forces within the empire and only the strongest mange to be in the driving seat to design policies for special interest. This was true in British Empire as well. In 19th century Britain, there were two conflicting forces regarding design of the British foreign policy. The first group headed by Gladstone, four times prime Minister and champion of the home rule bill for Ireland who had intense rivalry with the Conservative Party Leader Benjamin Disraeli who was closely associated with the Rothschild family’s interest. Today, we have similar situation. Today, I think, policies are designed in such a way that protect the same group and their extension where Israel’s interest is one of the important factor in the design of the policy regarding the middle east and Africa. Oil imports comprise a small part of the US trade deficit. America’s trade deficit in manufactured goods, including advanced technology products, dwarfs the US energy deficit. Paul Craig Roberts believes that “the US trade deficit with China is more than twice the size of the US trade deficit with OPEC. The US deficit with Japan is about the size of the US deficit with OPEC. With an overall US trade deficit of more than $800 billion, the deficit with OPEC only comprises one-eighth.” (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Shrinking the US Dollar from the Inside-Out ’ December 13, 2007). The United States has been said, has vast amount of oil in the state of Alaska. Why US do not want to dig in Alaska? Why US do have the need to change regimes in the Middle East region through destabilization and partition to construct allies for Israel? At the same time, let Saudi Arabia with the largest proven oil reserve off the hook and goes after Syria with no oil? Saudi Arabia is a puppet of the US Zionist administration including Clinton and Israel. Why both administrations, Clinton as well Bush now, do refuse to allow American companies to exploit Iran’s massive oil resources? Is this in the interest of the empire? Why the nuclear enrichment program of Iran, which is LEGAL, has been used to construct ‘crisis’ in order to help the destabilization process of Iran to force Iran seek ‘security agreement’ with the empire’s adversaries, for example, Russian who have used the Iranian trump card to obtain concession after concession from the Zionist US administration to keep Iran weak which is good only for RUSSIA and ISRAEL not the United States. Why does the United States make Israel’ interest the American interest? Why the dissident voices are not heard? Max, the US had the control of the region but since Clinton administration and pursue of the Zionist policy the US is on a shaky ground in the middle east and Russia and China has gained important concessions to strengthen their situation in the Persian Gulf and for the first time Russia sees herself closer than ever to have access to the Persian Gulf as the result of preemptive strike. As Radzhab Safarov, General Director of the Russian Center for Iranian Studies has written an article “Iranian Trump Card. Russia can take control of Persian Gulf” who predicts:
    “The deployment of a military base on the Island of Qeshm would allow Russia to monitor the United States’ and NATO’s activities in the Persian Gulf zone, Iraq and other Arab states.”
    Is this in the interest of the Amerian empire?
    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10032

  25. Max Shields said on September 9th, 2008 at 2:31pm #

    Shabnam “Max, the problem is that you repeatedly assume imperialism === grab of the resources. Why the imperial power does want to grab resources? The empire wants to control the resources to strengthen its position and maintain the status quo. Right? If set of policies since the Clinton administration on Middle East have weaken the US position in the region and contributed towards strengthening its adversaries’ position then why does the empire continue to stay on the same path to help its own demise?”

    First, imperialism is not an assumption. It is actually a highly documented term to describe what has taken place primarily in Western civilizations over the last 700 or years.

    But you raise a point which I’ve been hearing hear on DV. That is why would the “empire” do things against its “interest”? This seems clear when you realize, as I think you’d agree, there is a deep pathology in imperialism. Pathological behaviour stems from desires which begin to be counterproductive to the entity (person, organization, nation-state, etc.). Such pathology is everywhere, particularly geopolitically where powers are clashing over “scarce” resources.

    But what I find interesting is that this is so common that I wonder why there is a “need” to find the answer in some other “enemy”? It seems that there is a desire to find a single enemy, a single ideology to explain this behavior. Imperialism could be viewed as that ideology or, say, Zionism. I see Zionism as described today, as a form of imperialism, but I think the root cause is the privatization of the earth and all that surrounds it. The outcomes are genocide, masacures, global economic take overs,etc. As I said before these ideologies which support “ownership” and by that control, are not the cause but the doctrinaire manifestation of that drive.

    Again, I would not be so overwrought with rationality which your question implies. Rationalism can exist within the irrational. The USA history is strewn with strands of healthy purpose and pathological acts.