Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

    I assume most of us here have read EJ's book and are familiar with the FIRE economy and the approaching problem of peak oil (whether it is upon us or will be eventually). Considering who appears to controls the government (transnational mega banks and corporations interests), it would seem that the government is merely acting in the interests of a privileged few. Regulatory processes have been captured and laws are written by lobbyists for the benefit of corporations. Politicians receive tons of fringe benefits in exchange for their service and political theater convinces people the process is still democratic.

    Since politicians lie and the best liars win, we obviously can't determine the governments intent by listening to politicians. The only way to determine what the government is really up to is to look at the laws they pass, the activities they engage in and perhaps the lies they tell (if recognized as lies, there may be a clue to their true motivation). Now, it's possible that we just have self interested individuals producing unintended results, but I'm starting to seriously wonder. Even rich people need a stable home base to operate from.

    I was reading comments in an oil drum post about ethanol subsidies ending and someone went on a free-market rant about farm subsidies. I felt the need to explain to him that farm subsidies and protectionist tariffs ensure that we can produce our own food. How dangerous would it be to rely on foreign countries for food, even if globalism made it cheaper to do so? Basic necessities should be protected and handled domestically if at all possible.

    That got me thinking, what is the next most important resource next to food? Clearly it's oil. Since oil is a non-renewable resource and our own reserves peaked in the 70's, it's vitally important to reduce consumption of our own oil and use as much foreign oil as possible. Using foreign oil is doubly useful because it allows us to continue thriving while saving our own oil and reducing fuel for the economic growth of foreign competitors. This is basic national security. Hence, environmentalism is a useful cover to curb our domestic oil production while our foreign military activity and dollar policy have allowed us to use up the rest of the world's oil. Lies about peak oil are necessary for us to continue consuming as much foreign oil as possible. Out-sourcing further causes foreign countries to use finite resources (internally produced inputs to production are cheaper) while also raising their populations standard of living causing them to consume yet more. The geopolitical activities of America since the 70's seem pretty close to optimal when thought of this way. Of course, that doesn't mean the American middle class will indefinitely prosper from these policies. People are ultimately just a useful tool for those in power.

    Am I thinking too hard?

  • #2
    Re: Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

    Originally posted by davidstvz
    I felt the need to explain to him that farm subsidies and protectionist tariffs ensure that we can produce our own food. How dangerous would it be to rely on foreign countries for food, even if globalism made it cheaper to do so? Basic necessities should be protected and handled domestically if at all possible.
    I'd first consider that the US is a massive food exporter.

    I very much doubt the subsidies have anything whatsoever to do with the US remaining self sufficient in food.

    If you want to see what real subsidies for food self sufficiency look like, examine the situation for rice farmers in Japan:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4907742.stm

    Firstly, it blocks nearly all imports of cheap foreign rice from countries like China and America.


    Secondly, the government pays farmers four times the market value for their rice and then sells onto the shops at a loss.


    This costs Japanese tax payers nearly $2bn a year.

    Agriculture subsidies in the US are a direct result of the legislative process: senators and representatives from the farming states, particularly senators, can leverage their tremendous over-representation in the legislative process to produce tit for tat earmarks.

    Originally posted by davidstvz
    Hence, environmentalism is a useful cover to curb our domestic oil production while our foreign military activity and dollar policy have allowed us to use up the rest of the world's oil.
    It seems beguiling, but it is very difficult to reconcile the massive expenditure of oil in various military adventures with environmentalism.

    Is the net actually a savings?

    Secondly domestic oil production is falling because of depletion in existing finds. Sure, it is true that exploration is limited by environmental concerns, but then again a rich society has the luxury of being able to choose to do so.

    I'd note that the above meme is also a mirage - the US reduced its oil consumption more than 10% in the decade from 1975 to 1985, and environmentalism played no part whatsoever.

    If the US government was really interested in conserving oil, they'd put the same amount of taxes on it as Europe does.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

      Yes we are exporting food. That just means we have more than we need. Ensuring that we can be self sufficient definitely involves over production. If Canada or Mexico was having a problem, we might also need enough to take care of them since unrest there could spill over to the U.S. The process by which the subsidies are introduced in congress doesn't change the possibility that it could be serving the purpose I'm suggesting.

      As for oil, the environmental thing doesn't have to be true for the thesis to be true. Although isn't there oil off the coast of California and ANWR in Alaska that we're not drilling? I know for a fact drilling has been slowed down in the Gulf of Mexico with the BP spill as an excuse. While it's true our wealth allows us to use a lot of foreign oil, we have seemingly done everything we can to encourage over-consumption with practically no thought for the future (living on credit while denying the existence of peak oil; out-sourcing production). It could just be unchecked corporate greed. Or it could be greed intentionally left unchecked... how could we tell the difference? I suppose what we would see is that some corporations would, now and then, try to do something that is not according to plan and then be shut down by congress.

      Yeah.. I'm probably thinking too hard.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

        Originally posted by davidstvz
        Yes we are exporting food. That just means we have more than we need. Ensuring that we can be self sufficient definitely involves over production.
        I'd say that being the single largest exporter of food in the world is a quantitative and qualitative difference over merely overproducing.

        Secondly while the import/export numbers aren't ridiculously different, the quantity and quality of imports and exports are dramatically different. The US consumes far more meat internally while exports are primarily grain. Given that the grain to meat conversion ranges from 3.8 (chicken) to 12 (beef), it is quite clear that the US produces multiples more food than it must consume.

        So if your thesis is that the US is subsidizing agriculture to promote meat self sufficiency, this might be supportable by evidence.

        The thesis that subsidies are some form of strategic interest, as opposed to a venal expression of the US political system, is far less supportable.

        Originally posted by davidstvz
        As for oil, the environmental thing doesn't have to be true for the thesis to be true. Although isn't there oil off the coast of California and ANWR in Alaska that we're not drilling?
        If you cannot seek and provide evidence, then you're only going to be subject to bias.

        The votes in which ANWR and offshore drilling in CA were prohibited were all entirely political - no mention was made anywhere, anytime of any type of strategic objective. Both of these are entirely the work of the environmental movement taking advantage of oil spills and the secular humanist nature of the American public, particularly in the West.

        Secondly the reality is that the US has been an oil producer for over 100 years now. Even discounting peak cheap oil, the simple fact of depletion in the US vs. cheaper foreign oil would create a tendency to use cheaper foreign oil irregardless of theoretically strategic concerns.

        Lastly there are plenty of other examples of how 'strategic' thinking works: just examine the boondoggle known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

          Alright. I'm convinced there is no shadow US government acting in our national interest. The surplus food production and our use of foreign oil are merely lucky side effects of individual and corporate greed.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

            I have had thoughts along similar lines as yours, re: the using of foreign oil reserves before domestic ones as perhaps a strategy to preserve our own supplies after peak oil. Unfortunately, the execution of such a plan would seem to require long-term strategic planning on the part of our leaders, which doesn't seem to be evident in any other problems facing the U.S. So, yep, I think "lucky side effect of individual and corporate greed" is a more likely explanation...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

              US might be a net food (grain) exporter however the US is not independent for food production.
              Unknown to most amricans, the US outsourced the production of nitrogen fertilizer production in the early 80s.
              Without them, the intensive farming model ..... I know you can fill in.

              There are numerous references to this fact, here is one

              http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/f...glyimports.htm

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

                Well there's proof positive that no one here is trying to maintain complete food independence. However, it looks like we could trade phosphate for nitrogen fertilizer to buy time to rebuild production here. Not to mention, if people want food exports from us, they'll need to help make sure we can keep production going.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is Washington Acting in our National Interest?

                  Originally posted by Ibsen
                  US might be a net food (grain) exporter however the US is not independent for food production.
                  Unknown to most amricans, the US outsourced the production of nitrogen fertilizer production in the early 80s.
                  Without them, the intensive farming model ..... I know you can fill in.

                  There are numerous references to this fact, here is one

                  http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/f...glyimports.htm
                  The article quoted above notes that the reason for the change was an increase in natural gas prices in the '90s.

                  Given what is happening with shale gas and hydrofracking, unclear why the previous dynamic would still hold true.

                  The impact of natural gas on nitrogen fertilizer production was talked about in this iTulip post: http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...in-agriculture

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X