About that oil

Scott Lemieux catches Glenn Reynolds' mask askew:

Of course, if we seized the Saudi and Iranian oil fields and ran the pumps full speed, oil prices would plummet, dictators would be broke, and poor nations would benefit from cheap energy. But we'd be called imperialist oppressors, then.

Remember how Insty used make No Blood For Oil?

In a bizarre disclaimer, Reynolds added that he wasn't actually calling for an invasion of Iran and Saudi Arabia--he was just pointing out that accusations of "imperialist aggression" are vacuous:

UPDATE: Various people (with various degrees of enthusiasm) see the above as a call for invasion. It was, rather, a comment on the vacuity of the "imperialist oppressors" language. Though I was probably wrong there anyway: If we really were imperialist oppressors, the critics would be sucking up.

If we invaded Saudi Arabia and Iran and stole their oil, we'd be called "imperialist oppressors." And we'd be rightly pissed. If a Super Power invades your land, overthrows your government, and steals your natural resources, it's totally vacuous call them imperialist aggressors.

Update: Furthermore, imperialist aggression wouldn't lower gas prices. Reynolds is under the impression that Middle Easter oil producers aren't pumping as much oil as they could. He's assuming that a well-placed imperialist jackbook could squeeze extra petroleum out of these reticent regimes. Insty will be disappointed to learn that there isn't that much surplus capacity to steal these days.

In other news, Rush has been robbing from Insty and giving to Max Boot:

"I’ve said before that Limbaugh steals.  At least he’s stealing quality, but he’s still a thief," writes Rob Sama. (Via Deltoid.)

Comments

[hack]

"That's why the professor - is a hack!"

[upyernoz]

actually, reynold's first comment is probably wrong.

the oil prices would only come down if the saudis and iranians didn't bother resisting our seizures. if it turned out they minded our imperialist oppression, they'd be doing stuff like blowing up pipelines and disrupting oil production. a more likely scenario would be a huge increase in oil production as the places with the first, second and third biggest proven reserves (iraq, iran and saudi arabia) are all engulfed in chaos.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Matt Yglesias explains that there's http://matthewyglesias.tpmcafe.com/node/29465>not much surplus capacity to steal any more--Middle Eastern oil fields are already operating close to capacity.

So, imperial theft won't reduce gas prices, that is unless Glenn Reynolds wants us to seize the oil fields, nationalize all the oil (the nation in question being us), and just give it away.

[rob helpy-chalk]

Do we need to list more reason why invading Saudi and Iran to seize the oil would be profoundly stupid? Sure, why not.

You don't need to buy into any particularly strong versions of peak oil theory or any of the more pessimistic climate change models to believe that another decade of cheap oil will cause crippling environmental damage and make the transition to the next major energy source even more painful.

[j swift]

Got Hubris?

[Anthony Damiani]

Obviously invasion to boost oil production is idiotic, but I think a reasonable reading of Reynolds argument is "If we were REALLY Imperialist Opressors, we'd invade Saudi Arabia and Iran and steal their oil. Since we are not, claims that our behavior is imperialist are entirely vacuuous."

It's a little like a mugger saying "I'm not violent, if I was violent, I would have shot you, instead of just clubbing you upside the head."

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I don't think that's a tenable reading. Reynolds is saying that if we invaded, all kinds of wonderful things would happen but we'd be called imperialist aggressors. In what sense would that be a vacuous accusation? I think he's saying that if we acted like imperialist aggresssors, nobody would say so because they'd all want "in" the cheap gas.

[belledame222]

It is always nice to catch these little glimpses of peoples' views of human nature, isn't it?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

It is reassuring to see the little man behind the curtain from time to time.

[carla]

I swear to fuck that these guys don't think past the end of their gas gauge.

That Iraqi invasion has worked out just swimmingly for oil, hasn't it? We own the fields yet we can't pump out oil for shit.

Even if you dump the asshat hubris that Reynolds dishes out...how about just a little common sense yielded by TURNING ON THE DAMN TELEVISON and watching the news?

Lawdy.

[NonyNony]

Huh. The first thought that ran through my mind when I read that quote was that it sounded like Bill Bennett's racist comments that were "just speculations" and not "supposed to be racist." His update only made it seem moreso.

And I hope his grasp of law is better than his grasp on economics, because that first paragraph shows a plainly awful understanding about how the oil market works.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

An economist who had worked in the British government opined, a couple of years ago, that the Iraq invasion was mounted because Iraq had begun pricing their oil in Euros instead of dollars, on the world markets (interestingly, their Axis of Evil partner, Iran, was threatening to do the same thing). His article, in the Guardian, posited that the invasion was largely to do with our government's panic over the idea of the US Dollar losing its status as the world's reserve currency.

I don't believe that's why we went to war there, but the nations of the world have begun to pull out of the dollar.

Allow this fantasist his visions of slaughtering a bunch of Ay-rabs and taking their oil. The fantasy he's trying to work up is apparently being ruined by the intrusive image of someone yelling "imperialist!", but the dollar will be falling soon, and oil will soon become very dear indeed.