The case for international antitrust

[koboshi]

Woodward’s new book is the next political tell all.  Flip on CNN and you'll catch a synopsis of the hot topics, most are reiterations of old allegations, but it was this story that made me sit up and take notice.

A top Saudi official has assured President Bush that his country will increase oil production to lower gas prices before November to help the president's re-election prospects, according to a broadcast report Sunday.

Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, discussing his new book on the run-up to the Iraq war on CBS' '60 Minutes,' said Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States and a long-time friend of the Bush family, has given the pledge that "certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly."

What the hell.  I can't even wrap my head around this.  How can something make so much sense and be so batfuck insane at the same time?

[Mesozoic]

Yay for political manipulation.

[Flashman]

I think its more of  an attempt to make it seem as though Bush is in the hands of the Saudis to discredit him (perhaps thats being too clever by half) or a blantant attempt to curry some goodwill from the White House. Do you really think our erstwhile "allies" in the House of Saud want 4 more years of Bush? Four more years of a guy who actively supports Israel and wants democracy in the Middle East?

The Saudis live by the status quo being maintained. As long as no one rocks the boat, they are safe. Do you think they will love a democratic pluralistic state on their border? Do you really think Bush is their man?

[Alrindel]

Do you really think our erstwhile "allies" in the House of Saud want 4 more years of Bush?

Are you fucking kidding me?  Bush is the best friend the House of Saud ever bought.

Edit: link was subscriber-only excerpt of book on Salon, changed to Amazon

[Nosartur]

Pretty moronic statement if you ask me since oil is purchased on futures contracts.  The oil that will be turned into gas for this summer has already been delivered about two months ago and was paid for 4 months in front of that.  If the Suadis ramp up oil production, which will probably go agianst the wishes of the rest of OPEC, over the summer it will only cause gas prices to go down in the December to Febuary time frame.

[Alrindel]

The price of gasoline at the pump has nothing to do with the cost of the oil that made that particular batch.  The price fluctuates based on the current perception of supply and demand: if the Saudis announce that they intend to dramatically open the taps, then yes, the price at the pump will fall immediately, just as it rises immediately when things start blowing up in the Middle East.

Note also that in 2000, when the price of gas jumped to $1.68 a gallon, Bush criticized Clinton/Gore for not putting pressure on OPEC to increase production because the high cost of gasoline was hurting the US economy.  The average price in the USA is currently $1.74/gallon and rising, and the Kerry campaign is looking to steal Bush's issue.

[Flashman]

Do you really think our erstwhile "allies" in the House of Saud want 4 more years of Bush?

Are you fucking kidding me?  Bush is the best friend the House of Saud ever bought.

Edit: link was subscriber-only excerpt of book on Salon, changed to Amazon

Easy there fella. You're going to pop a vein in your head. And no, as you so eloquently put it, I am "not fucking kidding you".  Bush must have not gotten his pay packet from Bandar when he decided to invade Iraq or sides with Israel. I guess they are not getting their moneys worth.

[daveNYC]

Do you think they will love a democratic pluralistic state on their border?

What makes you think that they're in any danger of this happening?

[Flashman]

Do you think they will love a democratic pluralistic state on their border?

What makes you think that they're in any danger of this happening?

Even the attempt was an affront to the special relationship between the Sauds and the US. Anything that disturbs the status quo of the Sauds is dangerous for them. The fine line they walk between they own lifestyles and the Whabbi poison they like to export to the rest of the world put them in a very delicate position where of they are not careful they will fall victim to the same poison they cheerfully give out to the rest of the world.

I hope my point is being understood. Of course for decades there has been a very special relationship between the Sauds and whoever was in the White House. The point is the calculus is changing and the knee-jerk reaction of Bush as some sort of puppet of Saudi paymasters is not valid and I'm sure you wouldn't find much support for that idea in Saudi Arabia itself.

They must decide whose side they are on for the years of paying lip service and being an ally of the US while funneling billions (with a B) of dollars to militant fascist islamic groups all over the world must end. And finally people in Washington are starting to understand this.

[daveNYC]

And finally people in Washington are starting to understand this.

This would be after we flew Bin Laden's family out of the country and censored the 9-11 report pages that dealt with Saudi Arabia?

Perhaps things are changing, but the two of us will probably be long dead before anything of note happens.

[HaemishM]

Hmmm, let's see... the Saudis wouldn't profit at all from their being instability in the Middle East due to a war. I mean, with the Iraqi "Food for Oil" program getting dropped, and production of Iraqi oil going to nil during the month or so of the war and the reconstruction, the Saudis couldn't possibly have profited from certain countries' oil purchases being curtailed, if even for only a short time.

And yes, the Bush family is a great friend of the Saudis, and has been for many, many years. While this claim seems a little far-fetched, it has just enough believeability in it to make it something CNN would blather on about for a few days before looking for the next missing girl scandal.

[Flashman]

I guess as my last comment I will never understand why people think paying billions of dollars to a Saudi monarchy which funds our enemies is somehow preferable to drilling in Alaska and killing some goddamn caribou.

Or spending a couple billion and developing fuel cells, etc. We put a man on the moon using less computing power than my palm pilot but we can't do this?

Crazy. Especially considering the stakes.

[HaemishM]

The time to have developed the fuel cells was in 1978, when he first had an "Energy Crisis." And since we didn't then, we are still playing catchup, and having to suck up to rich Arabian businessmen/nobles who treat their serfs like chattel and fund terrorist groups on the side.

But until the people in the White House and Congress have no incentive to maintain the status quo of oil consumption (i.e. make money off of oil themselves), this won't change.

[Alluvian]

Developing fuel cells is only the tip of the iceberg.  If I could snap my fingers and have a perfectly efficient fuel call car in my garage today it would do me no good.

The infrastructure is the bitch, and we are talking trillions for that.

[daveNYC]

Plus the minor point that fuel cells still need fuel.  Production of the fuel will still take energy, and chances are that energy will come from coal, natural gas, or oil.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Like Alluvian said, the actual costs involved here in actually changing evrry gas combustion engine to fuel cell or electric and then changing every gas station to supply them run very very deep and pretty much involve restructuring our whole transportation infrastructure to adapt to them.

It's ok to research the technology, but the switch won't happen until it becomes too expensive economically to be using gasoline. IE when all the middle eastern oil, south china sea oil and the other easy to mine reserves are used up and the only stuff left is in Siberia and the Canadian Arctic. Then the free market will bite the bullet and start adapting to different energy out of necessity.

[WayAbvPar]

Developing fuel cells is only the tip of the iceberg.  If I could snap my fingers and have a perfectly efficient fuel call car in my garage today it would do me no good.

The infrastructure is the bitch, and we are talking trillions for that.

If a market is created for fuel cell infrastructure, corporations will fight tooth and nail to be a part of it. The first step is for the early adopters to show how cheap and efficient fuel cells can run.

I am encouraged that I am seeing more and more hybrids on the roads. Baby steps, but at least they are headed in the right direction.

[DarkDryad]

Woodward, appearing on Larry King Live, said "It's two sentences, and I don't say there is a secret deal or any collaboration on this."

Err try again.

[Roac]

If a market is created for fuel cell infrastructure, corporations will fight tooth and nail to be a part of it. The first step is for the early adopters to show how cheap and efficient fuel cells can run.

Well, that's an empty sentiment - if there's a market for something, you're right - suppliers will line up and fight dirty to get access to that market, even if it's illegal (sex, drugs, etc).

Getting people to fill a market has never been a problem - the problem is the lack of market.  Why is there a lack of market for fuel cells?  Because hydrogen is not, for us, a fuel source, it's merely a carrier.  There aren't huge, unending wells of hydrogen lying around.  We don't find pockets of it all over like natural gas.  It's around, but not abundant.  For the most part, the hydrogen we have is already "used up" and bound to stuff - like oxygen (for water).  Removing H from water (one suggestion) costs energy, unlike oil, which is a substance with potential energy ready to be released.  Pumping oil is like digging up a new battery.  A cup of water is like a spent battery.