 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Of course it's not just C-SPAN. Occasionally my call screener Matt lets one through: Let's go to line three. . . . Leroy, from Pittsburgh, you're on the air: "Yes, Jerry, I want to talk about why nobody in the media seems to want to discuss the fact that President Bush is leading us into a war all for the sake of the oil companies." Listening to unscreened open talk is the intellectual equivalent of visiting the Department of Motor Vehicles; it is a reminder of just how bad things are getting out there. Just because bizarre and vicious conspiracy theories have largely been drummed out of civil dialogue in most of our national public spaces, these theories are still alive and well. The most prominent right now is that the president is pursuing the interests of large oil companies by seizing upon a new wave of American nationalism in the wake of September 11 and launching a war against Iraq. As modern-day conspiracy theories go, this one's not bad. After all, Bush was an oil man, Cheney was an oil man, and Bush Sr. was an oil man (sort of). And don't forget, Bush Sr. was also the head of the CIA. Coincidence?? I guess I like this conspiracy theory better than the rest because it is one of the few that actually permits empirical disconfirmation. Twentieth-century philosopher Karl Popper once said that the only theories that should be treated as live options by scientists are those that might possibly be refuted by the evidence. On the other hand, he said that any theory that is so convoluted or abstract it could be made to fit any set of facts, is in fact too vague to serve as a theory at all. Popper's postulates should be treated as religion. So, how shall we test the big-oil-and-war theory? Well, it is ultimately a financial matter and should be settled financially. Let's jump back to the spring of 2002. The U.S. has just toppled the regime in Afghanistan. The American people wonder where in the world U.S. troops will be sent next. At the top of the list, unnamed senior officials tell us, is Iraq. Aha! You knew it all along! Big oil finally shows its true face! Although you feel somewhat reticent about taking advantage of the modern American Wehrmacht, you buy a cross-section of large oil-company stocks and make a silent pledge that you will donate a substantial portion of your capital gains to Greenpeace and the ACLU. What happens next? Unfortunately for Greenpeace the stocks decline in value. You comfort yourself with the thought that your losses may not be in vain, and that perhaps there is a silver lining — maybe Bush and Cheney have reported to their oil masters that there will not be a war in Iraq. Then along comes the summer and the president makes it perfectly clear that he will be pursuing regime change in Iraq. He mentions it in practically every speech he gives, and nearly every other day secret war plans leaked from unnamed Defense Department officials are published in the pages of the New York Times. Now, you're certain, war is coming. Again for the sake of Greenpeace and the ACLU, you decide to really load up on big-oil stocks, knowing that George W. Bush would never do anything to hurt their interests. And you watch, mortified, as your oil portfolio descends through the summer heat. Imagine how bad things would be if oil companies didn't rule the world. With the declining oil portfolio as evidence, the oil-conspiracy theory is false. Why? Iraq is an oil-producing state. Because of a combination of factors, including the inefficiency of its production and its negative relationship to the industrial world, it produces beneath its capacity. If Iraq were to undergo a regime change, its production of oil would likely increase and this production would enter the flow of oil trade around the world. When supply goes up, prices go down. And while low oil prices are, as Larry Kudlow reminds us, effectively tax cuts that are good for the economy, low oil prices are obviously not good for oil companies. To use an analogy from my own native state of Pennsylvania (which has a rigid system of milk-price supports), high milk prices are good for the agribusiness and bad for babies; low milk prices are bad for the agribusiness and good for babies. Oil stocks have been dropping as the rhetoric about regime change in Iraq has been rising, because the market notes that America will win the war, another barrier to global trade will fall, the oil will flow that much faster, and the world will get its tax cut. — Jerry Bowyer is a radio talk-show host. He can be reached through his web page: www.jerrybowyer.com.. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
ave
you watched C-SPAN on a Sunday morning recently? Well, as a professional
talk-show host this experience has given me a newfound appreciation for
my call screener. It doesn't matter who the guest is or what the topic.
Alexander Hamilton on American economics? Let's go to the phones:
"Bush's leading us into an oil war!" The role of the free press
as related to the thinking of Alexis Tocqueville? You're on the air
caller: "Bush is doing the bidding of the oil companies at the
expense of American lives!
