<DrumBeat: May 17, 2006The Oil DrumIs there a CTL in your future>

39 comments on Klare: Less Oil==More Wars

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BrianT on May 17, 2006 - 5:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
American business is investing their money in China. The amount of productive capital investment in the USA at this point is minor. Yes, American business interests would like to use the taxpayer's funds to finance a military to look out for their interests, but this is in the context of an international investment paradigm. Basically, the American military is paid by the American worker/taxpayer to protect the interests of American businesses (which are continuing to invest the bulk of their funds in the third world, which has the effect of raising the standard of living in the country that attracts the investment capital). My point is "American businesses" is a misnomer. These are international businesses that happen to be subsidized by the American taxpayer.    
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CarCulture on May 18, 2006 - 7:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Sure, its a misnomer, but for the sake of the argument it would be best to clarify that these businesses have interests abroad that sometimes can only be realized through the forceful opening of a market by the US military.  The majors may be international companies, but they certainly benefit from the US opening up markets that were previously unavailable to them (Venezuela, Iraq, Iran) and some of them (Shell specifically) were heavily involved in the planning of post-war Iraq.

So in order to appease you, lets say, again - for the sake of the argument, that "american business" means "international corporate lobbies in the United States".  I'm pretty sure most knew what I meant, anyway.  Unfortunately, there is no way around shorthand when describing something like I did, because almost every phrase can be magnified until it is incomprehensible.

International businesses are primarily concerned with short-term profits anyway, and majors realize that the US is their biggest market, so to identify them as "american businesses" or "american business interests (perhaps the preferred term)" within the confines of my statement isn't such a big leap.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
CarCulture on May 18, 2006 - 7:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree with your comment but would like to point out that the US has traditionally been the force that opens up previously impenetrable markets for these companies all over the globe, and especially in the global south.  Their interests are typically so aligned with US policy (they actually dictate US policy) that it makes it possible to qualify them as "american business interests", for the sake of my post.  I assumed most TOD readers were aware of what you stated and I took it for granted.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on May 18, 2006 - 8:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You appear to be positing that US future intervention in Venezuela or Iran, and past intervention in Iraq, has been a net positive for multinationals (a better shorthand, perhaps, than "American business interests"?) -- or at least that that the multinationals perceive this to be so. Have I got that right?

I find this a frankly astonishing postulate. Where's the evidence?

Is it the economic stimulation due to huge military and reconstruction spending that you are talking about? Specific business opportunities aside (Blackwater, Halliburton...), I would expect rational economic actors to abhor the type of disruption, uncertainty and danger engendered by such adventures.

Or are you talking about sale of consumer goods to Iraq? (previously hampered by UN sanctions, which could have been dropped without a war...) I am not aware of specific trade barriers hampering companies wishing to sell stuff in Venezuela ?

Or when you talk about "impenetrable markets", are you talking about state ownership of such assets as oil, water, electricity distribution?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.