The effects of imported oil on America's political, economic, social,
and military systems has been asked and addressed repeatedly from
many different perspectives. The conclusion repeatedly made is that
there is no strategic issue with importing oil and the economic
advantages associated with importing the commodity far out way any
disadvantage. Political mileage gained by stoking fears about the
issue, and national security are two different issues, which are you
trying to address with your argument?
Yes we are exchanging manufacturing for service jobs but again, of
what consequence is it. I believe you are stating observations about
our economy in a fashion which portrays them as economic bads when in
fact they are economic goods.
Sun Tzu makes several statements about the use of your competitors
resources and their value, aren't your arguments directly counter to
--- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, "realitytd" <timojona@...> wrote:
> Mornin' Wil,
> --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
> > It would appear we have very different views of the world. I
> with you that we are dependent on imported oil, but the strategic
> question is "of what consequence is our dependence, and how do we
> deal with it?"
> ***That question is one that our "leaders" should be asking. Right
> now we just are not dealing with it.
> > Assume the loss of oil is from some natural disaster that
> the Middle East and wipes out world oil supply. All the nations in
> the world will gear up to control what remains, the USA and its
> allies would still hold its advantage. The same would apply if
> through acts of terrorism or any other means the world oil supply
> becomes restricted beyond the ability of the economy to adjust to
> effects. Of what strategic threat is it then if the USA and its
> allies along with every other nation on the plant suffer a sudden
> loss of oil? Importing oil is economically the same as importing
> other low skilled product.
> ****That is only one of many possible scenarios. While our allies
> powerfull many of our enemies control the oil. Our lives and the
> economy are very disrupted if there's just a small change in the
> supply, we are so dependant on the oil supply a major change might
> catastrophic. And, seeing as our preparedness level is nil, even a
> slow change in the oil supply might hurt us.
> > The statement about the USA becoming less diversified I just
> don't understand. According to the CIA World Fact Book, The
> Economist, and pretty much every economist and economic analysis
> viewed points to the USA being the most diversified economy on the
> planet. We don't just make one thing we make the widest variety of
> any nation.
> ****No way. And, we make less and less every day. As president
> Clinton said when faced with the loss of manfacturing (and jobs) in
> the country: "The service economy will carry us through". If faced
> with a loss of imported goods we couldn't even make an auto today.
> I used to travel nationally and internationally and the lack of the
> duralable goods coming from this country is very noticeable. I
> presently work at a large particle accelerator at a National
> Laboratory and we regurally have to locate sources for things that
> aren't made in this country any more. For instance, vacuum tubes.
> use a lot of large ones (1 Mw) and large or small there aren't any
> made in the US any more. From machine tools to electronics to
> in general we are in decline.
> We might be diversified as long as we have the wealth and sources
> buy imported but it isn't a healthy situation.
> > As far as manufacturing is concerned I think you may also be
> mistaken. Yes, low technology and labor intensive manufacturing
> are going to less developed countries, but by far leading edge
> technologies and manufacturing are developed in the USA.
> ******Less so every day.
> > In terms of economics and technology you should not base your
> strategic analysis on the state of technology but it must be based
> the dynamics of technology. I would rather loose jobs in a
> that is becoming diffused throughout the world economy in exchange
> for new technologies and advance manufacturing methods that provide
> me with advantage other countries do not have.
> *****True. but we are loosing both.
> > Your not suggesting that we should have fought tooth and nail
> keep VHS tapes or eight track tape production in the USA are you?
> shifting of jobs is a natural occurrence in economics and those
> civilizations better able to adapt quickly to new technologies have
> survived and thrived.
> *****I wouldn't argue with you on that. Except that too many times
> instead of letting the obsolete evolve it just dies and the
> replacement is overseas.
> Witness the Romans. If I were you I would not try to stifle a
> natural economic occurrence or you are bound to usher in the
> of your country, witness the Chinese and the result of their
> experiment into walling off their country and forbidding foreign
> commerce, they are only now trying to come out of those centuries
> ****Good example. Like the Romand we grow decadent and decline but
> like everything else now, faster.
> > As far as bureaucracy is concerned I can only say bureaucracy
> bureaucracy, and every civilization has one. Ours seems to be doing
> pretty well compared to North Korea's. Its even doing pretty well
> compared to France and Germany. In any case I'm not sure if you
> posing a strategic issue here, perhaps you could clarify that.
> ****You're right bureaucracy is bureaucracy and the best thing you
> can do is to limit it. But with the US creeping closer to Socialism
> (Marxism, Liberalism) the US is becoming more bureaucratic and less
> > As far as Clintons and strategy I can say that during his
> administration they managed to keep North Korea from building a
> nuclear bomb. He at least slowed them down
I believe President
> made them shift to high gear along with Iran. We all know under
> watch North Korea detonated a nuclear device.
> ****Clintons "strategy" was to throw money at them to keep them
> quiet. Under whose watch did they build the bomb? The Clintons
> accomplished very, very little (positive) and it looks like they
> be back.
> > Wil
> Well, everything is cyclic and perhaps it will take some hard times
> to turn the US around.
> > realitytd <timojona@> wrote:
> > I'm not sure how we could recover from the loss of
> imported oil. We
> > are very dependant on it and becoming more so each day. We are
> > diversified then we used to be and we are becoming less
> > each day as industry leaves the country.
> > We have a lot of rules and red tape and we couldn't do anything
> > quickly let alone change our energy system and, at that, we are
> > nowhere near to an alternative fuel.
> > Our political climate is such that we would have a difficult time
> > punishing anybody for anything, the military might be very
> > of doing it but they don't have free rein. Can you imagine
> > anything done with the Clintons in charge?
> > Tim
> > --- In Sun_Tzu@yahoogroups.com, Wil <wilm123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The US dependence on foreign oil does not pose a strategic
> > to the USA over the long term. We have a huge, technologically
> > advanced economy that can very rapidly deploy any alternative
> > that becomes economically feasible. The consumption of oil is
> > of a threat to countries who are allowing the resource to be
> > from their country without establishing a diversified economy.
> > will they compete economically and militarily when it runs out?
> > >
> > > In the short term any country that attempts to deprive the US
> > oil rapidly is committing an act of war which we have the most
> > technologically advance military to deal with them.
> > >
> > > I have not read the article you reference, but for the vast
> > majority of human history, China and India have had the largest
> > economies in the world. It is only recently that they have lost
> > role but are now rapidly regaining some footing.
> > >
> > >
> > > dej2_ <dej2_@> wrote: Thank you for the post!
> > >
> > > I see that Dr Sawyer recommends we prepare for the
> > worst.."preparing
> > > for war despite working and hoping for peace."
> > >
> > > At this point it could be a repeat of the USSR/US cold war, it
> > esclated
> > > untill one side could not economically cope. Can the US
> > this
> > > again??? I think we disparately need an alternative fule source
> > > accomplish this. To get away from the dependance on Middle East
> > oil
> > > would free the United States to ensure economic survival in the
> > second
> > > cold war.
> > >
> > > http://www.jmss.org/2007/2007winter/articlesbody7.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Wil
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Got a little couch potato?
> > > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
> > >
> > Thanks,
> > Wil
> > ---------------------------------
> > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.