|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: the real story of Iran, if we�re smart. |
 |
|
| Quote: |
February 2, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The Oil-Addicted Ayatollahs
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
MOSCOW
There may be only one thing dumber than getting addicted to consuming oil as a country � and that is getting addicted to selling it. Because getting addicted to selling oil can make your country really stupid, and if the price of oil suddenly drops, it can make your people really revolutionary. That�s the real story of the rise and fall of the Soviet Union � it overdosed on oil � and it could end up being the real story of Iran, if we�re smart.
It is hard to come to Moscow and not notice what the last five years of high oil prices have done for middle-class consumption here. Five years ago, it took me 35 minutes to drive from the Kremlin to Moscow�s airport. On Monday, it took me two and half hours. There was one long traffic jam from central Moscow to the airport, because a city built for 30,000 cars, which 10 years ago had 300,000 cars, today has three million cars and a ring of new suburbs.
How Russia deals with its oil and gas windfall is going to be a huge issue. But today I�d like to focus on how the Soviet Union was killed, in part, by its addiction to oil, and on how we might get leverage with Iran, based on its own addiction.
Economists have long studied this phenomenon, but I got focused on it here in Moscow after chatting with Vladimir Mau, the president of Russia�s Academy of National Economy. I mentioned to him that surely the Soviet Union died because oil fell to $10 a barrel shortly after Mikhail Gorbachev took office, not because of anything Ronald Reagan did. Actually, Professor Mau said, it was �high oil prices� that killed the Soviet Union. The sharp rise in oil prices in the 1970s deluded the Kremlin into overextending subsidies at home and invading Afghanistan abroad � and then the collapse in prices in the �80s helped bring down the overextended empire.
Here�s the story: The inefficient Soviet economy survived in its early decades, Professor Mau explained, thanks to cheap agriculture, from peasants forced into collective farms, and cheap prison labor, used to erect state industries. Beginning in the 1960s, however, even these cheap inputs weren�t enough, and the Kremlin had to start importing, rather than exporting, grain. Things could have come unstuck then. But the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the sharp upsurge in oil prices � Russia was the world�s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia � gave the Soviet Union a 15-year lease on life from a third source of cheap resources: �oil and gas,� Professor Mau said.
The oil windfall gave the Brezhnev government �money to buy the support of different interest groups, like the agrarians, import some goods and buy off the military-industrial complex,� Professor Mau said. �The share of oil in total exports went from 10-to-15 percent to 40 percent.� This made the Soviet Union only more sclerotic. �The more oil you have, the less policy you need,� he noted.
In the 1970s, Russia exported oil and gas and �used this money to import food, consumer goods and machines for extracting oil and gas,� Professor Mau said. By the early 1980s, though, oil prices had started to sink � thanks in part to conservation efforts by the U.S. �One alternative for the Soviets was to decrease consumption, but the Kremlin couldn�t do that � it had been buying off all these constituencies,� Professor Mau explained. So �it started borrowing from abroad, using the money mostly for consumption and subsidies, to maintain popularity and stability.� Oil prices and production kept falling as Mr. Gorbachev tried reforming communism, but by then it was too late.
The parallel with Iran, Professor Mau said, is that the shah used Iran�s oil windfall after 1973 to push major modernization onto a still traditional Iranian society. The social backlash produced the ayatollahs of 1979. The ayatollahs used Iran�s oil windfall to lock themselves into power.
In 2005, Bloomberg.com reported, Iran�s government earned $44.6 billion from oil and spent $25 billion on subsidies � for housing, jobs, food and 34-cents-a-gallon gasoline � to buy off interest groups. Iran�s current populist president has further increased the goods and services being subsidized.
So if oil prices fall sharply again, Iran�s regime will have to take away many benefits from many Iranians, as the Soviets had to do. For a regime already unpopular with many of its people, that could cause all kinds of problems and give rise to an Ayatollah Gorbachev. We know how that ends. �Just look at the history of the Soviet Union,� Professor Mau said.
In short, the best tool we have for curbing Iran�s influence is not containment or engagement, but getting the price of oil down in the long term with conservation and an alternative-energy strategy. Let�s exploit Iran�s oil addiction by ending ours. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atomic42
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Location: Gimhae
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Do you think anyone reads your redundant cutty-pasties, and do you honestly think anyone gives a *beep*? Just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atomic42 wrote: |
| Do you think anyone reads your redundant cutty-pasties, and do you honestly think anyone gives a *beep*? Just curious. |
You seem to.
If you think posting is so useless then what is your excuse the Man Keeping Dr Paul down.
You said you were leaving - but it seems you have other plans. You protest too much.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atomic42
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Location: Gimhae
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| K thx. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Congressman Ron Paul (R - TX)
Ron Paul has the least favorable position on alternative energy. He believes the American economy will continue to depend on oil in the foreseeable future. He is putting alternative energy on the back burner, and instead focusing on increasing the number of domestic refineries. Just recently, he voted Yes for the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.
Paul has opposed every bill supporting alternative energy investment:
� Voted NO for the Clean Energy Act of 2007 - To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewable Reserve to invest in alternative energy (01/18/2007)
� Voted NO for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 � To develop an energy policy that addresses tax incentives, conservation strategies, regulatory standards, research and development programs, energy efficiency, and alternative sources of energy (07/28/2005)
� Voted NO for the Energy Omnibus bill - To enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people (06/15/2004)
� Voted NO for the Securing America's Future Energy [SAFE] Act of 2001 - To enhance energy conservation, research and development and to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people (08/02/2001)
The problem is that Ron Paul has a tendency to vote against proposals for government spending, initiatives, and/or taxes. Could any progress be made in the alternative energy field without any of the three?
It would be extremely difficult for such a candidate to lead us towards energy independence if he is unwilling to invest in a cleaner future.
Anyone disagree? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I actually found that one interesting, truth be told. Every dog has its day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good post O.P.
I had no idea of the situation.
I think that those who have been on the "I hate America and Bush" bandwagon don't know what to do when the receive information that the U.S. isn't the only country with its handS in the cookie jar.......it throws them off, and they don't know how to react.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
Good post O.P.
I had no idea of the situation.
I think that those who have been on the "I hate America and Bush" bandwagon don't know what to do when the receive information that the U.S. isn't the only country with its handS in the cookie jar.......it throws them off, and they don't know how to react.
dmbfan |
"And the seagulls follow the trawler"
I love the idea that the 'I hate america and bush' bandwagon never has a leg to stand on. Are we really that thick Dmbfan? Are millions of people really that stupid, that we might base our thinking on such a 'sandy' base? All you seem to do is regurgitate a bit of propaganda, say it's fact and then blast everybody for not believing it in the same way you might do nodding with your mouth open.
Firstly I'll start with this:
| Quote: |
| Let�s exploit Iran�s oil addiction by ending ours. |
This is the funniest thing I've read in about three weeks. The chances of America, not filling their gas guzzling cars with petrol, with it's highly inflated price is hilarious. People always need to use their cars, so they'll pay whatever price to do it. Dumb really. The majority of the price of petrol that the consumer pays is TAX and who does that go to? Your government! You'll never be able to disband your love affair with use of fossil fuels, so to finish off such an 'insightful' piece with that quote, voids the whole piece. I'd have to admit I didn't see that bit coming.
Selling a natural resource you have and then reinvesting that back into the country is natural, is it not? Chavez has done this in Venezuala, much to your disgust. My god, he's using the resource for something useful and helping his people. Russia did it, Iran is doing it. Big deal. America would IF it had the oil to do it. Think there's a bit of jealousy here.
They've got the toy that you have no control over, 'sucks' really.
Getting people to change their habits, is hard enough but to try and get your country to change their habits just to spite another potential, pre-emptive strikeable country is impossible. Good Luck with this! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Awwwwww..........look at him. He's jealous becuase he can't come up with anything on his own, much less state credible sources to back up his opions....he has to resort to insults...... 
He/she actually took my comment personally......as if I was attacking him/her..........
He/she feels compelled to assume that I get upset when people don't agree....oh, how sad
The only thing he/she can do is is call posts "propaganda"...........awww...so sad
OK.....with the issue at hand, meaning, the original post........are YOU that thickheaded NOT to believe that Saddam (given his "unsteady" reputaiton") had those WMD's and did send them off to Syria? Is it that hard to understand, or assume.......?
Perhaps, YOU are the one with the problem with those who don't agree with YOU.....and have credible documentation to back up their statements.
Anyway, here is a little something for ya.......I think you would like this.
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=752631
A certain book, talks about how things that are right, will be considered wrong......and things that are wrong, will be considered right.
Cheers man!
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Four emoticons in one post, wow, I certainly know when I've been told.
Rather than discuss the post it's nice to see that you've resorted to the insults. Good work dmbfan. I did for a moment think that you had rational thought to debate ideas but it appears not so. Shame really.
Please show me where I had threw the first insult in my previous post
'Jealous' 'thickheaded' 'problem' Very strong words, but sadly misdirected. You've not added anything to the thread with this post.
As for taking it personally, I don't think so. It's the internet why would I get het up and take something personally from someone I've never met before.
As for the clip. FOX news, very good source. Pointless clip. Let's invite a hippie looking leftie onto the show, hammer her on a name calling charge, lick the ass of the christian guy, and then attack her some more on a useless point. First I've seen of that interviewer but would 'assume' that he's a bit of a god botherer himself. Need to try harder than that Dmb, especially if that was to show that that people who oppose the greater good of America, don't have a leg to stand on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Four emoticons in one post, wow, I certainly know when I've been told. |
Actually....no, you haven't. But, it would not be that hard to do so.
| Quote: |
| Rather than discuss the post it's nice to see that you've resorted to the insults. Good work dmbfan. I did for a moment think that you had rational thought to debate ideas but it appears not so. Shame really. |
sigh.....I DID discuss, or made a comment rather (hoping to lead to discussion) about the O.P. A debate? Sure, why not? But, I think we've been doing that since I posted those original ones yesterday.....apparently, you did not like them...bummer man.
........yes, thats what I wrote.
.....yes, but I think it was YOU that brought that up.......does not bother me though, use that word all you want!
| Quote: |
| Please show me where I had threw the first insult in my previous post |
Well, I really would not call it valiant effort at an insult, but I will say that you did have an agenda..........
| Quote: |
And the seagulls follow the trawler"
I love the idea that the 'I hate america and bush' bandwagon never has a leg to stand on. Are we really that thick Dmbfan? Are millions of people really that stupid, that we might base our thinking on such a 'sandy' base? All you seem to do is regurgitate a bit of propaganda, say it's fact and then blast everybody for not believing it in the same way you might do nodding with your mouth open. |
| Quote: |
| As for taking it personally, I don't think so |
Yeeeeeees, you diiiiid.......c'mon, admit it. OK...if I hurt your feelings, I am sorry for doing so.
| Quote: |
| As for the clip. FOX news, very good source. Pointless clip. Let's invite a hippie looking leftie onto the show, hammer her on a name calling charge, lick the ass of the christian guy, and then attack her some more on a useless point. First I've seen of that interviewer but would 'assume' that he's a bit of a god botherer himself. Need to try harder than that Dmb, especially if that was to show that that people who oppose the greater good of America, don't have a leg to stand on. |
Actually, I kind of envisioned you being that sad, little girl.....without a leg to stand on. But the clip does show what is going on. It is bacially a taste of Americas version of a secular war.
Really, the only person I have seen to NOT provide something constructive on this particular topic is YOU. Now, we can either move on, or continue.............YOUR choice, man.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I've actually had fun discussing issues with you dmbfan over the last couple of days. Always good to listen to alternative POV's and see where it's at. I like discussing with Joo as well. There's no harm in it. That's why I never take insults personally. It's just POV's nothing else. Long may the discussions continue.................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dome Vans"][
| Quote: |
| Getting people to change their habits, is hard enough but to try and get your country to change their habits just to spite another potential, pre-emptive strikeable country is impossible. Good Luck with this! |
[/quote]
Well after 9-11 Americans ought to. And it ought to be US policy to . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Dome Vans"][
| Quote: |
| Getting people to change their habits, is hard enough but to try and get your country to change their habits just to spite another potential, pre-emptive strikeable country is impossible. Good Luck with this! |
|
Well after 9-11 Americans ought to. And it ought to be US policy to . |
[/quote]
How long has it taken to get people to stop smoking. That's a real and personal threat. Pictures, research have all shown to show the detrimental effect of smoking. But people still do it. The lobbies and the cigarette companies have been a full force to put across their messages, policy is now finally stopping people from inhaling others cigarette smoke. It has taken a lot to get to this stage.
9/11 was a long time ago. To try and link that to enough American people to boycott Iran is not going to happen. Americans like the real, here and now threat. Boycotting Iran is not going to reach enough to make any significant difference.
What policy can you implement to make American's do it? It's just not feasible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
This is the funniest thing I've read in about three weeks. The chances of America, not filling their gas guzzling cars with petrol, with it's highly inflated price is hilarious. People always need to use their cars, so they'll pay whatever price to do it. Dumb really. The majority of the price of petrol that the consumer pays is TAX and who does that go to? Your government! You'll never be able to disband your love affair with use of fossil fuels, so to finish off such an 'insightful' piece with that quote, voids the whole piece. I'd have to admit I didn't see that bit coming.
|
I don't know about that. I have always used mass transit to get to work or school. I never drive, unless I leave the city. In fact, this is what most Chicagoans do. Similar situations apply in New York, LA, Washington and many other urban centers. I happen to know this because I am American.
| Quote: |
Selling a natural resource you have and then reinvesting that back into the country is natural, is it not? Chavez has done this in Venezuala, much to your disgust. My god, he's using the resource for something useful and helping his people. Russia did it, Iran is doing it. Big deal. America would IF it had the oil to do it. Think there's a bit of jealousy here.
|
We've got plenty of oil in Alaska. It's just that lefties and planet worshiping dingbats won't let us dig up there.
| Quote: |
| Getting people to change their habits, is hard enough but to try and get your country to change their habits just to spite another potential, pre-emptive strikeable country is impossible. Good Luck with this! |
Alright, there are two arguements against this line of thinking. One has to do with elasticity of demand, specifically short vs. long term elasticity of demand. When you say that people won't change their driving habits, you are right. It would appear that fuel is highly inelastic. Over the long term however, gasoline/petrol becomes more elastic as people buy more fuel efficient cars. This happened during the 70s and it is certainly happening now. This takes a while because people will not trade in their cars over night.
The other has to do with substitudes. Flex fuels and bio fuels are being used more and more. Also, more types of energy sources are being tested everyday. We won't be able to completely stop using oil, but we can certainnly start using less adding to supply and lessening demand which will eventually bring the price of oil down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
