On Thursday, April 10, 2003, at 08:04 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

Ok, the Iraqis will work in the 7-11s which serve the yankees. Some Iraqis will do better. They will inspire others. They will also be used by psyops to argue for "the american dream" for Iraqis. And although exploited by psyops, I think all humans want to improve their circumstance.

You're arguing for what you would like to see, whereas what I'm talking about is that there is unlikely to be any surge in employment in this hand-out nation. Some small number of additional workers will be hired as some refineries and other facilities are expanded, repaired, etc. Perhaps even a few 7-11 franchise stores will open, employing perhaps 50 Iraqis. There simply is no prospect that significantly more than the small fraction of Iraqis who now service the oil industry will be employed. Doubling oil production, which is essentially impossible, would only double a small number...or not quite double, as newer facilities will be even more automated. Meanwhile, most of the nation's 20,000,000 will continue to rely on handouts. I said that no major ghetto/slum area, whether Calcutta or South-Central LA or Baghdad has ever, in memory, gone to nearly full employment. I'm a libertarian, not a do-gooder: I realize that more and more people are simply useless eaters. The useless eaters in Baghdad, Basra, etc. will

Yes, the US could keep the Iraqis poor. But its not in the USG interest. The USG wants MTV in every Arab home. (Albeit this will piss off the Islamo Fundies, but they're already majorly pissed.)

You're showing your statist/idealist roots. It's not a matter of "the US could keep the Iraqis poor." No more so than the U.S. is keeping the South-Central LA negroes poor, or the Calcutta natives poor. Markets clear. As I said, even doubling the oil production in Iraq would have minimal effects on overall employment. This is an economic fact. I suppose the U.S. could order Iraqi National Oil to hire tens of thousands of people to polish the pipes, wipe down the derricks, spoon up the spilled oil, and other make-work jobs. Still a drop in the bucket. Basically, Iraq went through a standard Turd World birth boom, doubling its population and then doubling it again in just a couple of generations. Look at the statistics on how many Iraqis are under 15. They dispersed handouts to the breeders, who now number 20 million, crowded into several major cities and a dozen smaller cities.

...

Refineries are built by the Bechtels and Parsons and their European and Japanese counterparts. Most are nearly fully-automated. Again, a comparatively tiny number of locals will be hired.

Even if true (I'm not fully clued to the oil biz, I'd be surprised if any readers here were)

Don't extrapolate from your own ignorance to others. I've seen several coal- and oil-fired power plants (in Virginia and California), and I drive past the Gaviota, CA refinery (where offshore oil platforms deliver to the site) and can see how few people work there. (It's about 30 miles west of Santa Barbara, on an isolated stretch of ranchlands.) Modern refineries cannot afford to have people running around with wrenches and screwdrivers, tweaking and reading gauges. The plants either run with few people or they are doomed. Finally, for now, a friend of mine for the past 28 years is the son of a former Chevron head of research and development (at the Bay Area refineries...also lightly staffed). This V.P., Dr. John Scott, told me many years ago just how few people it takes to run the crackers and distillation towers. As for working oil wells, I've flown over vast oil fields in west Texas, and have driven past many oil derricks in California (in several regions). Unmanned. Small maintenance crews are all that are needed. It's good for Iraq that they have oil. Having oil is always better than not having oil. But any notion that any expansion of the oil business is going to magically employ millions of Iraqis who are not now employed is silly. Do the math.

the US imposed 'interim' govt will tax this to fund things (like jobs, or even sinecures) that win favor. Why? Because the govt worries more about Iraqi/Arab backlash more than Halliburton's profits. For a while, anyway.

Silliness. Prices are set by markets. No one is claiming that Halliburton will get the bulk of the oil profits. But Halliburton will not do its thing (drilling services, extinguishing fires, etc.) except at prices they find acceptable. You seem to have some kind of fantasy going on about Iraq's oil economy somehow giving jobs to millions of Iraqis who have no skills, no work experience. Optimism has blinded you. Do the math.

And I am dubious of the "fully automated" claims, frankly, though that is also an empirical matter, perhaps researchable by studying oil ops in the region.

I've told you I've seen the Gaviota plant, and know from Dr. Scott just how few workers are inside refineries and pumping stations. It has to be this way.

If you liquidate the towelhead kings of the region, you might find a lot of distributable wealth (I'm not a socialist, neither am I an admirer of monarchy.) which the US conquerers would distribute. A great way to curry favor with the populace. Libertarian ideals don't prescribe a way to distribute land-based wealth in the region, though I'd love to be corrected.

"Redistributing the oil wealth" will not do anything except lead to a further doubling and tripling of the population. The moral hazard of handing out free stuff is itself enough to derail real markets. --Tim May

On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, James A. Donald wrote:

...

It's good for Iraq that they have oil. Having oil is always better than not having oil.

Oil is an attractive nuisance. Attracts gangs of men with guns. While Iraq has oil, Iraqis do not have oil and never will. Observe the richest newly developed countries are those with absolutely zero resources, Hong Kong with nothing but rock, Singapore with nothing but sandbanks.

I find it strange (not because I disagree with the thrust of James' arguments, but because he's usually bent on an idealist crusade) that I completely agree. I'll find if odd if the US regime finishes the term without attacking another target that (a) doesn't have much in the way of self defense and (b) is in the way of bringing oil to market. -j -- Jamie Lawrence jal@jal.org "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits." - Chris Klein