Panic later (about gas) - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

By late
#15249874
So sure, OPEC will cut production by 2 million barrels in Nov.

They are currently 2.8 million UNDER their current quota... does this mean they were actually announcing production increases?

You are seeing a lot of speculation why this is happening, and something will wind up being true. It's also likely to wind up being unimportant. (Except in American politics, expect Republican Karens to jump on the kitchen table and scream)

We are heading into a global recession, which means demand for oil will drop. Which means OPEC's announcement is prob empty posturing.

IOW, I am expecting oil prices to drop. Oooops, I mean go back to dropping.
By late
#15250034
ckaihatsu wrote:
Would you care to *address* this issue, of why the U.S. continues to maintain an economic relationship with OPEC / Saudi Arabia, when it arguably doesn't have to.



We used to have a good relationship with the Saudi, they helped us a number of times, starting in WW2.

The Saudi would be real easy to conquer, they're pretty useless. They buy some of the best military toys, but they lack a willingness to fight. So we were a buffer between them and Saddam.

Of course, what I am talking about is the diplomatic side, and you said economic. We don't buy much oil from them, if that's what you mean.
#15250035
late wrote:
We used to have a good relationship with the Saudi, they helped us a number of times, starting in WW2.

The Saudi would be real easy to conquer, they're pretty useless. They buy some of the best military toys, but they lack a willingness to fight. So we were a buffer between them and Saddam.

Of course, what I am talking about is the diplomatic side, and you said economic. We don't buy much oil from them, if that's what you mean.



Okay, what about *OPEC*, then -- ?

The U.S.'s global-social role is that of a *mercenary* for Middle East monarchies -- ?
By late
#15250037
ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, what about *OPEC*, then -- ?

The U.S.'s global-social role is that of a *mercenary* for Middle East monarchies -- ?



The Saudi run OPEC.

We guarded the seas for everyone. We used to get a lot of oil from the Saudi, but we don't now. Reliability is important for energy.

But you've got at least part of a point. Our policies toward the Saudi have stayed mostly the same, but the two countries are headed in different directions. Which can be said about the ME, in whole, and in part. Including Israel..
#15250039
late wrote:
The Saudi run OPEC.

We guarded the seas for everyone. We used to get a lot of oil from the Saudi, but we don't now. Reliability is important for energy.

But you've got at least part of a point. Our policies toward the Saudi have stayed mostly the same, but the two countries are headed in different directions. Which can be said about the ME, in whole, and in part. Including Israel..



Okay, thanks -- good to hear you're not a Zionist.

Do *you* think that U.S. energy self-sufficiency is important (as rightists / autarkists do), or is there a good reason to get it from OPEC / Saudi Arabia -- ?

Anything to say about *fracking*?
By late
#15250058
ckaihatsu wrote:
Do *you* think that U.S. energy self-sufficiency is important (as rightists / autarkists do), or is there a good reason to get it from OPEC / Saudi Arabia -- ?

Anything to say about *fracking*?



Fracking is ugly, but it also is saving us from the kind of grief Europe (and a lot of other countries) are experiencing.
#15250069
late wrote:
Fracking is ugly, but it also is saving us from the kind of grief Europe (and a lot of other countries) are experiencing.



I've *heard* that.

Still nothing on OPEC, diplomatically / geopolitically -- ?
By late
#15250071
ckaihatsu wrote:
I've *heard* that.

Still nothing on OPEC, diplomatically / geopolitically -- ?



What about OPEC? It was started by Ghaddafi. But they aren't major players now. I suppose that could change, but I doubt it.
By late
#15250082
ckaihatsu wrote:

Okay, just *whisper* it.




Your goofiness is an intrinsic part of your world view, your weltanschauung..

And because of that, I treat you like a goofy teen that occasionally asks interesting questions.
Last edited by late on 07 Oct 2022 22:07, edited 1 time in total.
#15250083
late wrote:
Your goofiness is an intrinsic part of your world view, your weltanschauung..



No, it's because you're being *evasive*.


late wrote:
And because of that, I treat like a goofy teen that occasionally asks interesting questions.
By late
#15250086
ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it's because you're being *evasive*.



No, it's because we are opposites.

I came to economics from the study of history. You might say my outlook is bottom up, and yours is top down. Months ago I told you that for people to jump on your bandwagon they need to know it will work. All you have is a skeleton.
#15250088
late wrote:
No, it's because we are opposites.

I came to economics from the study of history. You might say my outlook is bottom up, and yours is top down. Months ago I told you that for people to jump on your bandwagon they need to know it will work. All you have is a skeleton.



Yeesh -- what'd you *expect*, a run-through on SimCity for a few-thousand "years" -- ?

Anyway, it's not so much a 'promise' as it is a *tool*, for making my 'post-capitalism' arguments -- the 'vision' part of politics, if you will.


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15250089

Marxism

Karl Marx, in a section of his Grundrisse that came to be known as the "Fragment on Machines",[24][25] argued that the transition to a post-capitalist society combined with advances in automation would allow for significant reductions in labor needed to produce necessary goods, eventually reaching a point where all people would have significant amounts of leisure time to pursue science, the arts, and creative activities; a state some commentators later labeled as "post-scarcity".[26] Marx argued that capitalism—the dynamic of economic growth based on capital accumulation—depends on exploiting the surplus labor of workers, but a post-capitalist society would allow for:

The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.[27]

Marx's concept of a post-capitalist communist society involves the free distribution of goods made possible by the abundance provided by automation.[28] The fully developed communist economic system is postulated to develop from a preceding socialist system. Marx held the view that socialism—a system based on social ownership of the means of production—would enable progress toward the development of fully developed communism by further advancing productive technology. Under socialism, with its increasing levels of automation, an increasing proportion of goods would be distributed freely.[29]

Marx did not believe in the elimination of most physical labor through technological advancements alone in a capitalist society, because he believed capitalism contained within it certain tendencies which countered increasing automation and prevented it from developing beyond a limited point, so that manual industrial labor could not be eliminated until the overthrow of capitalism.[30] Some commentators on Marx have argued that at the time he wrote the Grundrisse, he thought that the collapse of capitalism due to advancing automation was inevitable despite these counter-tendencies, but that by the time of his major work Capital: Critique of Political Economy he had abandoned this view, and came to believe that capitalism could continually renew itself unless overthrown.[31][32][33]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scar ... my#Marxism
#15250094
late wrote:
yours is top down



No, it isn't -- here's a clarification, from the model:



[T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.



If a standing, specialized administrative body / *institution* is used, that practice would encourage elitism and would *not* be a direct bottom-up inputting of mass sentiment into the collective decision-making process.

If different distinct factions *competed* like teams over the control of this-or-that project, that would just be the same as 'turf' and patronage networks that we have today, under capitalism, resembling feudalism.

My model framework, instead, allows *proposals* and (finalized or less-than-finalized) *policy packages* to compete, at a daily pace of updates / iterations, so that the focus is always on objective *material* factors, instead of on relatively-arbitrary *groupthink*, individual careerisms, and inter-group competition over turf and control. The use of individually-prioritized daily demands ranking lists enables a fine-grain distinction on the whole between Policy Package 'A' and Policy Package 'B', amid any and all others. If people feel that Policy Package A doesn't include a sufficient number of work roles for the task at hand, they may flock to Policy Package B, which features 50% more work roles, for better overall quality, possibly requiring a greater funding of labor credits for those willing to step into those numerically larger, socially-required work role positions.



https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338
#15250101
late wrote:
You are trying to re-arrange how the world works. That's top down.



Technically and actually I'm *not* -- it's 'only' a model / framework, and if this happened tomorrow I'd be like anyone else "legally", but also in personal, professional access to society's collective productive machinery, without having to own capital / private property.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Was there a price cap prior? Maybe I wasn’t payin[…]

I can’t really think of an instance where I’d punc[…]

Lets talk real Anarchy

If there's no state then multiple large & p[…]

I'll try (as I'm fighting off an infection) to re[…]