Re: Opec, Russia heading for cold war

"Tim Worstall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "Tim Worstall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > "Dr. Convection" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > From:
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C9A06782-162E-4CE8-918A-4645440070B6.
> > > > > htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Aljazeera.Net
> > > > > Opec, Russia heading for cold war
> > > >
> > > > OPEC cannot have a war, hot or cold. It can only set it's own
prices.
> >  That
> > > > is what cartels do.
> > >
> > > Not quite. They " attempt " to set prices.
> >
> > Well, they could set prices but what they actually do is set their
output
> > volume to cause the markets to adjust the price.
> >
> > > And they influence prices,
> > > but only monopolies can " set " prices, and then only in the short
> > > term until technological substitution gets around the monoply.
> >
> > They have a monopoly on their own oil.  As the current world cannot do
> > without it using alternative sources or methods, they effectively have a
> > monopoly power.
> >
>
> No. As always, one must be precise. OPEC is both a cartel and the
> provider of a large portion of internationally traded oil. But it is
> not a monopoly. You can run the proof either way : They do not set the
> price of oil, only influence it, so therefore they are not a monopoly.

Wrong. They have sufficient control to be considered a monopoly. You do not
need 100% of a resource to be a monopoly. Microsoft, for example.

> Or, there are alternative suppliers of oil, so OPEC is not a monopoly,
> and thus can only influence, rather than set, the price of oil.

The 'other suppliers" cannot supply *enough* to meet demand, so OPEC has an
effective monopoly whether they set prices, control quantity, etc. The
monopoly position is not dependent on how the utilise it.

> You will no doubt dismiss this as trivial nitpicking but there is an
> important point.

Nah. I'll dismiss it as ignorant ranting and confusion about the meaning of
the term.

>  Not just that one needs to be precise in one's use of
> technical terminology. If OPEC truly is a monopoly supplier of our
> energy needs then we would be justified in taking legal action against
> it : as we do with domestic monopolies.

False again. Monopoly laws are domestic. There are no international rules.
God! What a clueless statement!

>  And as there is no
> international legal system to back up such actions : we would be left
> with only the threat of force to break up such a monopoly.

That is the usual reaction. See rubber and petroleum restrictions prior to
WW2 and their influence on the subsequent hostiities.

> Now I know
> that you think that's what Shrub has been doing in Iraq, but I didn't
> think it would be you who would justify it.

Who is justifying it? The Persian Gulf countries are perfectly entitled to
control over their own oil and the Iraq war is illegal under international
law. Nor was OPEC even promoted as a 'pretext' to the war.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3537057&thesection=news&thesubsection=dialogueSir
Michael Quinlan, an eminent British security expert, in a lecture to the
Institute of International Affairs on November 19, distilled six criteria
for justifying war from a millennium of writings on the "just war".
* There must be just cause - for example, to right serious wrongs, not just
to exact revenge (even, for example, the September 11, 2001 killings).

* Choosing war as the means to right a wrong must be proportionate to the
issue.

* War must produce a better result than if there is no war.

* The decision must be by the proper authority.

* There must be reasonable chance of success.

* War must be the last resort.

On those criteria Iraq didn't make the grade.

The only criterion met unequivocally was the certainty in advance of success
in removing Saddam Hussein.

Another criterion was arguable: there was prolonged consultation with the
United Nations to get Security Council authority and, though that failed,
the US did line up several dozen supporting countries.

But the invasion did not meet the last-resort test. The UN inspectors were
still at work. And invasion of a sovereign state was proportionate to the
issue only if there was genuinely an imminent threat to the invading
countries.

Moreover, it is doubtful that invading Iraq has produced a better result
than doing nothing or doing other things. The Middle East remains a mess.
Conceivably, the rising tide of suicide killings across the world is a final
shower of sparks from a dying firework, although, if so, we have yet to see
the evidence. There is now a greater danger than before the invasion that
Saudi Arabia will implode, with potentially devastating impact on oil
supplies and the world economy.

And there is very serious doubt that there was cause.