Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This thread is ONLY for those who base their opinions on facts…

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 01:43 PM
Original message
This thread is ONLY for those who base their opinions on facts…
Edited on Tue Jun-20-06 01:48 PM by Junkdrawer
One of the many pleasant side effects of Al Gore’s movie is that Big Oil will soon be a big, if not the biggest, issue in the next few elections. A while back, I came across this “History of Oil” lecture by Richard Cowen of UC Davis:

http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/~GEL115/115CH13oil.html

I learned a whole lot you'll never hear from the Corporate Media. Some interesting clips:

By the end of World War I the central place of petroleum in world strategy had become obvious, and the dramatic thirst of military operations had led to fears that there would be a global oil shortage, and to quick appreciation of the profits to be made in such circumstances. American companies, who had been unwilling to explore abroad when vast oilfields were being discovered at home in Texas and California, began to look overseas, and the American government began to use considerable political and economic pressure to try to force American companies into the European-dominated consortia in the Middle East. However, new fields came on line in the 1920s, and the big companies were soon worrying instead about an oil glut. By 1928 there were negotiations between BP, Shell, and Exxon in a Scottish castle, and the so-called Achnacarry Agreement set out working principles to avoid competition at the marketing end of the oil industry. The agreement specifically excluded the US market because of its powerful anti-trust legislation, but there is no question that the companies had no intention of serious competition there if they could hammer out an agreement for the rest of the world.

The Economist of London praised the Achnacarry Agreement as "an example of the effectiveness of international cooperation in oil marketing." The Economist was pleased with the "stability" of the prices of oil and gasoline, but it's not clear whether the articles was written with the seller or the consumer in mind. Mobil, Gulf, and Texaco had joined the three founder companies by 1932, to make six. The results for producers were very rewarding: stable (but higher) prices gouged the consumer for decades, and "pirates" were dealt with summarily whenever possible.

With the Achnacarry Agreement in hand, each large company could feel that it would be able to negotiate a market share for its oil without seeing petroleum prices crash. The stage was now set for serious prospecting, and for staking out major oilfields, even though every company could see that it would not be in a position to pump all the oil that it found. After 1928, therefore, the era of the great Middle East oil strikes began, though Middle East production remained low.



But the most creative way for the majors to maximize their global profits and to satisfy the producer nations at the same time was to take advantage of tax legislation in the United States on "foreign tax credits." Suppose that Exxon pumped oil in Slobbovia, and paid tax at 35% on its operations there, at a time when company tax rate was only 15%. The foreign tax credit specified that Exxon could calculate the "extra tax" of 20% it had paid the Slobbovian Government, and could deduct that amount from its tax bill in the United States. As critics pointed out, this essentially involved the American tax payer in a direct subsidy to the Slobbovian government, except that the check was written on the American taxpayer by Exxon. All the majors used this tax avoidance scheme from the early 1950s, and it helped to maximize their profits.

How? Surely they were paying the same tax bill, even though the US taxpayer received a smaller amount than before? The trick used by the companies was to have the producer nation increase its tax rate instead of its royalty rate. If the Saudis had pressed for increased royalties, the companies could have deducted that expense only from their profits. Because the Saudis (who didn't care where the money came from) took their cut in taxes, the companies could deduct the same amount, not from their profits, but from their US tax bill. Careful calculation and negotiation between the companies and the producer countries could allow the companies to gain the maximum benefit by manipulating this tax loophole.

The US National Security Council was involved with the US Treasury in promoting this scheme, even though it meant a major shortfall in the US government's tax revenue. Tax lawyers were even sent by the US Treasury to Saudi Arabia in 1950 to help that country formulate the necessary company tax laws to start the scheme. In 1951 the Kuwait contract was revised in the same way; Iranian taxes on the new Iran consortium were set up in the same way in 1954; and the pipelines through Lebanon were taxed in 1956.


And so we have the major oil companies with a history of using foreign cartels to evade US Anti-Trust laws, and the Saudis who have a record of working hand and glove with the same oil companies to avoid US taxes. Interesting, huh?

All-in-all it’s a great read and, IMHO, worthy of one’s time.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R-- this belongs on the front page....
Excellent post-- a must read. Bookmarked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Thanks
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. This should be a required part of education.
Few Americans comprehend how obscenely our laws have been tilted in favor of the externalization of expenses and privatization of profits. The working person is being RAPED in every orifice to enrich the already-wealthy. The obscenities abound!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. A very few lucky enough to get a good education get REAL history...
The rest get that warmed over gruel they serve up in the high schools of America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. It was a long time in the making.
Many of these historic globalization programs began as early as the days following WWI but did not take-off until after WWII. Innocent as it might have seemed then, GREED took over. Mix this in with the likes of the "Economic Hit Man" book and it gives a whole new prospective on things.

Heavy-duty stuff. Maybe this is why neocons want and are re-writing history, squelching historians, and history teachers back to Social studies, ec tera.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. I guess Truman didn't really care for ordinary people after all
It was about oil and money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. Power. Deals & Resources
like oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R
Thanks for posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sheeple say baaaaah...must put gas in car...baaaaah
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thanks goes to Richard Cowen. Here's the complete lecture series...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. If I lived in CA, I might consider auditing his courses...
His students rate him 5.0 out of 5 for quality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. Thanks.
Need a refresher. One get's lost in elective-ville.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bookmarking to read later. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catD Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. How can the next few elections be about big oil
if it requires you to get facts? You know that people don't vote on facts. If they did, we'd never have a Republican president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. We'd probably never have Republicans, just various
shades of Democrats from commie to very moderate or left of center. The latter would probably be considered the conservatives. Any form of totalitarian, plutocratic or facist government would be unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Are you old enough to remember Teach-Ins?
A Teach-in is a method of non violent protest, first employed against the U.S. government's involvement in Vietnam. The idea was inspired by a Professor Marshall Sahlins who taught anthropology at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. The idea was to allow a forum for opposition towards the war. Students and faculty would meet at night in university facilities to argue, ask questions, challenge assumptions and learn about the Vietnam war.

Staff of the University had originally wanted to strike to protest the war, but under pressure from the institution and the U.S. government they opted for participation in teach-ins.

The first major teach-in was organized by Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Michigan on March 24th and 25th 1965. (NYT 3/25/65) The event was attended by about 2,500 and consisted of debates, lectures, movies, and musical events aimed at protesting the war.

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach-in

Education is our only hope for peaceful change. And frankly, the history of violent change by ignorant masses has not been that great....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. That would be a great idea today considering how ignorant
many Americans are about many issues just not war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Al Gore's movie is a Teach-In of sorts. Perhaps this fall...
we could organize events across the campuses of the US. My wife volunteers for the local university radio station (DemocracyNow). It's certainly an idea whose time has come...again..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
16. Damn right the media won't talk about this - Kerry made it an issue to
stop that tactic as part of making corporations pay their share of taxes. How many in the media bothered to discuss that aspect of his campaign?

We need to somehow scare the media back to some semblance of balance - - A "We know you're working for BushInc" campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
17. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-22-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
19. Someone Knows their History
First thought: Michael Moore's movie as he stands outside the Saudis Embassy in D.C. and questioning who is this shadowy government - who, what country?

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntiBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
20. FDR is Rolling Over again, in his ole' Grave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-24-06 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
26. A good weekend read...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
28. Wow! Now that essay is certainly a MUST READ.
Kudos to both you and its author.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. When you view current events through the lens of historical facts...
Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 03:12 PM by Junkdrawer
things appear a bit different. Take this little clip:

In 1951 the new nationalist government in Iran, led by Mr. Mossadeq, tried in vain to get BP to agree to the same kind of profit-sharing that American majors had negotiated with the Saudi and Venezuelan governments. Finally the Iranians lost patience and nationalized the oilfields.

The majors, acting together, struck back by boycotting Iranian oil, refusing to handle any crude oil produced by the fields under the new regime. Their control over transport and refining was so thorough that Iran's oil exports dropped from $400 million in 1951 to $2 million in 1951 and 1952. The deficit to oil supplies could be made up easily because the Middle Eastern fields were being operated at much less than capacity, and additional pumping from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq not only made up the difference, but delighted the three Arab nations concerned, who have no particular liking for the non-Arab Iranians.


Armed with that knowledge, we might find Greg Palast's latest a little less shocking:

We invaded Iraq to keep Iraq's oil off the market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
30. It's too late to recomend, but way worthy of a....
....:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC