That's an interesting question given that my discussion never left economics!
- How can one talk about Europe without discussing the politics of the euro?
- How can one discuss economics without discussing the politics of war and its effect on oil prices?
- Is not Obamacare and its repercussions a discussion about politics?
- Did not a regime change in China affect its growth rate (as I said in advance it would)?
- Is Abenomics in Japan not a fair game for discussion?
- Is not the Fed playing politics of the worst kind?
- What about beggar-thy-neighbor and war-mongering politics in Congress and by the Obama administration? Do those not play a role in the economy?
Unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult to discuss the economy without diving into the political landscape that shapes it.
In Warmongers Unite (As They Always Do); Boehner Caves In, Backs War; McCain Caught Playing iPhone Poker During Syria Hearing, I made the claim ...
The Difference Is Oil
The US is in Syria for two reasons.
- Warmongers promote war on the flimsiest of excuses every chance they get
Were it not for oil, the warmongers probably would not have succeeded in this case. Oil is the only real difference between this case and numerous slaughters in Africa in which the US stood by and did nothing.
Syria Has No Oil
One reader responded "Oil?!! Seriously? Syria has no oil."
Indeed, Syria has no oil. Yet, I responded ...
We would not be in the region at all were it not for oil. Whether Syria has oil or not (it doesn't) is irrelevant. It's neighbors do. The US is aligned with Saudi Arabia and against Iran. So... Think!
Does someone want to to revive the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) that runs through Syria?
Who knows? I sure don't.
US Would Counter Syria Oil Spike With Reserves
I note with amusement that Analysts Say US Would Counter Syria Oil Spike With Reserves
A US strike against the regime of Bashar al-Assad is not expected to have any direct effect on oil supplies, but a release from oil reserves would be used to counter any disruption that hits oil-producing countries or trade routes.
The International Energy Agency, the rich countries’ watchdog, which would co-ordinate any joint international release of reserves, said last week: “While the IEA, as always, stands ready to respond in the event of a major supply disruption, the current situation does not call for an IEA response.”
But analysts say a US release, possibly co-ordinated with other countries, could curb any increase in prices.
What if Iran gets involved? What if Israel attacks Iran as a result of US meddling? What if tensions hit Saudi Arabia? What if a crisis lasts 8 months? What if all of the above happen?
Will releasing oil reserves solve the problem? The idea is ridiculous.
Is Obama doing the right thing? Is McCain proposing the right thing?
The right thing for who?
You? Me? The nation? How about the warmongers and the oil interests?
If you really think all this concern over Syria is truly about chemicals and humanitarian concerns you really are not thinking clearly.
I cannot separate politics from the war and the economy. Nor can anyone else (but at least I discuss the issues, no matter how intertwined they are, or who I offend in the process).
Mike "Mish" Shedlock