You are not serious

Sigh:

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto.

Egad. This is so frigging stupid that it’s something I would have expected from the last Republican congress. Dudes: we cannot force other countries to sell us their oil. It doesn’t matter how much we cry and stamp our feet: if they see they can make a fortune by gouging us, they’re damn well going to do it.

And because we’re Americans, we simply refuse to look at intelligent long-term solutions – i.e., more fuel-efficient cars, better public transportation, utilizing alternative energy sources wherever we can find them – but instead shout at the evil Sand People that we’re going to SUE, SUE, SUE, SUE YOU IF YOU DON’T GIVE US YOUR OIL!!!!!

Pathetic. We need Al Gore to run for preznit, methinks.

 

Comments: 74

 
 
 

B-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Hillary cares about the working class with the gas tax thingy and, um, misogyny!

 
 

I still think it’s hilarious that Bush is going to veto it. I swear, Congress could pass a law requiring less random death and more spontaneous joy and the guy would veto.

 
 

We need Al Gore to run for preznit, methinks.

Last night, I had a dream:

Obama takes the nomination and picks Al Gore as his VP. After they win the election in November, Obama resigns on Inauguration Day, handing the presidency to Al. Al then selects Obama as his VP.

I got all tingly!

(You know, the one and only reason I was rooting for Obama as VP instead of President this round is that he’s young enough to still serve two terms starting in 2016. We have a habit in this country of discarding former presidents from government, and I want Obama to be around and influential longer than just 8 years.)

 
 

I still think it’s hilarious that Bush is going to veto it.

For once, I’ll support him when he does. This is the stupidest shit I’ve seen in a long time. Not quite up there with Terri Schiavo, but pretty damn bad.

 
 

Yeah, we could invest more in public transportation. But why do that when we can scapegoat all the brown people sitting on all the oil for all of our problems?

BTW: how the fuck would this even be enforced?

 
 

Maybe you Americans should sue God for putting your oil under the sand negroes’ land…

 
 

“Excuse me Mr. Abdullah/Chavez/Ahmedinejad, but you seem to be breaking our anti-trust laws. Would you kindly stop consorting with each other to jack-up the price of oil”

Or, maybe Bush would interpret the law to mean we could invade countries that don’t sell us oil for low prices.

 
 

For once, I’ll support him when he does.

Just you wait…he’ll break the pen signing the veto, reach into his desk for another one, and then fall out of his chair.

 
 

“BTW: how the fuck would this even be enforced?”

Well, we’ll need a reason for more wars after Iran, and even the dumbest winger isn’t going to think Venezuela was behind 9/11. In all seriousness though, I think this nothing but some meaningless pandering by congress. They’re trying to look like they’re doing something without actually doing anything as that might involve raising taxes or asking Americans to do something differently. A complete waste of time that’s just going to make our government look like even more of a joke.

 
 

However the lawsuits from various torts from the Lockerbie Air Disaster were unscrambled into , “You can’t do that !” . There were others with the first Iraqi ordeal that were leaned on to disappear as well , I seem to vaguley recall .
Better we concentrate on a dreamy wish fantasy then any actual events .
Better

 
 

So they tried to pressure the Saudis et al to pump more oil and lower prices before the election. OPEC couldn’t or wouldn’t, and so the House instigates a meaningless gesture to look proactive instead of uncaring.

The economic storm is here, people are hurting, and Republicans have their necks in a noose. They’re cornered. Hmmm, what could they do to make it seem like someone else’s fault that oil is so high? I know! Let’s bomb Iran. The price of oil will be sky shigh, but it’ll be The Enemy’s fault, not Congress’.

 
 

Every time I think I’m becoming a Democrat rather than an independent, they go and do something this fucking stupid, and I remember why they suck so bad.

 
 

It’s us versus the rich, powerful and ruthless. That’s the only contest that matters.

 
 

i.e., more fuel-efficient cars, better public transportation, utilizing alternative energy sources wherever we can find them

…including brand new shiny red 70mpg scooters!!! (which have the added benefit of making you feel 40 years younger everytime you roll out.)

Back on topic: That piece of legislation says way too much about America. We should be embarassed and ashamed that 324 of our representatives would fall for it.

 
not even an mba
 

First tax cuts, now law suits. It truly is the American Way. The next proposal will be to have the general public phone or text in their votes to set the price of gas.

 
 

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

p.s. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela are now U.S. protectorates

 
 

Why’d they wait so long to sue, anyway?

 
 

I wonder if this will shut up conservative dorks who always accuse liberals of wanting to “bring foreign laws into the US” whenever one mentions a non-insane legal proposition from Europe or wherever that might help with a local issue.

Well, actually, I don’t wonder at all.

 
corn-speckled hayseed
 

Lookit, how’m ah sposed ta run mah 3/4 ton, mah jet-ski, mah quad, mah rider mower, mah leafblower, mah outboards AND drink mah bud with these towelheads holdin tha murkin dreem hostadg?

Anser me that, terrerlovers. And don’t let me catch anyone a yuh ridin yer dam faggot bicycles on any a these here county roads lessen you want a inforchanut meetin with a sideview meer if you unnerstan mah drif.

Go congress!

 
 

OPEC is a cartel that by definition, combines and colludes to fix oil prices, and to works to boycott other potential distributors from the market. OPEC does business in the United States, and has substantial holdings in the United States. What is so zany about subjecting OPEC to the same antitrust rules as every other entity that does business in the United States?

The Justice Department has sued government entities in U.S. Federal Court forever. Hell, private parties sue foreign governments in U.S. Federal Court all the time.

 
not even an mba
 

Congressional to-do list:
investigate spygate warrantless wiretaps Plame outing shoddy pre-war intelligence New England ‘Patriots’ – Ongoing
set-up grounds to sue OPEC – DONE
force international cricket to use infield fly rule – Investigating
oversight of executive branch – lots of prep work needed on this one, I expect we’ll get around to starting on this early ’09
??? – Investigating
Profit! – Ongoing

 
 

Hell, private parties sue foreign governments in U.S. Federal Court all the time.

Just google Ethyl Corporation v. Government of Canada

 
 

These are all or mostly nationalized companies, right? We’re going to sue the governments?

 
MileHi Hawkeye
 

Did you get yourself that new scooter you’ve been talking about, gbear? Do tell!

 
 

Does this mean that the Iraqis can sue the US to get out of their country?

The overall stupidity of this is dwarfed by the fact that oil reserves are near their highest in years, and that, presently, there is no shortage. Oil, like any globally traded commodity, is priced by the futures markets. Oil is at record highs because of market speculation and the need for institutional investors to put their money somewhere safe and where they’ll get a better return then the shitty 1% US treasury bond. This is just another –typical– conservative slight of hand: Blame OPEC for high oil prices instead of free market speculation or the crappy Bush economic policies of the last eight years.

 
 

“These are all or mostly nationalized companies, right? We’re going to sue the governments?”

Sure. They have money in bank accounts in the United States, or bank accounts subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by subpoena. An intergovernmental entity is subject to process just like any other business.

 
 

The Justice Department has sued government entities in U.S. Federal Court forever. Hell, private parties sue foreign governments in U.S. Federal Court all the time.

Yep. And they get a nice unenforceable judgment, which they can use to buy a twinkie if they also have a dollar.

 
 

Sure. They have money in bank accounts in the United States, or bank accounts subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by subpoena. An intergovernmental entity is subject to process just like any other business.

Only if the asset is used for a commercial activity under FSIA. And you can be sure that as soon as this law is passed all such assets subject to jurisdiction of US courts will quickly make their way elsewhere.

 
 

Actually they can enforce it. And it’s about time that anti-trust laws were used against OPEC. The reason they never were was because OPEC is good for American oil companies. OPEC is a monopoly with business interests in the US. That is a criminal offense.

 
 

Several of the OPEC nations are also WTO members, why not use the existing mechanism?

 
 

Yep, MileHi. I bought the Kymco People S250. Goes anywhere and, although my learner’s permit and my better senses keep me off the interstate system, I’ve had it up around 70mph on state highways. My truck has barely been out of the garage since I got the scooter. It is a blast.

 
 

Actually they can enforce it.

Actually no they can’t. Are you familiar with the Argentine sovereign debt litigation?

 
 

There is no federal court in the land that will deny personal jurisdiction over an OPEC-related entity. Preliminary injunction may be used to freeze assets upon a finding of jurisdiction. Also FSIA merely requires that activity be *connected* to commercial activity in the United States or elsewhere. Plus rights and/ or tortious injury to property in the United States may be at issue.

 
 

Well… Citgo, for example is the national oil company of Venezuela, right? They actually sell oil IN the United States. I’m in way over my head here, but couldn’t American anti-trust law be applied to multinationals operating in the US in the same way that labor laws are?

 
MileHi Hawkeye
 

Nice looking ride, gbear! Chased down any squirrels on it yet? I hear they’re extra militant this year…

 
 

It’s not personal jurisdiction. It’s finding an attachable asset. Is it possible that an OPEC country would blunder and leave a commercial asset within reach of US courts long enough for an action to be filed and a pre-judgment attachment to be granted? Yes. Is it likely that enough of them will do so with large enough assets to make this a viable method of relief? No.

Here. Read this case. It illustrates the difficulty of enforcing a money judgment against a foreign state. This is a pipe dream.

 
 

OOOO, awesome, I’ve sparked a scholarly legal debate!!!

I feel so high-class now! EEEEE!!! WHO’S GOT THE GREY POUPON!!!!!

 
 

Josh – Try to grasp this… the FSIA is a law passed by Congress. That means that a new law can be written to make that law not apply to OPEC. FSIA is not some mysterious force from outer space that we poor Americans are incapable of controlling. It’s not some law that was passed by the UN and is enforced by black helicopters. Congress can VERY easily pass a law making all assets of OPEC countries fall outside of FSIA and I assume that will be part of the plan.

 
 

Nothing but happy productive well-adjusted squirrels in my neighborhood. Where did you hear about militaristic squirrels? Are they massing at the Roseville border?

 
 

“lessen you want a inforchanut meetin with a sideview meer if you unnerstan mah drif.”

O I think I grasp the nub of your gist quite well, thenks.

I keep reading “inforchanut” as something like “informanaut,” like an astronaut of information.

Sadly, etc.

 
 

Yes, Tom. Congress can amend FSIA. And then OPEC countries will remove all of their money assets from US jurisdiction, not just commercial ones.

But it sure will be great when the marshals seize the Saudia Arabian embassy! I know I’ll be all tingly.

Tom, try to grasp this. OPEC has been in existence since 1960. Their cartel status is no secret. Do you think this is the first time anyone has thought of this great plan? Do you really think that sticking it to the Arabs to help the US consumer has never occurred to anyone before? Does this not lead you to think that maybe this is a lot of demagoguery rather than a practical approach?

 
 

They did this in lieu of doing anything that woud a) upset an affluent or corporate constituency, or b) work. I’ll believe they’re serious when they start mandating conservation. They could start by eliminating the SUV exemption from CAFE standards, the gas-guzzler tax, etc. Then they could eliminate the $25,000 deduction for 6,000+ gas-hogging behemoths. Then they could raise CAFE standards to a serious number. Then… oh what’s the fucking use. What they’ll probably do next is censure OPEC for not giving us an employee discount and double coupon days.

 
 

This thread is too hard.

Can we go back to arguing over foreskins?

 
 

Can we go back to arguing over foreskins?

I’d prefer arguing over lunch but to each his own.

 
MileHi Hawkeye
 

I heard tell of one extremist squirel keeping some poor soul from using his boat dock and I’ve read that the liberal squirrels over at GopherTown are protesting against raman noodles or somesuch.

 
 

RB, with the right recipe you could do both.

 
 

I can understand the pain of the liberal squirrels. Have you ever seen a squirrel slurp a raman noodle? It’s humiliating and debasing. Everyone laughs and points at them.

And some people should just be prevented from using their boat docks. Damned elitists. I’m with the squirrels on this one too.

 
 

Remove all their assets from the US? I doubt very much that the buildings, factories, hotels, and apartment buildings owned by the Saudis and currently sitting within the borders of the US will be easily moved from their current locations. But in any case, it is the threat of activity against the Saudis that is worth more than actually going after their assets.

 
 

Just be thankful that the House resolution declaring the Saudis to be “a bunch of poopyheads!” failed.

 
MileHi Hawkeye
 

If only we could focus the liberal, extremist squirrel dissatisfaction. Imagine legions of angry rodents flying out of the trees upon hapless, unsuspecting RNC attendees or popping out of the toilets at the airport!

Nobody would be pointing and laughing at them then.

 
 

but instead shout at the evil Sand People that we’re going to SUE, SUE, SUE, SUE YOU IF YOU DON’T GIVE US YOUR OIL!!!!!

Erm, that’s not what NOPEC is about, any more than every other U.S. anti-trust lawsuit demands commodities. There shouldn’t be an exception for oil-producing states because the commodity is oil. And no, I don’t foresee a synchronized blitzkrieg on Venezuela, Iran, S.A., Qatar, Iraq, etc. if they don’t cooperate.

 
 

Yes, Tom. Thus my embassy comment. This is a great way to encourage a Saudi sell-off of whatever immovable assets they have here. And I’m quite confident OPEC would never think to retaliate by, I don’t know, cutting oil production. They’ll surely just sit there and take it.

 
not even an mba
 

Gee, if only the US had some some commodity they could withhold as retaliation.

 
 

Not to point out the obvious-but there are quite a few American assets located in foreign countries that could just as easily be seized by those governments. Used to pay off third world debt, perhaps?

 
 

Gee, if only the US had some some commodity they could withhold as retaliation.

Good point. Because the US belongs to a gun cartel that can drive up the price of weapons with little fear of that an OPEC state could find another arms supplier. Everyone knows China would never be interested in exchanging arms for cheap oil. Yes, the US is in a great bargaining position with OPEC. Let’s get this trade war started people!

 
 

I thought tort reform was a big deal for these guys? So its abuse of the system if a consumer sues a business that actually harmed them (i.e., the little girl who John Edwards represented who was injured in a hot tub because the drain sucked her vitals out of her body ) but some fantasty land where the corner gas station sues Prince Abdullah – that’s OK?

 
 

Clearly, complaints about tort reform and frivolous lawsuits are just preludes to hijinks in the halls of Congress.

 
 

Thanks for the link, Lesly. Good stuff.

 
 

Sue everybody!

 
 

Not to point out the obvious-but there are quite a few American assets located in foreign countries that could just as easily be seized by those governments. Used to pay off third world debt, perhaps?

Dubai can help itself to Halliburton assets if it wants. It’s not like taxpayers and future generations of taxpayers footing billion-dollar contracts have benefited from offshore accounts avoiding federal taxes in Social Security, Medicare, etc. Foreign direct investments have always been risky.

 
 

Sort of tangential here – but
last week I read an article in the paper about how 40 countries are pursuing nuclear programs. Sounds scary, but when I kept reading, it was pretty much all about developing nuclear power for electricity. Some comment in the article was about how some of these were petroleum producing countries – and how suspicious it was that they wanted nuclear power – because they had oil and gas.

Now, wouldn’t burning your only profitable export to power your country be pretty much like heating your house by shoving dollar bills in the fireplace? Not to mention the carbon footprint.

 
 

Now, wouldn’t burning your only profitable export to power your country be pretty much like heating your house by shoving dollar bills in the fireplace?

You make dollars at home?

 
not even an mba
 

Josh E,
at 40% of the general supply the US could well impact the price Saudis pay for guns. China’s exports for 2000-2007 are 3.3 Billion, or roughly a sixth of what is planned in the one deal with Saudi.
Also, that’s for guns. Whoop de doo. It’s the access to the sweet fancy ass stuff with the transponders and whippy-links and auto miscrabulators that they’d really be losing out on.

 
 

If OPEC had the reserves to build new production facilities without lowering long-term profits, they would have built the infrastructure to increase production. You don’t put new tires on a 10-year-old Ford Escort.

We’re really gonna start whining when these state producers decide that strategic reserves are more important than immediate cash flow.

 
 

I don’t know who it is who wrote on it, but someone recently did a fascinating article on your IMF-types actively suppressing the ability of governments to intervene constructively within their constituent economies – and that under the same policy, Taiwan and South Korea and Japan and Singapore would have wound up US fiefs instead of effective and forceful economies (their economic growth came from selective subsidies and other government action within the market, not tax-slashing and nonintervention).

An effort to demonize OPEC for the high price and poor supply of oil goes hand in hand with the more general trend of blaming organized, government-backed policymakers for whatever goes wrong in the economy.

The last time we got all freaked out about OPEC was early Reagan.

Hmmmmmm.

 
 

Sounds like weapons are the main US export industry. That certainly assuages my anxiety about world peace breaking out.
Love and Napalm: Export U.S.A.

 
Mo's Bike Shop
 

How about ‘crimes against humanity’!?

Fine by me.

 
Mo's Bike Shop
 

Achk! Wrong thread.

 
 

Mo’s Bike Shop:

If OPEC had the reserves to build new production facilities without lowering long-term profits, they would have built the infrastructure to increase production. You don’t put new tires on a 10-year-old Ford Escort.

I’m not aware of any legal basis for demanding OPEC states increase production to meet global demand. Exxon reported incredible first quarter profits. They’re not going to invest in production, however, when proven oil and gas reserves are stagnant and/or falling. Exploring isn’t cheap, either, and when we find crude the cost of extracting it may not be worth the cost.

It’s a little late for NOPEC. I think prices will continue climbing, increasing demand for conservation. If nothing else OPEC will be treated like any business. There’s moral value to that.

Alec:

I don’t know who it is who wrote on it, but someone recently did a fascinating article on your IMF-types actively suppressing the ability of governments to intervene constructively within their constituent economies – and that under the same policy, Taiwan and South Korea and Japan and Singapore would have wound up US fiefs instead of effective and forceful economies (their economic growth came from selective subsidies and other government action within the market, not tax-slashing and nonintervention).

The IMF, World Bank, Paris Club, etc. have been a bigger waste of space than John Bolton’s UN since the Cold War ended. This legislation isn’t going to make it any easier for the scavengers.They already have a free hand:

The truth is that the bank’s credibility was fatally compromised when it forced school fees on students in Ghana in exchange for a loan; when it demanded that Tanzania privatize its water system; when it made telecom privatization a condition of aid for Hurricane Mitch; when it demanded labor “flexibility” in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami in Sri Lanka; when it pushed for eliminating food subsidies in post-invasion Iraq. Ecuadoreans care little about Wolfowitz’s girlfriend; more pressing is that in 2005, the Bank withheld a promised $100 million after the country dared to spend a portion of its oil revenues on health and education. Some antipoverty organization.

Russia under the leadership of the recently departed Boris Yeltsin was a case in point. Beginning in 1990, the Bank led the charge for the former Soviet Union to impose immediately what it called “radical reform.” When Mikhail Gorbachev refused to go along, Yeltsin stepped up. This bulldozer of a man would not let anything or anyone stand in the way of the Washington-authored program, including Russia’s elected politicians.

After he ordered army tanks to open fire on demonstrators in October 1993, killing hundreds and leaving the Parliament blackened by flames, the stage was set for the fire-sale privatizations of Russia’s most precious state assets to the so-called oligarchs. Of course, the Bank was there. Of the democracy-free lawmaking frenzy that followed Yeltsin’s coup, Charles Blitzer, the World Bank’s chief economist on Russia, told the Wall Street Journal, “I’ve never had so much fun in my life.”

Just a historical FYI: The post-war Japanese miracle may not have been possible without U.S. support for an international political climate where Japan would be able to export and maintain its protectionist policies.

It’s a unilateral world now and we can afford any WTO fine as punishment for our own protectionist policies while we demand free markets for everyone else under the banner of freedom. No reason to do for East Timor what we did for Japan.

 
 

at 40% of the general supply the US could well impact the price Saudis pay for guns. China’s exports for 2000-2007 are 3.3 Billion, or roughly a sixth of what is planned in the one deal with Saudi.

OK. If you’re convinced that our market share on guns is secure because there are really high barriers to entry into the weapons industry. I also wonder how much of that deal is for expensive and hi-tech items that, if they had to, the Saudis could forgo.

And, of course, we have to worry about a production cut by OPEC in its entirety, not just the Saudis.

But if you really really believe that the Saudis are anywhere near as dependent on us for guns as we are dependent on OPEC for oil, by all means write your Congressman and urge a trade war. It’s hard to think of anything more American than trying to get cheaper oil by threatening to hog all the guns.

 
 

OK. If you’re convinced that our market share on guns is secure because there are really high barriers to entry into the weapons industry. I also wonder how much of that deal is for expensive and hi-tech items that, if they had to, the Saudis could forgo.

No-one thinks that the Saudis are even one tenth as desperate for advanced weaponry as the US is desperate for oil. Seems to me the only reason people are mentioning withholding weapons from Saudis in exchange for a better deal on oil is that this idea seems halfway resonable- whether it would actually work or not.

The idea of suing OPEC for oil, on the other hand, just sounds like a bizzarre and childish fantasy trip. It seems like the US Congress is putting all its energy into pandering to an angry and scared public rather than addressing the systemic reasons that we are so dependent on OPEC’s oil in the first place.

 
not even an mba
 

Josh E.,
The 20 billion dollar deal included advanced weaponry, missile guidance systems, upgraded fighter jets and naval ships. You might remember it because it’s announcement was immediately followed by an announcement for 30 billion for Israel. So yeah, at least some of it (probably a big slice if upgraded fighter jets and naval ships are part of the deal) is for the whiz bang doodle ma jiggers.

They currently have 13 US built Corvettes and a lot of French boats (frigates, etc.) but command and control is by SAIC out of LaJolla. Most of their armor is American and the main strength of their air is 150 ish F-15’s and 110 F-5’s. I don’t know what American maintenance and upgrades are required to keep these things in top killing form, and I don’t know how much it would hurt them to stop providing it.

Their nominal use for this military is protection from Iran, who is already supplied by Russia and China. So, by looking elsewhere for military hardware, really all they got is Old Europe.

That’s a pretty good strategic resource they need, and realistically, they need from America.

 
not even an mba
 

atheist,
I suspect that the Saudis are pretty desperate for guns, they aren’t in the most peaceful and stable region of the world. Oil is a commodity, “freely” traded. Sure the price would go up if OPEC were belligerent, but there’s still North Sea oil, tar sands and invading Venezuela. Pretend I didn’t say that last one, don’t want to give anybody any ideas.

No, the problem is that an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia is as childish a fantasy as suing OPEC to pump more oil. The arms industry is a more powerful lobby than corn farmers, auto-makers, all the mega-churches and Hollywood combined. Remember the opposition to land mines? That was pretty strong. The US is still not a signatory on the Mine Ban Treaty and although “The US has not produced antipersonnel mines since 1997 and is one of just fifteen countries left in the world that either actively produces them or reserves the right to do so.

 
 

I believe we should sue all foreigners living abroad.

“How are we going to enforce it?”

Good question. If only there was some sort of… I don’t know… a world court of some kind, whose verdicts everybody respected, including us.

 
 

(comments are closed)