Jim D. writes:
What is James Baker if not a man of oil?
True, but there are some subtle differences within that world that I have found matter in some situations. I would suspect that the privatization is only mildly on his priority list, compared to some other members' preferences (and of course an awful lot gets written to appeal to a larger "consensus" -- who is against privatization?). Baker, is an oil *lawyer* from a family of many prominent Houston lawyers (mostly the law firm founded by his family in the 1840s, Baker&Potts), with important interests in the usual other legal areas as well. All the Houston firms make a lot of money when complicated energy finance is required in an industry that is NOT vertically integrated (and their big boon came with New Deal regulation). The legal firms along with the oil financiers, and the independent brokers have very different interests and more of a mainstream establishment perspective than the primitives of the big integrated oil companies (who also often use in-house counsel and self-financing, if possible). (I guess this difference is like "productive" vs. "non-productive" capital, except here it is mostly extractive rent?) The milieu of Bush-Cheney comes more from the direct owners of oil fields, mines, and their contractors are involved in more "productive" capital - today this a fairly narrow and specific crowd which no doubt contributes to the lack of enthusiasm for Bush's adventure. In Iraq, for example, one saw many of the "go-between" crowd chomping at the bit to make money over sanction deals (and I believe a few got caught in the scandals). Far more importantly, once the 3rd world oil fields were nationalized these people have made a lot of money over 40 years as interlocutors (Baker&Potts along with Vinson&Elkins are the favored law firm of the Saudis). This is money they don't make from vertically integrated, privately owned fields. The IMF/World Bank-touted Production Sharing Agreements (think 99 year lease) can be an area of common ground with the big companies, but once the big deal is made there is not much in it for the "go-betweens" (except litigation of the contracts they drew up). One crowd that is often appalled by the implications of government ownership/control of oil wealth: the professional "National Security" technocrats and strategic planners. Neo-cons like Wolfowitz and Feith are examples. But Iraq Study Group member Democrat William Perry is another example (and he recently called for bombing of Iran over the nuclear issue) as is former member Gates; (they would join ISG member Alan Simpson who was Senator from Wyoming). Many from the "National Security" crowd were pushing for Iraq to adopt the Alaska Plan (distributing royalties to individuals rather than the government), so as to avoid having even privately owned fields contribute royalties that could support a militarily strong national government (and they say leftists make optimistic projections). Paul
