Response to the article U.S. foreign policy, brought to you by ExxonMobil. This is a perfect example of why corporations prefer stable, predictable places to do business. In Indonesia their is a rebel group known as the Free Aceh Movement, which attacked ExxonMobile. They said that Indonesian troops were carrying out raids and attacks from the fields. If that is true then that makes it a legitimate military target. But being attacked is very bad for business, and that is very bad for the stock holders. Which we know when the stock holders aren't happy then people lose their jobs, and people don't like to lose their jobs. So the Bush administration steps in and says that it will classify the G.A.M. as a terrorist organization if it does not stop targeting ExxonMobil because it has American citizens and is an American interest. It doesn't go into more detail than that, but knowing how politics works I'm sure there was some sort of deal worked out between a high ranking politician and an ExxonMobile exec, which would be crony capitalism. Needless to say, as a corporation it is very convenient to have the government of a superpower behind you.
Collier writes that "about 29% of the people in the bottom billion live in countries in which resource wealth dominates the economy." He then goes on to list all the problems countries can have when having allot of income. While I've never considered this, start up businesses have some of the same issues. Start a company with abundant money and you will have an inefficient and overspending company. They will look ok until money gets tight and then most of them won't make it. The same inefficient and overspending can happen to a country. Michael Carpenter
-Response to: U.S. Foreing policy, brought to you by ExxonMobil-
I find it interesting how the Bush administration threatened to designate the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) into a terrorist organization. Since there is a US corporation in Indonesia, this conflict is now relevant to how the Bush administration reacts to it. I wonder what would have been the case, had the GAM been the ones backing up ExxonMobil? My guess is that the Bush administration would have backed up whoever was helping ExxonMobil regardless of whether it was an insurgent group or the current government. Another good way of looking at this conflict would be if it where to happen now, during the Obama administration. The support for ExxonMobil would have not been there, at least not to the point of designating GAM as a terrorist organization. -Jose L. Garcia-
In the bottom billion, a little thought added on to Michael Carpenter's thought... I do think it is kind of crazy how many problems countries can have when they seem to have a lot of wealth. However, I do understand that there are many factors to this for instance there is still health problems and economic problems. But you'd think that if a country has a lot of wealth, they would be able to help out itself and pay off its debts. I feel like it should not be like starting it's own company where you have the money but then eventually run out because no one likes it or wants to pursue it. Unless it is a new country trying to come into existance. I feel like if it has worked its way up to be wealthy then there should be problems, however if it starts wealth and takes on too much debt then I suppose it is to be expected for it to act like a new company not knowing what they're getting into or if they will become a successful corporation and have many customers/clients. Heidi Schultz.
I had no idea that ExxonMobile Corp. was the largest oil company in the world that is not owned by a state. When Exxon and Mobile joined it would make since that Exxon would pick up all of Mobile's conflict zones, because what was once just their enemies now becomes their enemies as they become one company. It seems a little bit sneaky and fishy that ExxonMobile paid Indonesian military forces to battle the Free Aceh Movement (G.A.M.). As an administration for the president of the United States I don't know how they could manage ExxonMobile's position in the conflict with G.A.M..
I completely agree with your above response. I was very unaware of the actions ExxonMobile in Indonesia. Although most Americans do not trust big oil companies, we do depend on them for our day to day lives. I admit that I am not going to stop my oil use, but I do plan on paying more attention to the sneaky military payoffs and opening my eyes to what is really going on on foreign soil. Kelsi Swenson
“Civil war is development in reverse. It damages both the country itself and its neighbors.” The cost of conflict when the activities are illegal is what creates control outside of the recognized government to be enacted. The old trial and error method is one way a state government can learn what the right thing to do is because by making the mistakes first, they will know what doesn't work until the come upon a solution that is successful for them. States that are failing do have the capacity to turn the tables for themselves, yet this is not very common. Successful turnarounds means that the state does more than just an impressive improvement...the new society must maintain such improvements. Most states that are failing states will continue to do so for quite some time because of its bad policies and governance which demotes the economy of the state and its neighboring states. In short, everything begins to crumble when a state begins to fail.
Of the different traps explained by Collier in The Bottom Billion I found the natural resource trap to be the most interesting. The fact that democracies are outperformed by autocracies in poor countries with high natural resource exports is surprising but makes sense. The kind of democracies that detrimental to growth are ones without checks and balances. This kind of democracy would be detrimental to any society be it rich or poor but in poor countries that have had a recent influx of cash flow due to natural resources the problems of corrupt democracy are exacerbated. -Mark Peterman
After reading Using U.S. Dollars, Zimbabwe Finds a Problem: No Change, I was so surprised to hear that currencies are so delegate. To read that a 100 trillion Zimbabwe bill was made is striking, but with the lack of exporting goods and need for their currency, it is no surprise. In America, we hate change. We actually prefer to use plastic cards instead, but in Zimbabwe they are in desperate need of it because they run on a dollar or to a day.
Response #5 to Collier Ch. 2-5 I will be honest this is not the type of book that I would normally read, but it really hooked me and I couldn’t stop reading it. As for my response I’m going to talk about a short part in chapter 2 where he talks about causes of civil wars. I thought that it was really interesting that someone sat down and figured out what the causes of a civil war are I mean this sounds like something that is a load of bull, but after reading it made sense that these would be contributing factors to a civil war. I also thought it was great that the CIA was so interested in having him come and try and predict where the next civil war would be. I would assume that the CIA wanted to know where to go and try and either prevent it or give it the push it needs to spiral it into war. -Garfield Anderson
In chapter 2, Collier seems to suggest that ideology is not really what causes civil war, but economic depression. Slow growth, low national income, and dependence on a primary commodity like oil or diamonds puts pressure on society. This appears to be a self-perpetuating cycle. In weak states with unstable governments, international investors are less like to put money into the national economy, leaving no chance for growth made able by possessing hard currency. This also means that every civil war explained by ideology is a much more complex issue than "red vs. blue." Maybe distraction to an ideological contexts prevents people from realizing the unjust economic powers at work. -Carly Stuart
Response to: U.S. foreign policy, brought to you by ExxonMobil
Often investigation of issues regarding oil companies is clouded by convolution and obscurity. Specifics, identities, and involvement in oil production are commonly veiled by world powers. However revelation of such information often leaves the public disturbed. When dealing with matters involving ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world not owned by a state, is found with support from significant power, often generated through political influence. In response, I found myself lingering over the question: was political involvement necessary in this case and if so, to what extent? In response, the US is becoming more dependent on foreign oil, “as of 2006, more than 60 percent of oil used by Americans is imported from other countries” (Robbins p118) and with projected global energy consumption increasing at a rate of 2.6 percent a year, world powers result in competition for energy sources and access to foreign resources. Consequently the risk of violent conflict increases, making military power even more important. Furthermore, the US is clearly the strongest military power in the world, and uses that power to maintain access for producers (ExxonMobil) to energy and markets, and spins military action to both maintain public support for its actions while minimizing global condemnation. Though, the US government (executive branch) only used this power as a threat in defense of American oil companies, it has been the means for violent conflict in previous confrontations. Had the government not been involved in this case and situations alike, it is safe to say American oil companies would not have its position in the industry as it does today. -Hunter Guglilmino-
Response to the article U.S. foreign policy, brought to you by ExxonMobil.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect example of why corporations prefer stable, predictable places to do business. In Indonesia their is a rebel group known as the Free Aceh Movement, which attacked ExxonMobile. They said that Indonesian troops were carrying out raids and attacks from the fields. If that is true then that makes it a legitimate military target. But being attacked is very bad for business, and that is very bad for the stock holders. Which we know when the stock holders aren't happy then people lose their jobs, and people don't like to lose their jobs. So the Bush administration steps in and says that it will classify the G.A.M. as a terrorist organization if it does not stop targeting ExxonMobil because it has American citizens and is an American interest. It doesn't go into more detail than that, but knowing how politics works I'm sure there was some sort of deal worked out between a high ranking politician and an ExxonMobile exec, which would be crony capitalism. Needless to say, as a corporation it is very convenient to have the government of a superpower behind you.
Collier writes that "about 29% of the people in the bottom billion live in countries in which resource wealth dominates the economy." He then goes on to list all the problems countries can have when having allot of income. While I've never considered this, start up businesses have some of the same issues. Start a company with abundant money and you will have an inefficient and overspending company. They will look ok until money gets tight and then most of them won't make it. The same inefficient and overspending can happen to a country. Michael Carpenter
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete-Response to: U.S. Foreing policy, brought to you by ExxonMobil-
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how the Bush administration threatened to designate the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) into a terrorist organization. Since there is a US corporation in Indonesia, this conflict is now relevant to how the Bush administration reacts to it. I wonder what would have been the case, had the GAM been the ones backing up ExxonMobil? My guess is that the Bush administration would have backed up whoever was helping ExxonMobil regardless of whether it was an insurgent group or the current government. Another good way of looking at this conflict would be if it where to happen now, during the Obama administration. The support for ExxonMobil would have not been there, at least not to the point of designating GAM as a terrorist organization. -Jose L. Garcia-
In the bottom billion, a little thought added on to Michael Carpenter's thought... I do think it is kind of crazy how many problems countries can have when they seem to have a lot of wealth. However, I do understand that there are many factors to this for instance there is still health problems and economic problems. But you'd think that if a country has a lot of wealth, they would be able to help out itself and pay off its debts. I feel like it should not be like starting it's own company where you have the money but then eventually run out because no one likes it or wants to pursue it. Unless it is a new country trying to come into existance. I feel like if it has worked its way up to be wealthy then there should be problems, however if it starts wealth and takes on too much debt then I suppose it is to be expected for it to act like a new company not knowing what they're getting into or if they will become a successful corporation and have many customers/clients.
ReplyDeleteHeidi Schultz.
I had no idea that ExxonMobile Corp. was the largest oil company in the world that is not owned by a state. When Exxon and Mobile joined it would make since that Exxon would pick up all of Mobile's conflict zones, because what was once just their enemies now becomes their enemies as they become one company. It seems a little bit sneaky and fishy that ExxonMobile paid Indonesian military forces to battle the Free Aceh Movement (G.A.M.). As an administration for the president of the United States I don't know how they could manage ExxonMobile's position in the conflict with G.A.M..
ReplyDeleteChelsea Wallace
I completely agree with your above response. I was very unaware of the actions ExxonMobile in Indonesia. Although most Americans do not trust big oil companies, we do depend on them for our day to day lives. I admit that I am not going to stop my oil use, but I do plan on paying more attention to the sneaky military payoffs and opening my eyes to what is really going on on foreign soil.
DeleteKelsi Swenson
“Civil war is development in reverse. It damages both the country itself and its neighbors.” The cost of conflict when the activities are illegal is what creates control outside of the recognized government to be enacted. The old trial and error method is one way a state government can learn what the right thing to do is because by making the mistakes first, they will know what doesn't work until the come upon a solution that is successful for them. States that are failing do have the capacity to turn the tables for themselves, yet this is not very common. Successful turnarounds means that the state does more than just an impressive improvement...the new society must maintain such improvements. Most states that are failing states will continue to do so for quite some time because of its bad policies and governance which demotes the economy of the state and its neighboring states. In short, everything begins to crumble when a state begins to fail.
ReplyDeleteOf the different traps explained by Collier in The Bottom Billion I found the natural resource trap to be the most interesting. The fact that democracies are outperformed by autocracies in poor countries with high natural resource exports is surprising but makes sense. The kind of democracies that detrimental to growth are ones without checks and balances. This kind of democracy would be detrimental to any society be it rich or poor but in poor countries that have had a recent influx of cash flow due to natural resources the problems of corrupt democracy are exacerbated.
ReplyDelete-Mark Peterman
After reading Using U.S. Dollars, Zimbabwe Finds a Problem: No Change, I was so surprised to hear that currencies are so delegate. To read that a 100 trillion Zimbabwe bill was made is striking, but with the lack of exporting goods and need for their currency, it is no surprise. In America, we hate change. We actually prefer to use plastic cards instead, but in Zimbabwe they are in desperate need of it because they run on a dollar or to a day.
ReplyDeletegreg haste
DeleteResponse #5 to Collier Ch. 2-5
ReplyDeleteI will be honest this is not the type of book that I would normally read, but it really hooked me and I couldn’t stop reading it. As for my response I’m going to talk about a short part in chapter 2 where he talks about causes of civil wars. I thought that it was really interesting that someone sat down and figured out what the causes of a civil war are I mean this sounds like something that is a load of bull, but after reading it made sense that these would be contributing factors to a civil war. I also thought it was great that the CIA was so interested in having him come and try and predict where the next civil war would be. I would assume that the CIA wanted to know where to go and try and either prevent it or give it the push it needs to spiral it into war.
-Garfield Anderson
In chapter 2, Collier seems to suggest that ideology is not really what causes civil war, but economic depression. Slow growth, low national income, and dependence on a primary commodity like oil or diamonds puts pressure on society. This appears to be a self-perpetuating cycle. In weak states with unstable governments, international investors are less like to put money into the national economy, leaving no chance for growth made able by possessing hard currency. This also means that every civil war explained by ideology is a much more complex issue than "red vs. blue." Maybe distraction to an ideological contexts prevents people from realizing the unjust economic powers at work.
ReplyDelete-Carly Stuart
Response to: U.S. foreign policy, brought to you by ExxonMobil
ReplyDeleteOften investigation of issues regarding oil companies is clouded by convolution and obscurity. Specifics, identities, and involvement in oil production are commonly veiled by world powers. However revelation of such information often leaves the public disturbed. When dealing with matters involving ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world not owned by a state, is found with support from significant power, often generated through political influence. In response, I found myself lingering over the question: was political involvement necessary in this case and if so, to what extent? In response, the US is becoming more dependent on foreign oil, “as of 2006, more than 60 percent of oil used by Americans is imported from other countries” (Robbins p118) and with projected global energy consumption increasing at a rate of 2.6 percent a year, world powers result in competition for energy sources and access to foreign resources. Consequently the risk of violent conflict increases, making military power even more important. Furthermore, the US is clearly the strongest military power in the world, and uses that power to maintain access for producers (ExxonMobil) to energy and markets, and spins military action to both maintain public support for its actions while minimizing global condemnation. Though, the US government (executive branch) only used this power as a threat in defense of American oil companies, it has been the means for violent conflict in previous confrontations. Had the government not been involved in this case and situations alike, it is safe to say American oil companies would not have its position in the industry as it does today.
-Hunter Guglilmino-