The article pretty much explains why the US has to be involved in those oil producing geographical entities. $300 a barrel? when the production cost of oil is only $2 in Saudi Arabia. It is an aspiration to establish outrageous monopoly at the expense of the rest of world. Even at $30 a barrel, with production cost at $2, who is stealing from whom? Does the author really believe that an oil monopoly that reaps 15000% profit based on monopoly established by the power of the state (ie. the threat of violence) can possibly be the basis of a functional pluralist democracy? Wouldn't the power naturally flow to whoever can best convert that 15000% profit to the currency of secret police and other monopolistic state maintenance superstructure? When you look around the globe, you will notice all the emerging democracies of the second half of last century were in place of little or no natural resources; because there wealth comes from human ingenuity and competitive capitalism. None of the resource-rich geographic entities have evolved into democracy because in those places wealth comes from the power of the state, which inevitably is a zero-sum gain game. That's why, oil extraction should be a global eminent domain issue; no countries sovereignty should include the monopolistic hordeing of oil. It is the right and responsibility of the US, the de facto sole super power of the world, to prevent the rise of oil monopolies.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
