Blogs > Liberty and Power > My President Invaded Iraq and I Didn't Even Get Any Oil to Show for It

Apr 30, 2006 9:12 am

My President Invaded Iraq and I Didn't Even Get Any Oil to Show for It

From the Associated Press:
With the global economy carrying the weight of $70-a-barrel oil, dismay among many economists is focusing on Iraq, whose exports have slipped to their lowest levels since the 2003 invasion.

Iraq, a founding member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, sits atop the world’s third-highest proven reserves. The estimated 115 billion barrels under Iraqi soil is more than any known reserve of any other OPEC member except Saudi Arabia and Iran.

But contrary to optimistic prewar expectations, Iraq’s oil production has slipped since the U.S.-led invasion, to an average of 2 million barrels a day. Iraq has never regained even the reduced production levels that prevailed in the 1990s, when Iraq lived under U.N. sanctions.

Cross-posted at Free Association.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Craig J. Bolton - 4/30/2006

Yept, I well remember the great crusade when "we" decided to "liberate" Iraq:

(1) This matter will be over in a matter of weeks;
(2) We must stamp out this nest of terrorists who have attacked America [weeell, not then, but wait a few years];
(3) Saddam has huge stores of WMD - no comment needed, I don't beat dead horses;
(4) The Iraqis need to be freed from torture and the chaos and fear in which they live their daily lives - there's that dead horse thing again;
(5) and, of course, our mutual favorite, "Gasoline will be $3.00 a gallon if we don't assure access to a free Iraq."

["How do you know when a politician is lying?" Review the above.]

Sheldon Richman - 4/30/2006

Greatest economist! I don't think so. Didn't he think the Soviet economy was more efficient than a free economy? Now if you want to debate who was greater, Keynes or Galbraith--well, I have no dog in that fight.

Yes, he identified some objectionable things, namely, the corporate state. But what he proposed would have been worse. He thought government was better at allocating resources than market forces. Give him a C- in diagnosis, and an F in treatment.

chris l pettit - 4/30/2006

of course no mention of the environment and damage caused by petroleum usage and exploitation...this blurb seems to only be to score political points. The points attempting to be scored are notable...but you hardly consider the consequences of what is being stated.

By the way...I find it amusing, though not unexpected that no one on L&P has noted the passing of one of the greatest economists since 97. I figure it is because he makes certain libertarian economic arguments look as foolish as they are...but I think if you read him closely, he makes just as many anti-state (in terms of waste and corruption) and anti-quasi-state (in terms of entities such as corporations and their unending pursuit of profit, greed, and corruption) arguments that libertarians can both agree with and benefit from.