Patrick, thank you for pushing the discussion forward. It seems (as was implicit in Fred's comments) that the accumulation remains the independent variable, in the sense that world demand for and thus the price of energy is determined thereby. This all affects the magnitude of Arab oil rent. In Marxian terms, the gulf--and Sa'udi--oil fields in particular would seem to potentially generate DR I and DR II. In terms of DR II, the capital invested by the Sa'udi state in the infrastructure for these fields seems to have been enormous; thus, the differential fertility is not only naturally great, but has also been artificially increased. As you have been suggesting, my guess (which follows Chibuzo Nwoke) is that Marxian theory is wrong in the sense that the landlord, viz., the House of Saud, has not in fact been able to capture much of DR I or DR II. Which may mean given the capital investment by Sa'udis themselves they may not even be receiving a full return on their own investments! The fields have been lent to American oil companies cheap in order to secure US security services for the very unpopular ruling families whose luxury consumption across the globe is pornographic. The combination of capital return on infrastructure and rent from ownership is then further expended on US arms in order to purchase the security lent by the US govt to the House of Sa'ud (Michael Klare details the security relationship in Resource Wars). From what I remember reading, $200 bn was spent in the 80s on arms, and at least $100bn in the 90s. The Sa'udis and other Gulf elites also payed for the 'liberation of Kuwait'. After the royal family's expenses are then met on top of US claims, there seems little money left for even those few who are Sa'udi citizens. The deficits and the debt of the regime have grown, unemployment and poverty have risen considerably. The population is young, and without a future. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Dec 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EST