Just wondering. They are the third largest oil exporter; behind Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Actually, I'm not sure that is accurate. Iran exports 2.2-2.2 mbpd, or close to that. And they are declining. Norway, Kuwait, and the UAE are very close to that number, so Iran might only be the 6th largest exporter at the moment.

Either way, the main point is that their exports are declining, and should continue to decline rapidly. See the Export Land Model of Jeffrey Brown. Basically when oil production begins to fall, internal consumption keeps growing, a combination that eats up exports very quickly.

Are they preparing for the day when they can't even provide enough oil for local energy needs, are they committed to reducing green house gasses, or what?

The former, not the latter, though lower emissions is an ancillary benefit.

I'm not seeing the farthest left ideologies ("Eat the rich!") but I am seeing the next-worst thing: "Tax the successful exorbitantly". How's that working out for New York?

Excuse me, but taxing the rich (you used the euphemism "successful") exorbitantly just might be the single best policy we could implement.

The rich are destroying the planet. The consumption of the richest 10 million individuals, and the attendant environmental damage their consumption causes, is equivalent to that of the lowest 2-3 billion. That is obscene.

The standard free market line that the rich are "producers" and somehow deserve this bounty has it exactly backwards. Their consumption is literally killing the planet. Not that abolishing great wealth will necessarily save the planet - unfortunately, the problem is more severe than that - but eliminating great wealth, and the enormous ecological footprint it represents, would be a wonderful first step.

I'm sorry I can't go along with your assertion the destroying great wealth would be a step forward, but that's an age-old ideological divide, isn't it?

I suppose it is - I'm sorry to see you've chosen the wrong side.

Without great wealth and the possibility of great wealth, we would be living in a far different world.

Yep - different and better.

For one thing, there is no intrinsic equality among people.

Hmmm. My day is 24 hours long. How long is yours?

Like it not, there's always someone bigger, faster, stronger, more energetic, smarter.

Obviously. But why do such differences require economic inequality? I don't see why one follows from the other.

Kurt Vonnegut had a great short story about a society where the gifted were required to be handicapped. I'll try and dig it up.

That would be a sick society, and it's not what I'm advocating. Nothing wrong with natural diversity. But there is something wrong with income and wealth inequality, which is not natural. I didn't own anything when I was born, did you?

And I'd be interested to read your thoughts on how 'equality' would actually play out, although we are bounding away from the original subject of this thread.

Sadly, that is not something I can fit into the comment section.

I suppose it isn't fair to completely punt on your question of what my vision of a society without the rich might be.

I don't know what it would look like exactly - the question is just too huge to pin down.

Anyway, here is a link to get you started...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

This does not mean that I'm a full-fledged supporter of Albert and Participatory Economics. I'm a big agnostic about it - some things sound good, others the jury's still out. Point is, people are thinking about it, and I'm interested in what they have to say.

I do insist on income and wealth equality, and sustainability. I would not support any system that didn't meet those 2 goals.

I certainly hope some kind of alternative is viable, because if not, we're all screwed. The system we have now is simply not sustainable, and is leading us toward disaster.

Consider that a nuclear Iran could dictate a whole slew of terms, which, while you may or may not support could be detrimental to the US. A nuclear Iran can dictate when all Western troops leave Iraq and SW Asia. A nuclear Iran could pressure Russia out of the Caucuses.

Consider whether or not Zorkna has any detectable brain waves.

Give me a break. A nuclear Iran could not do any of those things. The US and Russia have nukes too. Does that mean the US can dictate that Iran stop supporting Hezbollah? Or that the US can stop Iranian support of Iraqi political parties? Or that the US can even stop Iranian Uranium enrichment?

Having nukes does not bestow unlimited power over others, and they especially do not bestow unlimited coercive power over other nuclear states.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, here's what I endorse:

1. A total inspection regime, including no-notice.

2. Continued and increased sanctions until (1) above is achieved.

3. Realistic threat of military action if we discover that Iran ever restarts down their prior path of weapons development - which is in itself a startlingly important fact about their motivations and intentions which you very casually dismiss as old news.

Do you endorse that stance for everyone? Even the good 'ole US of A and Israel?

Of course not. Because we're us and they're them. We don't need no stinking inspections. We're sane and stable. We only invade and bomb people when we have a really really really really really good reason. Like when we suspect someone has something we don't want them to have or they say mean things about us. Iran hasn't invaded or bombed anyone because they're not sane. They are in fact insane because they haven't bombed or invaded anybody in 600 years. Invading and bombing people prospectively in "self-defense" is definitionally the mark of sanity. QED Iran is insane and should be bombed.

I suspect you're right, but I'd still like to see what Salty has to say.