Since the United States, Canada, and Mexico all have oil it is not Tom Friedman who doing the sloppy thinking. Friedman's point is that countries that are virtually dependent on oil revenues, as opposed to a diverse economy, are prone to authoritarism and the more cash they have to mete out the less restrained they have to be.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Yes, but the point I tried to make is that while that is true it's not very useful and it is incomplete.
The same mechanics were present for other valued resources and the distorting effect applies to the users as well as the providers. Note how our oil needs override morality when it comes to dealing with those oil dictatorships, as well as leading to agressive trade policies (war for trade).
The single-resource trap also affects agriculture, with monocropping leading to various problems. It would help the oil dicatorships if we stopped buying. If that's Friedman's point it's nice to see him noticing the obvious, finally.

defending Friedman: let us look at the list of states where juvenile offenders can be executed: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Texas. What do they have in common?

I bet that while the human rights situation in Norway looks superficially rosy, we would find a lot after scratching the surface (Norway produces more oil per capita than Iran and Texas.)

Friedman lost a lot of credibility to some of us by straining to justify invading Iraq. I tended to agree with him (except Iraq) but there is a certain tone of discovery around his bold ideas, which look very familiar after a close look.
I just don't find much content in his arguments. Lately they have been crashingly obvious.

I think that it's pretty obvious that if we taxed oil that the producer price would fall.

Now, you can call that a regressive consumption tax, but it could be easily offset with progressive income transfers, not unlike what has been proposed recently.

Now, that wd do a lot to reduce our oil dependency, stave off more oil wars, reduce tyranny in oil-dependent states and help reduce our carbon dioxide emissions...

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

The problem with Friedmann's thesis is that the countries that are not "petro-ist" can be every bit as corrupt and non-democratic as "petro-ist". Does Zimbabwe have a more democtatic government than Angola? Is Tunesia more democratic than Libia and Algeria?

Were Saudis on a short trail to democracy when the oil prices were under 20$/bd?

I think Reed's friend should run in 2008!

Zimbabwe and North Korea show that bancrupt dictators have a lot of staying power as well.

What I mean is that this is a real factor, but rather incremental.

There are many reasons to reduce the demand for oil and bring prices lower, but bolstering democracy is the least convincing. Take Central Asia: are petro-ist Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan less democratic than non-petroist Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan?

ON THE FIRST BLAHW OF PETROPOLITICS

I normally enjoy reading Thomas L. Friedman’s articles and I envy the quality of his pen but frankly, his recent “The First Law of Petropolitics”, Foreign Policy, May/June 2006 reads like what we in Venezuela refer to as “discovering the tepid water”, discovering common knowledge, although, in fact, if he really feels that he must advice his own government “that the price of crude should now be a daily preoccupation of the U.S. secretary of state, not just the treasury secretary” then I can only conclude that the USA has a much more serious problem than oil. Of course to place huge oil income directly into the pockets of the politicians in countries with weak institutions, will distort their minds and make them act like bullies, what’s new?
Friedman also thinks he makes an important point concluding in reference to consumer countries such as the USA that “we can affect the global price of oil by altering the amounts and types of energy we consume” which is of course also very correct. But, where he goes absolutely wrong, and in his bio we see no reference to studies in economy, is when he says “we cannot affect the supply of oil in any country”. Of course you can! That day consumer countries would be willing to guarantee a decent price for oil over a long period, well that day producers would immediately produce more but, while what the consuming nations really seem to be looking for is oil at the $5 per barrel predicted by the prestigious The Economist as late as in March 1999, then you can obviously only expect to be creating the conditions for oil at over $100. Want to help? Then ask your treasury secretary to offer good long term prices for oil, subject that most of the revenues are distributed directly to the citizens of the producing country.
By the way, and back to the demand, what is currently on the board for fighting USA’s oil addiction seem just like nicotine patches and chewing gums for a non meant new-year promise, and will only serve to guarantee that the modern day successors of Mark Twain will also be able to argue that “it is easy to quit, as they have done it a thousand times”. Instead, $7 per gallon, that should indeed do it!
Levying a new federal consumption tax on gas that would increase its price to about the level at which it has been in Europe, would reduce demand for imported oil, provide the government with about $300 billions in taxes to balance the accounts and benefit the environment. Yes, it would destroy many jobs, but it also would create new ones. Better to bite the bullet now before the current economic imbalances erode confidence in the dollar, and anyhow take the price to $7 but then, with no gain to pay for the pain. That, of course, would require leadership, which is even scarcer than oil.
From www.voiceandnoise.blogspot.com