Good point. The capital value runs into sovereign creative fiat one way or another.

The following is a cynical take that may be wrong, but it satisfies my intuition / suspicion. I don't say I have proof. I am for investigating the truth of the matter.

Another way of looking at it is, Paulson is trying to generate some election-winning economic investment data from our "partners". The Administration seeks Russian funds to bribe the American people to forget what they've done via the Iraq grab.

The bottom line for relative economic freedom is secure productivity and self-sufficiency in natural resources in one's sovereign territory. These are the basics that Russia has been working on building this past fifteen years.

The Iraq grab may be the US preemptive energy strike to balance Russia's steady nationalization of capabilities for exploiting huge reserves under former Soviet lands. These aren't fully developed by any stretch, but the Russians are getting better at it. Russia could move to number one energy producer eventually, but their own corrupt central powers are reportedly taxing energy development into a coma.

Huge governments (as market participants and employers) cannot act radically without making huge waves in the economy. Russia for example, taxes its energy companies at nearly 65% base rate, combined with other taxes at times reportedly reaching a 92% rate (this from the Economist). This income creates a new consumer culture (bribed Russian citizens) from the government's hand. Beneath that consumer culture is a nationalistic patriotism that waxes sentimental over what consumer benefits the government has 'won'. What it really did was subject the oligarchy to an authoritarian who has charmed the people.

One question: to what extent is the US doing the same thing? In our case, the indentured servants of our latest acquisition of mineral interests and production interests in energy producing territory (Iraq) is the US Armed Forces, and indirectly, the US taxpayers who pay for them.

Who benefits? Big Oil and its cronies in the executive branch. Alan Greenspan said as much, as did the pipe smoke escaping the doors of the conference room where Cheney and the energy scions worked out how they were going to milk the maximum amount of wealth out of fossil fuel before being forced to move on to the next level.

[Were one of those folks to get immunity and proof that a fraudulent conspiracy precipitated the invasion, in a time of war, would that be a high crime against the US (bringing hostile forces against US forces for personal gain)?Trifling with national defense for non-defense reasons damages the actual national defense. That's a treasonous outcome during wartime, isn't it? Isn't that an offense for the firing squad?]

If a private interest wields undue influence in the executive branch, even if temporarily, the concentration of power contracts immensely. Like a black hole. Such a force can pitch enormous wealth into concentrated private hands then let go of the reins again before it brings revolution. The windfall beneficiaries must then do some popular palm greasing to stay legitimate. That comes later.

That's the truly scary giant sucking sound, whether its Russia, the US, China or elsewhere: corrupt influences amassing wealth using a joint venture between industry and government as the principal tool. This is similar to what we see happening in Russia. We just don't want to call our version nationalization. I guess we could call it hijacking.