REX TILLERSON, FROM A CORPORATE OIL SOVEREIGN TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT
By Steve Coll
December 11, 2016
What’s Good for Exxon Is Bad for the Country
Does Rex Tillerson know the difference between corporate imperatives and national interests?
By Fred Kaplan
Is is stupefying how none of these guys understands just how important oil is on a geopolitical level. And yet this is a no-brainer for Trump. I would assume Tillerson is fairly expert in what’s important about Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran – the only countries that matter when you are Secretary of State. I could be wrong, but even a casual glance suggests he may be the most qualified when both knowledge and experience are counted. And Fred Kaplan is an idiot.
American oil companies can no longer make a buck doing their thing. Exxon-Mobil’s U.S. production business lost $477 million in the third quarter, the seventh straight quarter in the red. Why? Because it costs a lot more to get the stuff out of the ground than it did ten years ago, and that high cost is bankrupting oil companies and industrial economies. That is the stealth action of Peak Oil that so many people pretend is not happening. It will ultimately destroy the banking system.
Explanation for What?
Vox.com’s capture of the know-it-all demographic
David V. Johnson
Take Vox sponsors Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, persistent targets of populist rage for their exorbitant profits and their role in the wave of fraud that contributed to the financial crisis. Yes, Vox explains that breaking up the big banks—a policy senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supported and Hillary Clinton opposed—is a bad idea. I’m sure this position had nothing to do with the influence of money, or Klein’s niggling worries about biases that make us stupid. Like good high-achieving students, Vox writers give their reasons and show their work. Nor does Goldman’s sponsorship of Yglesias’s podcast influence his conclusion in one of those podcasts that raising taxes on the superwealthy doesn’t actually do much to reduce inequality. (“I think it is not a great idea to have adopted this entire inequality focus,” he said.)
Some good comments on this one:
Gun Control: Hawglegs and Hawgwash
FRED REED • DECEMBER 1, 2016
A growing number of young people are selling their bodies online to pay student loans, make the rent, or afford designer labels. Is it just an unorthodox way to make ends meet or a new kind of exploitation? Nancy Jo Sales investigates.
As the debate over whether the United States should decriminalize sex work intensifies, prostitution has quietly gone mainstream among many young people, seen as a viable option in an impossible economy and legitimized by a wave of feminism that interprets sexualization as empowering. “People don’t call it ‘prostitution’ anymore,” says Caitlin, 20, a college student in Montreal. “That sounds like slut-shaming. Some girls get very rigid about it, like ‘This is a woman’s choice.’ ”
Not that interesting an article. No insights into men or women that we didn’t already know. Mildly titillating. In the print edition it is followed by the bikini pics of Margot Robbie (as close as Vanity Fair gets to a centerfold). I think that if all these twenty-something “women” are unclear on the difference between feminism and prostitution, then Hillary Clinton hasn’t achieved much and the battle is probably lost forever.
The best book review ever written: