Agitating Argentine Oil

Argentine hydrocarbon-initiative is now agitating capital. It is more agitating to capital-interests as it energizes a trend – national control over national resources. To these interests, it’s “Chavez model”. It seems these interests are being haunted by a Chavez-spirit. A section of mainstream is making almost similar claim.

Capital disapproves people’s rights over people’s resources. Argentina’s move related to local oil company Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales (State Petroleum Reserves, YPF), controlled by Repsol, Spanish oil and gas company, is thus creating furor among all concerned with capital.

In mid-April, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the Argentinean president, introduced a bill in congress that would give Argentina a 51% stake in YPF, the largest oil producer in the country. Cristina said the measure is aimed at recovering the nation’s sovereignty over its hydrocarbon resources, and it “is not a model of statism”. Governors of oil-producing provinces have already withdrawn about 15 oil leases, representing 18% of YPF’s crude production. They complained the company failed to keep its promises to develop them.

Declaring exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons “national public interest” in order to “guarantee economic development with social equity” Cristina’s bill says building up the country’s supply is a priority. The bill proposes that out of the YPF controlling stake taken over, 51% will be held by the central government and the rest will be distributed to the oil-producing provinces. The government will not extend its hands to the 17.09% of YPF shares traded on stock exchanges. About the 25% stake held by the private Argentine Grupo Petersen is undecided.

Legislative process for recovering of sovereignty will be completed within weeks. There is widespread public support to the initiative: referring to opinion polls the Buenos Aires daily La Nación informed 80% support. A number of opposition lawmakers supported the move. The movement for the recovery of Argentina’s energy sovereignty is also in “complete agreement”. People celebrated the move.

But people and capital-interest don’t move hand-in-hand. The EU turned furious; the European block condemned Argentina’s move; the EU parliament called for Argentina-sanctions; and one conservative member of the European Parliament questioned whether Argentina should be allowed to remain in the G-20. The European Commission warned that nationalizing YPF would be bad for investment climate in Argentina, and said the EC backs Spain, Argentina’s largest foreign investor.

Opposition also came from the usual circle. Robert Zoellick, the World Bank president, and Alain Juppé, the French foreign minister, strongly criticized the Argentine initiative. “It is mistake and the wrong thing to do”, Zoellick said. Felipe Calderón, the Mexican president, said nationalization plan would only damage chances for investments in Argentina and hurt Repsol, in which Mexico’s state-run oil company Pemex holds a 10% stake.

Spain got confused with the US position. A State Department spokesperson explained remarks made earlier by Hillary Clinton, who said that she wanted to study the matter before commenting on it. “She spoke about the need for diverse markets, and certainly that’s one of our core beliefs: diverse energy markets,” the spokesperson said. José Manuel García-Margallo, the Spanish foreign minister, felt disappointed about the US position.

Regular expression is there. The Spanish establishment condemned the move. Soraya Saenz de Santamaria, the Spainish deputy prime minister, reaffirmed “keep looking for new measures” to put pressure on Argentina. The Spanish foreign minister said Spain would respond with “forceful measures”. But he refrained from elaborating. José Manuel Soria, the Spanish industry minister, assured “there will be more actions against Argentina”. In an interview with a conservative Spanish daily, Soria said Spain “will not be announcing the measures; it will just adopt them and keep moving.”

Spain has already decided to limit the import of Argentine biodiesel. A trade war, it seems, is being initiated by Madrid. Spanish newspapers report the EU could boycott Argentine soy and meat, two of Argentina’s biggest exports. Probably, the dream is to strangulate Buenos Aires and teach Cristina a lesson. Mosaddegh-memory is fresh in masters’ minds.

Rating agencies joined the move to warn Argentina. Standard and Poor’s, the famous rating agency with questionable past, downgraded Argentina’s economic and financial outlook to “negative”, after the YPF-initiative. Fitch warned Argentina of “diplomatic isolation” and shortages in foreign direct investment in key sectors – energy, utilities, and telecom.

As capital’s sentinel mainstream media was not silent. In an April 20 editorial The Washington Post observed “The [Argentine] president’s further lurch toward the left […]”, which it said “is bad news”. It echoed the conservative voice: remove Argentina from the G-20 and replace by Chile. (“Argentina’s president rejects stepping into the future”) It seems they are the lords of the world to do and undo everything.

There are more harsh and crude voices. Repsol Executive Chairman Antonio Brufau said the measure “will not go unpunished” and threatened to “take all legal actions within its reach.” Spanish officials predicted Argentina risks becoming “an international pariah”. In a responsible tone, Cristina reciprocated: “This president is not going to answer any threat, is not going to respond to any sharp remark. I am a head of state and not a hoodlum.”

It’s “resource nationalism”, the mainstream considers. The world business and investors smell risky situation. To a section in the mainstream, Cristina’s initiative is nothing but an attempt to cover up domestic problems.

However, the song of condemnation failed to echo in all the corners of the world. Voices of solidarity reverberated. Venezuela’s foreign ministry and the state oil company expressed support to Argentina’s move. The company expressed its willingness to help strengthen Argentina’s oil industry: “Venezuela puts all its technical, operational, legal and political experience of Petroleos de Venezuela at the disposition of the government of Argentina and its people to strengthen the state oil sector”. Evo Morales, Bolivia’s president, said: “It is an issue between Argentina and Spain.” Daniel Ortega, the Nicaraguan president, expressed solidarity: “President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner … is exercising the right of the State of Argentina to defend its patrimony.” He rejected the EU’s reaction, saying the EU has acted with “arrogance, bravado and thuggery against the decision of a sovereign people and government in Argentina.” “What we can advise the EU is that they should stop their bullying, stop the threats. Look for dialogue, negotiate with the Argentinean government and look for a way out where the legitimate rights of the people of Argentina are recognized,” Ortega said. Jose Mujica, the Uruguayan president, told he respected Argentina’s decision, saying “it falls within the framework of sovereignty, whether you like it or not.” Regarding the EU’s condemnation and threat, Mujica expressed “solidarity with Argentina, in good and bad times” and lashed out at the “arrogance of wealthy Europe.” Haroldo Lima, the head of Brazil’s National Petroleum Agency, hailed the move as “excellent news for Latin America.” He called the decision “historic” and said “it was not against Spain... It was not against anyone. It was in favor of Argentina.” Chilean officials reacted cautiously. Chile government was studying the effects on Chilean investments in Argentina, in particular in one of Repsol’s wells. However, the Chilean opposition Socialist Party, hailed the move as sovereign action saying that as an independent nation, Argentina “has the right to decide how to exploit its natural resources for the benefit of its citizens.”

Seemingly to increase pressure on Argentina, US Senator Richard Lugar, member of the Subcommittee on Latin America, asked questions on Argentina during a congressional hearing. A report from Hillary Clinton reviewed the Argentina-IMF relation and trade “barriers”, restrictions on remitting of benefits and dividends overseas, implemented by Argentina.

Argentina is having a difficult relation with the IMF. The US considers Argentina is obliged to submit its economic statistics to be validated by the IMF, and US will support the IMF. Citing a report La Nación informed the US is “most disappointed” as Argentina having suspended such annual submission since 2006.

Once again, the battle line has been drawn. Trenches are being dug. Two interests stand opposed to each other, and a trend turns stronger providing example to peoples and ruling elites in other countries.

Argentina has a version different from that of the Repsol, Spain, EU and Co. The country’s petroleum production fell 27% between 2001 and 2011 turning the country an importer of oil. Repsol was not producing enough oil to meet the country’s needs. This year Argentina estimates to import more than $10 billion worth of gas and LNG, almost equal to the country’s trade surplus last year although it is an oil-producing country, and it was self-sufficient for over two decades. This exposes the efficiency of Repsol, and also of private capital.

“We are the only country in Latin America, and […] in practically the entire world, that doesn’t manage its own natural resources,” Cristina mentioned as a burning fact. Argentina’s proven reserves have fallen by 50% since 2001, although YPF has not posted losses because it has spent so little on reinvestment. The company more than doubled its sales since 1999, making net profits of nearly 16.5 billion dollars since then, and distributing dividends of 13.2 billion dollars. Argentina had a deficit of $3 billion last year partly due to energy imports. The center of gravity of the EU’s position is clear.

The oil company, YPF, was privatized in two stages, in 1993 and 1999, under the former president Carlos Menem. Since then the state has held less than one percent of the shares of YPF.

Buenos Aires accuses Repsol of sucking YPF’s profits out of the country instead of investing in Argentina’s future. Repsol has used its profits to fund investments in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and North Africa. If this policy continues – draining fields dry, no exploration and practically no investment – “the country will end up having no viable future, not because of a lack of resources but because of business policies,” said Cristina.

Aníbal Fernández, an Argentine Senator, said the government “will pay the real price […] of YPF and not what Repsol’s chairman wants.” Repsol chairman has a bargain tag in his bag. Argentina and Spain are now setting a price on the transaction.

Cristina said the real problem was not about foreign companies or their profitability, but the lack of investment. She cited her government’s positive relationship with foreign automotive companies. Italy’s Fiat and the US’ General Motors receive soft loans from the Argentine state to boost local production and keep workers in jobs, Cristina said.

Argentina has minimized Spain’s retaliatory decision to reduce bio-diesel imports. Argentina “is in condition to absorb” that production. “We won’t question Spain’s sovereign decision, no matter which one it takes. They are going to pay their businessmen a more expensive bio-diesel and I don’t know how that will impact their economy”, Cristina said. “We’re not going to appeal to the World Trade Organization nor are we going to complaint about the decision to block Argentine exports. We don’t act that way. We are […] very respectful of other peoples’ sovereignty”, she said. The difference between Argentina and the EU, the organization that is failing to manage its own affairs but always is delivering sermons to the Third World countries on democracy, etc., on the principle of non-interference is clear.

All interests are not happy with Cristina’s initiatives. Argentina has already issued legal warnings to banks involved in the Malvinas Islands’ oil industry. In 2008, Cristina nationalized Anses, privately run pension funds with many Spaniards’ investment. She also nationalized Aerolíneas Argentina airline, owned by a Spanish firm now bankrupt. An alliance of organizations, American Task Force Argentina, is making effort to resolve Argentina’s $132bn debt default in 2001.

The country is having resources that allure capital from other lands. Edison Investment Research, a research firm, has claimed that the Falklands stood to benefit from a $176bn tax windfall as the result of oil and gas drilling. Of the four major prospects under way, the largest, Loligo, potentially holds more than 4.7bn barrels of oil. Argentina has recently found huge unconventional oil and natural gas reserves. A few months ago, YPF announced a large oil find known as the Vaca Muerta field that Repsol officials estimated could yield four billion barrels. BP now produces 74,000 barrels of oil daily in Argentina. Its natural gas production is more than its European operations combined.

Argentina is the world’s main supplier of bio-diesel almost exclusively from soy oil, and the country produces bio-diesel “at a cheaper price than Spanish manufacturers”. Last year exports reached 1.7 million tons of which 700.000 tons, equivalent to 985 million dollars were exported to Spain. Around 120 British companies including HSBC, Unilever and GlaxoSmithKline are now operating in Argentina.

Initiatives, in many forms, within existing limitations including class equation and historical perspective, are there in Latin America. These are trying to assert sovereignty, claim fair share of resources. An emerging political stream is trying to change resource map in Latin America in favor of people. Political leadership’s acumen, its capacity to mobilize people, its management efficiency are vital questions related to managing resource. It’s a long, complicated struggle. Initiatives should not be brushed aside with rhetoric. At the same time, class composition behind initiatives should be taken into account. Bureaucracy, a bulky burden, is there. Instead of expecting a perfect set up one should find out the reality within which a leadership has to move. The leadership carries marks of history. Ignoring these factors will send one to frustration, and to adventurism.

The initiative is operating in a geopolitical reality, where Europe is struggling within, where EU’s options regarding Argentina are limited, where competition within a crisis-reality has put masters of the world in a difficult position, where masters are facing problem in their home-turf.

Argentina will be an experience useful to the countries and the movements struggling to recover people’s resources, assert sovereignty over public resources, and aspiring to challenge neo-liberalism in respective economy.

What’s America’s Biggest National Security Threat?

What’s the biggest threat to US national security? It’s neither Iran nor North Korea, neither China’s defense spending nor Russia’s missile system. Syria doesn’t have that capacity to appear the biggest. It’s the domestic issues related to economy that pose the biggest national security threat to US. Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has made the observation in early-April 2012.

In an interview with The Daily Ticker Haass said: “The most important national security question for the coming year is actually the domestic set of issues that involves the economy.” “What we do to improve our schools, our infrastructure, what we do to reduce the budget deficit…this is going to be critical in years and decades ahead”, said Haass. (“America’s Biggest National Security Threat: U.S. Debt”)

In an increasingly global economy, Haass said, these policy failures and intransigence by lawmakers to seriously and vigorously tackle the budget crisis indicate a weaker US. “The United States right now has put itself in a position of some vulnerability. We’re vulnerable to the inflows of dollars, we’re vulnerable on the energy front, and the challenge for the United States in the national security realm is to do things that reduce our vulnerability to the decisions and behaviors be it foreign governments or markets.”

Almost similar was another observation. A few years ago, the US Directorate of National Intelligence in its 2009 threat assessment cited the global economic downturn as “the primary security challenge facing the US.” (Time, Sept. 11, 2009)

Neither CFR nor Richard Haass should be taken casually. The think tank is a responsible part of establishment and Haass is not a mindless member of the section he belongs to. The DNI observation that Time referred to is not part of a time killing talk-shop. Rather their observations are articulated after thorough exercises. These are macro views with eyes on far-reaching implications.

Economy of a country, no doubt, determines issues related to the country, its internal and external relations, its world-position, state of life of its citizens, its capacity to dominate or the opposite, etc. With a problem ridden internal situation any country turns vulnerable. The Great Financial Crisis (GFC) has intensified and widened domestic problems in many countries including US. Increasing hunger, poverty and rich-poor gap, annoying number and ratio of homeless and hungry children, finance-problem pressed schools, and debt burdened students are now not new news from the Empire, the richest land in the world. Mainstream admits all these facts although it declines to look at the root of the problems.

In 2011, Matthew Hartmann wrote in a commentary: More Americans than ever were living in poverty. “I have legitimate concerns about the future of this country […]” (“As Government Flirts with Shutdown, American Dream Again Questioned, Personal Reflections on the Great Recession”, Sept. 27)

Citing a report by the Joint Report Committee Hartmann referred the poverty level that rose in 46 states as a result of the Great Recession. He turned astonished: “Not even the nation’s capital was able to escape the influence of the Great Recession and, in fact, has become one of the hardest hit locations in this country.” Hartmann quoted the report: “[…] Washington also had the third highest poverty rate in the country, 19.2 percent, and the largest rise in the share of children living in poverty, rising 7.7 percentage points to 30.4 percent.” Similar data reflecting dire living condition for many in US are now in abundance.

Narrating experience Hartmann said: “[M]y own family has struggled over the past couple years because of the state of the economy. My father works at a high-paying medical job and yet struggles because we lost many investments when the Great Recession began.” His parents were renting after they lost their home. “[W]e’re living in very hard times”, he wrote. “What got me writing today was the revelation that the government nearly shut down again as it’s been threatening to do for the past couple of months. If our own federal government can hardly keep its doors open then I personally see it as a sign that our nation is still in a very precarious situation.” Possibility of shutting down a number of government departments is also old news.

State of teachers, students and class rooms, and as a whole, of education is being discussed by the mainstream in the Empire. A dismal picture comes to light. A recently released report by a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force found the not-so-well public school system that “threatens the country’s ability to thrive in a global economy and maintain its leadership role”. “[E]ducational failure”, the report said, “puts the United States’ future economic prosperity, global position, and physical safety at risk.”

Closure of many schools is reported in the mainstream media. ABC News reported closure of nearly half of schools and firing of hundreds of teachers in a district that “sent shockwaves through the country, and experts say this could just be the beginning.” There was “a $50 million budget shortfall”. In Detroit, a plan was announced “to close 45 schools in the next five years”. (“Budget, Quality, Population Issues Lead Cities to Close Schools: Is Yours Next?”, March 17, 2010) Mismanagement, failure to keep up with changing dynamics, declining enrollment, demographic shifts, budget deficits and draconian budget cuts are cited as reasons behind decision/plans for closing of the schools.

Adducing physicists a news report said: “The United States is at risk of ceding its leadership in science”. Five physicists expressed their worries about US’ scientific future saying that governmental funding for science research is in crisis, and not enough US students graduate with degrees in science, technology, engineering and math. The physicists were participating in a panel discussion in Atlanta at the April 2012 meeting of the American Physics Society. Pushpa Bhat, a physicist at Illinois’ Fermi Accelerator National Laboratory (Fermilab), lamented the lack of cutting-edge physics facilities in US. She was speaking at a press conference preceding the panel. She said: While many of the world’s best instruments including Illinois’ Tevatron particle accelerator used to be housed in US that frontier has moved elsewhere. Tevatron has shut down. Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilczek of MIT said: US “attracts students from all over the world. […] But […] we make it difficult for them to stay. I think for science, it’s a tragedy.” He cited immigration laws and cultural attitudes toward foreigners that “could be more welcoming.” “[T]he physicists acknowledged that scientists will have to confront a hard reality: There is simply less money for research in the current economy. Jim Siegrist, director of the Office of High Energy Physics in DOE’s Office of Science, agreed. ‘We need to find a way to do more science with a fixed amount of money’, Siegrist said.” Wilczek said “society doesn’t adequately value and recognize the economic benefits of basic science.” (“Crisis for US Science Is Looming, Physicists Warn”, Apr. 6, 2012)

These facts related to education and science lead to questions fundamental in nature. Answers to those questions will lead further to question related to the nature of the political economy that owns unimaginable resource, that once operated for longer period within favorable conditions, that has accumulated hundreds of years of experience but that now fails to provide adequate funds for scientific research and education, organize efficient management, keep up with shifting dynamics, that produces a society failing to adequately value science, etc.

Naturally, questions haunt: reasons behind declining enrollment, budget deficits, budget cuts, etc. How and why does an advanced capitalist economy fail to find required budget to keep its schools open and retain its teachers while it does not fail to find trillions of dollars to invest in speculation and billions of dollars for waging wars in distant lands that produce pain and tears in home and deaths and devastation in invaded society, and that leaves behind bitter memories and sense of hatred only? Is it that now basic science and a number of schools are not needed for making profit? Is it that the economy doesn’t need those schools and teachers? Or, is it the economy’s failure?
Referring a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Time and Washington Post said $36 billion in student debt belongs to Americans who are 60 or older. Some of them are still rassling with their student loans while others took on new loans as they resumed education later in life in hopes of effectively competing in labor market. Many are co-signatories for loans with their children or grandchildren to afford increasing tuition cost. More than 10% of these loans are delinquent. About 5% of the $85 billion delinquent student loans in the US is owed by borrowers in the age group 60 and over, and another 12% of the total is in the age group 50-59. The unemployment rate among America’s recent grads is high enough that compels them to live with parents.

It’s a difficult reality for the hard pressed section of a society. It’s also a part of the political economy of education that ultimately thrives on appropriating labor power of a society.

There is another fact. Laid off workers in the age group 55 and over, according to SmartMoney, are unemployed for an average of 53.6 weeks compared to just 39.4 weeks for those 54 and under. Older Americans are increasingly finding it necessary to keep working — because of the losses made by the GFC, and/or they still need to pay off credit cards, mortgages, student loans, and other debt. In 2001, just 13% of Americans in the age group 65 and over were employed. The percentage increased to 18% by last summer. Isn’t it the bitter reality of more work, generation of more surplus value, appropriation of more surplus value, and more hardship?

Width of the hardship can be gauged with a figure related to loss. “There are a hundred different ways of looking at the economy, and a million different statistics” wrote Rex Nutting. “But if you wanted to focus on just one number that explains why the economy can’t really recover, this is the one: $7.38 trillion. That’s the amount of wealth that’s been lost from the bursting of housing bubble, according to the Federal Reserve’s comprehensive Flow of Funds report. It’s how much homeowners lost when housing prices plunged 30% nationwide. The loss for these homeowners was much greater than 30%, however, because they were heavily leveraged.” (Rex Nutting, “How the Bubble Destroyed the Middle Class”, Market Watch, July 8, 2011)

After the burst, Rex wrote: “Most families don’t have any extra money to spend. […] The crazy thing is that our leaders aren’t even talking about this crisis. With the upper classes prospering and global markets booming, they don’t need the U.S. middle class any more. The market is up, profits are soaring, and the corporate jet is fueled and ready for takeoff.” His sarcastic comment actually unmasks the indifferent, cruel face of a political economy which bears the name capitalism: “And if the middle class can’t buy bread? Let them eat cake.”

Debt creates new chain, new moral standard, new disciplining tact as hassles and humiliation crown debtors’ lives. The GFC brought debt- reality to many debtors. “Debt collectors are getting desperate and dirty. Harassing phone calls, abusive language and physical violence are becoming a bigger part of business as debt collectors struggle to round up money from people who don’t have it. […] Complaints of harassment by debt collectors surged 50% to 67,550 in 2009, according to the Federal Trade Commission. […] The No. 1 complaint is repeated calls, and it is not uncommon for collectors to bombard consumers with back-to-back calls for days, weeks, months and even years. When debt collectors finally get someone on the other end of the phone, they are more likely to use nastier language. Complaints of debt collectors using obscene or abusive language spiked 35% last year. A 55-year old New York woman […] said a collection agent called her home repeatedly, personally attacking her and her husband. When she refused to answer the phone, the collector called her estranged sister, an ex-boyfriend and her husband’s ex-wife’s mother. ‘This guy was out of his mind and he kept calling and calling, telling me “you better talk to me, you deadbeat,”’ she said. ‘He was very threatening and the whole thing was just really unsettling -- it made you wonder who was going to show up at your door.’ She had reason to worry, since complaints of debt collectors threatening – or actually using – violence more than doubled last year, to 2,517. Keary Floyd, an attorney […] in Atlanta said that while most of his debt collection cases involve excessive phone calls, one of his recent clients recorded a disturbing phone conversation where a debt collector threatened that he or someone else would come to the client’s house to get the money in any way that he could. […] Other aggressive tactics that are becoming more common are debt collectors calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., demanding more money than what is owed, revealing a consumer’s debt to a third party or threatening ‘dire consequences’ like prosecution, jail time, property seizure or job loss. (Blake Ellis, “Debt collectors sock it to consumers”, CNNMoney.com, July 9, 2010) A single question will haunt if all fundamental questions are bluntly kept aside: How does this debtor-indignity or creditor-power correspond to freedom and liberty which are a people’s driving spirit?

Since the onset of the GFC the number of city/county/municipality gone bankrupt or filing for bankruptcy is also not insignificant in the Empire. Finance, related politics and pulls of competing interests were at the root of these cases of bankruptcy/filing for bankruptcy. There are allegations of widespread corruption, bribery and fraud charges. The last few years came across a number of important names related to bankruptcy: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s capital city, Alabama’s Jefferson County – home of Birmingham, the state’s biggest city and economic powerhouse, Stockton, California. In 2008, Vallejo became the biggest California city to file for bankruptcy. The city later emerged from bankruptcy. There is Central Falls, Rhode Island also.

Jefferson County’s filing for bankruptcy is the biggest municipal bankruptcy in US history. Harrisburg was having a crushing debt, listed about $458 million in creditors and claims, legal actions by creditors, and a power struggle. Stockton is the largest US city to file for bankruptcy. The city had the second-highest foreclosure rate in US and one of the highest crime and unemployment rates.

The bankrupt-situation with cost cutting, higher taxes and pension reductions puts pressure on health and safety services to citizens. The poor suffer the most. The situation also increases concerns in the $3.7 trillion US municipal bond market. A seemingly strange cycle: market bankrupts and bankruptcy trembles market!

But hardship, debt and gloom in the life of many don’t dominate everyone everywhere. Profit pervades powerfully, and lets a few to enjoy all the moments.

In the third quarter of 2010, corporate profits rode to a record height: $1.67 trillion. It was a 28% rise from a year ago. Non-financial US companies, according Fed, held $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of September. And 7.4% of companies’ total assets were cash – the highest share since 1959. These cash-burdened companies announced $150 billion in stock buybacks in 2010. (Zachary Roth, “Record corporate profits not producing jobs”, Dec 10, 2010) Along with news of super-high profits cases of criminal and civil fraud including crimes of tax evasion, insider trading, mortgage lending and payment collection, false statements and public corruption are coming to public view.

There are war ventures that cost billions. Two economists including a Nobel laureate have already made a calculation of cost of only one such venture. There are others, declared and undeclared ones.

A reality full with contradictory segments – sick science research and education and well-oiled war efforts, haunted debtor and overwhelming creditor, poverty and profit – impregnate society with contradictions, intensify contradictions that appear threat in the long run. Fault lines in the base of the society widen, that in turn weaken status quo, and a question raises its voice: cui bono?, for whose benefit is it? who is the gainer? The louder the question will be the more insecure will be the status quo.