First the US has more oil reserves that are not tapped than would be needed for centuries.
Apologies, but this is blatantly incorrect. It is more expensive to access those oil reserves than it is to sell. I.e., not profitable. Indeed, the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, stated in a report,
"there are no economically viable ways yet known to extract and process oil shale for commercial purposes, and Utah tar sands deposits are not at present a proven commercially-viable energy source." ~
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-14/pdf/2011-9120.pdf
There's a general confusion on this issue, and unfortunately this confusion is intentionally created. There is "tight oil" and then there is "oil shale." Tight oil, which is often referred to as "shale oil,"
(and therein lies the confusion) is relatively easy to extract, and is thus an economically viable energy source, except for
plays having very short life and attributed for just 20% of the oil obtained in our recent boom.
The great deposits reported
(or should I say, hyped), that of reports exceeding 2 trillion barrels, are of oil shale, which is not easy to extract, not cost effective to extract, and the wells are short lived. As stated by the reputable geoscientist, David Hughes of the Post Carbon Institute,
"<shale oil> wells decline rapidly within a few years. Those in the top five U.S. plays typically produced 80–95% less gas after three years," also stating,
"That's the Achilles heel of shale gas. You need a lot of wells and environmental collateral damage and infrastructure to grow supply." This translates to approximately 5 years of life
(not 40 years, as posed by Exxon) and with only a dismal 10% extraction
(compared to conventional oil extraction, which runs over 90%), that 2 trillion turns into a hard-earned 200 billion barrels. ~
http://www.postcarbon.org/reports/DBD-report-FINAL.pdf
And then there's the issue of an exponentially growing consumption, due to expansions on technology, production, commercial/residential expansion, and human population. It is estimated that world energy consumption will increase by 44% over the next 24 years. David Hughes states,
"the cumulative amount of energy consumption required to sustain such an increase amounts to 71 percent of all the hydrocarbons consumed between 1850 and 2011—in just 24 years. This would get us to 10 times the average per capita energy consumption of 1850 and 70 times the total energy throughput."
(image linked from Forbes)
Also, investing in oil shale drilling is economically dangerous because it is dependent upon high oil prices. Without high oil prices, there's no profit. In 1982 this very mistake was experienced, resulting in the loss of billions in corporate & government money
(due to subsidies provided as a result of increasing oil prices) and over 24,000 jobs. When the price of oil dropped, the costs far exceeded the gains. ~
http://www.centerwest.org/publications/oilshale/3engineering/6blacksunday.php
The problem here is that oil prices are dictated largely by OPEC, which the U.S. and its industries have repeatedly treated as hostile, as adversaries, and for good reason. It is speculated the drop in oil prices back in May of 1982 was intentional, a calculated assault on U.S. shale drilling efforts. Because oil shale drilling is so expensive, the only way it can make a profit is if oil prices are high. An excess of investment into oil shale drilling could very well be undermined by OPEC dropping the price of their barrels, repeating what occurred back in 1982.
I close this argument with a warning from David Hughes,
"The lack of abundant cheap energy, which allowed the rapid growth in supply of natural resources inputs and the exploitation of arable land and water over the past century, is likely to be a steep change unlike anything observed thus far in the evolution of industrial society."
By going to third world and as you say rape and pillaging the land and people they are being forced to join the world econemy.
It is well documented that chocolate producing corporations
(in the U.S. and Europe) obtain their cocoa beans from cocoa plantations in west Africa, harvested through child slavery. ~
http://www.ilo.org/public//english//standards/ipec/themes/cocoa/download/2005_02_cl_cocoa.pdf
It is well documented that brand
(and non-brand) name U.S. and European clothing companies obtain their products from sweat shops managed in India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, China, Thailand and other countries that do not place a high value on human rights and safe working environments. Indeed, it is figured that many of these overseas clothing producers employ children and utilize indentured servants
(debt bondage) and convicts for cut rate profits. ~
(take your pick) --
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/677/t/10607/shop/shop.jsp?storefront_KEY=749
It is well documented that
American employers
(mostly government contractors) hire illegal aliens to work for paltry wages under sub-optimal living conditions, for long hours in unsafe working conditions, so they can obtain greater profits. Indeed, Republican Presidents have repeatedly demonstrated their acquiescence to such practices whilst simultaneously railing against illegal immigration. In 1999, under President Bill Clinton, the US government collected $3.69 million in fines from 890 companies for employing undocumented workers. Contrast that to, George W. Bush, whose administration in 2004 levied NO fines for U.S. companies employing undocumented workers. ~
http://usliberals.about.com/od/immigration/a/IllegalImmi_2.htm
Are you
really going to argue we're forcing them to join the world economy? Are you
really going to try and give consumerism an altruistic spin? Are you
really going to push that corporate wigs care more for people and the world economy than they do for their own individual short-term profits? I'm sorry but didn't you just argue, in the quote below, a tinfoil conspiracy? I'm confused...
Then you say the UK assist well the US and UK and federal reserve are controlled by the same people.
Please provide evidence to support your assertion here, otherwise it's just another tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.
The better question is why would we "promoting other countries economies? while stalling ours and controlling our population.
You posed a catch question. Promoting other countries' economies does
not stall ours. In fact, helping other countries economies helps our economy. This is a global economy we live in now. A lot has changed in 100 years, we're no longer isolated. Almost everything we do is globally impacting or influenced. Helping other nations has a positive impact on the global economy, which has a positive impact on the U.S. and other countries that do business with the U.S.
Dont look to the US citizen who are just as much a victum as everyone else,
Umm, U.S. citizens are not victims. We live in a prosperous republic, we elect our representatives, we vote on issues. U.S. citizens are empowered, but many of us decide to sit on our butts and not participate
(over 40% of the eligible voters did not vote in the 2012 election). We ignore the atrocities committed on our behalf and consume without consideration for how our products are obtained.
Being apathetic does not make someone a victim.
Look to the worlds powers behind the governments.
And those "world powers" are?
