Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[gnk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

You are making excellent points gnk and I agree that unfortunately, if the West leaves the ME, something worse could replace it (Incidently, it has been awhile since I have encountered a thread that is as emotionally charged as this one - its kinda like religion ).

My point was simply that the West is not a "cop" as this implies somewhat good things, but a mafia organization competing against other "mafia organizations" for control.

Perhaps I am an idealistic dreamer, but if the ME countries would be left alone at least they could suffer from their own mistakes and enjoy their successes, but with that much oil underneath their feet, I reckon that this is very unlikely to happen.

Largo - I agree with you, and you are right that the tactics used are more mafia than cop.

And yes, if the Middle East was allowed to sort it out for themselves, it would eventually evolve into a more stable area. I would even submit that the religious fervor would eventually die out or at least not be as extreme.

One thing I have noticed living in Greece is that Greece's history of foreign domination, from the Ottoman Empire, to the Venetians, the English, and now the Germans(?)etc... has affected the Greek psyche. Many Greeks sometimes rightfully, sometimes wrongfully, blame larger countries for their shortcomings. It will take a long time, if ever, for this to go away. It is an easy rhetorical tool for politicians to use. I can sort of understand how in the Middle East, the same psychology will always persist.

And sometimes it is the worst, most extremist elements of a society that use this foreign domination meme as a crutch to deflect their shortcomings and to grow their power. It's a very unique dynamic seen in smaller countries that either have resources or geostrategic relevance.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

If the intent of the recent spectacle was to stall the economy (which may have been slowing down on its own without any help), how would highlighting the amount of federal debt help to justify more financial sector subsidies?

It is not clear the intent is to stall the economy per se, so much as it is to create the perception of a stall as being due to the debt ceiling (as opposed to the output gap trap).

And since the debt ceiling is intimately connected to FIRE, it provides an excellent excuse for another round of FIRE subsidies - only this time the Peter being robbed is Social Security/Medicare.

I'm being a realist here folks, not a jingoist. It sucks to be them and yes, the cop could be doing a better job. But he's our cop. And don't think for a minute that if we let them do as they please that someone else, Russia or China, doesn't take over and then kiss your way of life goodbye. Power vacuums don't exist for too long.

The problem with your theory is that the United States is not in the least bit interested in order. Both mafia and cops inherently are: the former to maintain revenue streams which can be tapped, the other by charter though indirectly also to maintain taxation revenue streams.

A better analogy would be the spoiler attack: the intent isn't to defeat the enemy as it isn't possible. Rather, the intent is to f*** them up in the cheapest and most damaging way possible, because that ultimately helps you.

Keeping the ME in a permanent state of internecine warfare means those people will never be able to significantly leverage the energy resources they sit on. This only helps as the US is the single largest consumer of oil in the world; any extra 'protection' oil subsidies that also arise is a nice short term benefit as well.

If some sovereign nation like Saudi Arabia is willing to perform said economic oppression on behalf of the 'cop', then that's great.

If not, the US goes in and either subsidizes a nice distraction (Israel & Lebanon, Palestinians, Syria, Jordan), invades and 'regime changes' (Iraq), supports then dumps a dictator (Mubarak et al), ostracizes within the international community (Iran), or supports a freedom/separatist/balkanization movement via aerial bombardment (Libya).

As for borders being written in blood - this is a completely nonsensical statement. Somehow the past bloodshed in the ME and North Africa is irrelevant, but the past bloodshed in Asia and Europe was more effective? The ME is what it is because of the actions of past and present empires: Persia, Rome, Alexander the Great, etc etc. as well as fundamentally just being a really tough place to build a modern economy. I mean, besides oil - what other strategic mineral resource(s) is the ME known for? Its past value was entirely a function of trade routes to Asia.

[Prazak]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

And sometimes it is the worst, most extremist elements of a society that use this foreign domination meme as a crutch to deflect their shortcomings and to grow their power. It's a very unique dynamic seen in smaller countries that either have resources or geostrategic relevance.

I would add smaller countries that have the misfortune of being neighbors with bigger countries -- the countries between Russia and Germany being the example that comes most quickly to mind, along with those covered by the Monroe Doctrine.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

If the intent of the recent spectacle was to stall the economy (which may have been slowing down on its own without any help), how would highlighting the amount of federal debt help to justify more financial sector subsidies?

ej said years ago that the u.s. would follow japan in alternating between stimulus and austerity. the austerity, especially in the face of an already stalling economy, will cause further weakness. then what happens? since the political process is paralyzed, fiscal stimulus is out. that leaves monetary stimulus, qe3. what entities are the first and the prime beneficiaries of fed largesse? the banks.

[gnk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

C1ue,

I said in an early post above that the "cop" role requires "mafia" tactics as there is no institution or country large enough to pay this "cop" a salary. Hence, the mafia tactics - the cop pushes the diplomatic envelope and pays himself in order to make the effort worthwhile. The balancing act is smacking around those he can just enough, without getting too greedy and creating the environment where larger players gang up on him for being to piggish.

Divide and conquer, overthrow adversarial governments, or keep them weak - as you describe etc... are common tactics. But as the US does this in the Middle East, everyone in the western world has benefitted, even countries like Germany and Japan that are in the US "sphere." Germany and Japan like to eat steak - yes occasionally they complain about how the cow was handled - but don't kid yourself, they want those steaks coming...

I never meant the term "cop" to mean some benign role... that's why I mentioned mafia tactics. But the relative macro stability is the "cop" part of it - the "indispensable nation." Countries don't think in terms of morality like you and I, they think first in terms of self interest. I hope that makes it clearer.

As for your disagreement about my boundaries of blood comment - let's call it sovereign darwinism. Has the Middle East, on its own, ever had a chance to go thru a darwinistic episode (e.g. WWII)? No, it has not. As you said there is a long history there, but I am looking at the petroleum era. Churchill onward to today.

Borders are written in blood by the immediate neighboring countries - North America, Europe, Asia... but regions with heavy outside interference with borders drawn by outside powers for their convenience - the Balkans, Africa, Middle East - the tribalism has never exhausted itself. That tribalism is like a boiling pot that superpowers, every once in awhile, for their convenience, lift the lid and let some steam out. Are the Superpowers always successful? No.

So here's my question I pose to the iTulip (American) community:

Does any American here really think that if the US packed its bags and entirely left the Middle East and cut all foreign aid and covert operations that the world would be a better place for the average American? I'm speaking in terms of living standards here.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I never meant the term "cop" to mean some benign role... that's why I mentioned mafia tactics. But the relative macro stability is the "cop" part of it - the "indispensable nation." Countries don't think in terms of morality like you and I, they think first in terms of self interest. I hope that makes it clearer.

Your argument would be stronger if you could provide some evidence of either tacit or explicit support.

Merely benefiting doesn't equate to supporting.

For that matter, you could say the ruling elite of Egypt benefits from this US policy, but in reality they would not act any different than they do now because their goal isn't to be a US puppet but to be in control of their own nation.

Whether they are subsidized by the US or not, this would not change.

As for whether the ME would be better off or not - I'd have to say that it is impossible to even consider that the ME would be worse off than it is now. The rest of the world? Unlikely to be significantly different - most other nations are not subsidized by the petro-dollar standard and in fact are penalized by it.

The only nation which most directly benefits from the petrodollar standard is the US.

Trying to justify US behavior in the Middle East as being altruistic or necessary is frankly a very long stretch.

You're trying for a reprise of the "White Man's Burden" argument of the Pax Brittanica Kipling era.

[gnk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Your argument would be stronger if you could provide some evidence of either tacit or explicit support.

Merely benefiting doesn't equate to supporting.

For that matter, you could say the ruling elite of Egypt benefits from this US policy, but in reality they would not act any different than they do now because their goal isn't to be a US puppet but to be in control of their own nation.

Whether they are subsidized by the US or not, this would not change.

As for whether the ME would be better off or not - I'd have to say that it is impossible to even consider that the ME would be worse off than it is now. The rest of the world? Unlikely to be significantly different - most other nations are not subsidized by the petro-dollar standard and in fact are penalized by it.

The only nation which most directly benefits from the petrodollar standard is the US.

Trying to justify US behavior in the Middle East as being altruistic or necessary is frankly a very long stretch.

You're trying for a reprise of the "White Man's Burden" argument of the Pax Brittanica Kipling era.

Far from it. My entire argument is based on realpolitik... it's a jungle out there. I never said the US is in the Middle East for their sake. The US is in the ME for the US - others free ride, others lose. Life is not fair. That's just how it is.

There is no altruism in my argument. Just self interest, and convenience. That's how nations act. Altruism and morality are concepts the man in the street understands and these concepts are used to sell wars to the ignorant masses. White man's burden and "they hate us because we are free" are two sides of the same coin. Such arguments/theories are not policy, they are marketing tools aimed at the masses for justifying war and domination.

The question is not if the ME is better off or not - it is not their choice to make. The choice is for the US to make. That's how Superpowers think and behave.

c1ue, you and I are looking at this very differently.

[gnk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Your argument would be stronger if you could provide some evidence of either tacit or explicit support.

Merely benefiting doesn't equate to supporting.

For that matter, you could say the ruling elite of Egypt benefits from this US policy, but in reality they would not act any different than they do now because their goal isn't to be a US puppet but to be in control of their own nation.

Whether they are subsidized by the US or not, this would not change.

As for whether the ME would be better off or not - I'd have to say that it is impossible to even consider that the ME would be worse off than it is now. The rest of the world? Unlikely to be significantly different - most other nations are not subsidized by the petro-dollar standard and in fact are penalized by it.

The only nation which most directly benefits from the petrodollar standard is the US.

Trying to justify US behavior in the Middle East as being altruistic or necessary is frankly a very long stretch.

You're trying for a reprise of the "White Man's Burden" argument of the Pax Brittanica Kipling era.

Far from it. My entire argument is based on realpolitik... it's a jungle out there. I never said the US is in the Middle East for their sake. The US is in the ME for the US - others free ride, others lose. Life is not fair. That's just how it is.

There is no altruism in my argument. Just self interest, and convenience. That's how nations act. Altruism and morality are concepts the man in the street understands and these concepts are used to sell wars to the ignorant masses. White man's burden and "they hate us because we are free" are two sides of the same coin. Such arguments/theories are not policy, they are marketing tools aimed at the masses for justifying war and domination.

The question is not if the ME is better off or not - it is not their choice to make. The choice is for the US to make. That's how Superpowers think and behave.

c1ue, you and I are looking at this very differently.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Far from it. My entire argument is based on realpolitik... it's a jungle out there. I never said the US is in the Middle East for their sake. The US is in the ME for the US - others free ride, others lose. Life is not fair. That's just how it is.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

On the one hand, you seem to imply that having the US as the 'cop', mafia-esque or otherwise, benefits others like Japan and Germany.

On the other hand you say the US does whatever it wants to do because it can.

I'd submit that invading Iraq did nothing to improve the short term oil price situation for the US.

I'd submit that bombing Libya does nothing to improve the short term oil price situation for the US.

For that matter, the economic isolation of Iran has done nothing to improve the short or long term oil price situation for the US.

In every single example, the supply of oil from the country in question fell after US intervention, and continues to be low. This should theoretically push prices up, not down.

Now maybe there's some magical master plan where all of these actions results in lower oil prices in the future, but that is far from clear.

On the other hand, if these actions are viewed as either incompetent posturing, or spoiling attacks, or petro-dollar propping up via doing the Saudis dirty work for them, that would make some sense.

But of course in all three of these possibilities - which are not mutually exclusive - the US isn't the driving factor per se.

They're just the bumbling idiot doing the work.

[gnk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I'm describing the US' role in the middle east. I never said the US' actions were always smart. read all my posts above in this mini thread and I think it will be clearer to you.

[coolhand]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Bingo.

"It's all about controlling oil" is extraordinarily facile.

If you keep an oil producing region in chaos while supporting a few dictators in those regions, without damaging the oil infrastructure itself, you extend the period of time where you have unfettered access to the oil, and it will be cheaper. If you don't have chaos, then the oil $ will drive economic development that wil drive more oil use in the region, reducing oil net exports and making the oil more expensive for the US...

[EJ]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Please don't give up on this thread. Deference goes to the members with first hand experience, to those who have been in a place for many years and are connected to the placed still. Who are generous enough to share their experiences and insights earned through years of sacrifice -- trips away from family and friends and the mundane and recuperating routines of daily life at home versus on the road.

Your generosity is very much appreciated.

[lektrode]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Please don't give up on this thread. Deference goes to the members with first hand experience, to those who have been in a place for many years and are connected to the placed still. Who are generous enough to share their experiences and insights earned through years of sacrifice -- trips away from family and friends and the mundane and recuperating routines of daily life at home versus on the road.

Your generosity is very much appreciated.

+1
have learned more about whats _really_ going on - in real time - in the ME from GRG than any other source

unbelieveable at times, the abundance of resources around here, mahalo EJ for makin it all happen.

[Down Under]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

+1
have learned more about whats _really_ going on - in real time - in the ME from GRG than any other source

unbelieveable at times, the abundance of resources around here, mahalo EJ for makin it all happen.

Couldn't agree more; iTulip takes some navigating but once mastered, the only resource I can be bothered reading every day.

[c1ue]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I'm describing the US' role in the middle east. I never said the US' actions were always smart. read all my posts above in this mini thread and I think it will be clearer to you.

Sorry, I re-read all your posts, and they're still not coherent.

How about you summarize your position in 5 sentences or less.