Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

    Why the Dollar Bubble is about to Burst?

    IRAN HAS REALLY DONE IT...more deadlier than the nuclear..

    The Voice (issue 264 -) ran an article beginning, ' Iran has really gone and done it now. No, they haven't sent their first nuclear sub in to the Persian Gulf . They are about to launch something much more deadly -- next week the Iran Bourse will open to trade oil, not n dollars but in Euros' This apparently insignificant event has consequences far greater for the US people, indeed all for us all, than is imaginable.

    Currently almost all oil buying and selling is in US-dollars through exchanges in London and New York . It is not accidental they are both US-owned.

    The Wall Street crash in 1929 sparked off global depression and World War II. During that war the US supplied provisions and munitions to all its allies, refusing currency and demanding gold payments in exchange.

    By 1945, 80% of the world's gold was sitting in US vaults. The dollar became the one undisputed global reserve currency -- it was treated world-wide as `safer than gold'. The Bretton Woods agreement was established.

    The US took full advantage over the next decades and printed dollars like there was no tomorrow. The US exported many mountains of dollars, paying for ever-increasing amounts of commodities, tax cuts for the rich, many wars abroad, mercenaries, spies and politicians the world over. You see, this did not affect inflation at home! The US got it all for free! Well, maybe for a forest or two.

    Over subsequent decades the world's vaults bulged at the seams and more and more vaults were built, just for US dollars. Each year, the US spends many more dollars abroad that at home. Analysts pretty much agree that outside the US , of the savings, or reserves, of all other countries, in gold and all currencies -- that a massive 66% of this total wealth is in US dollars!

    In 1971 several countries simultaneously tried to sell a small portion of their dollars to the US for gold. Krassimir Petrov, (Ph. D. in Economics at Ohio University ) recently wrote, 'The US Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971 . While popular spin told the story of `severing the link between the dollar and gold', in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the US Government.' The 1945 Breton Woods agreement was unilaterally smashed.

    The dollar and US economy were on a precipice resembling Germany in 1929.
    The US now had to find a way for the rest of the world to believe and have faith in the paper dollar. The solution was in oil, in the petrodollar. The US viciously bullied first Saudi Arabia and then OPEC to sell oil for dollars only -- it worked, the dollar was saved. Now countries had to keep dollars to buy much needed oil. And the US could buy oil all over the world, free of charge. What a Houdini for the US ! Oil replaced gold as the new foundation to stop the paper dollar sinking.

    Since 1971, the US printed even more mountains of dollars to spend abroad.
    The trade deficit grew and grew. The US sucked-in much of the world's products for next to nothing. More vaults were built.

    Expert, Cóilínn Nunan, wrote in 2003, 'The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.'
    Dr Bulent Gukay of Keele University recently wrote, 'This system of the US dollar acting as global reserve currency in oil trade keeps the demand for the dollar `artificially' high. This enables the US to carry out printing dollars at the price of next to nothing to fund increased military spending and consumer spending on imports. There is no theoretical limit to the amount of dollars that can be printed. As long as the US has no serious challengers, and the other states have confidence in the US dollar, the system functions.'

    Until recently, the US-dollar has been safe. However, since 1990 Western Europe has been busy growing, swallowing up central and Eastern Europe .
    French and German bosses were jealous of the US ability to buy goods and people the world over for nothing. They wanted a slice of the free cake too.
    Further, they now had the power and established the euro in late 1999 against massive US-inspired opposition across Europe , especially from Britain - paid for in dollars of course. But the euro succeeded.

    Only months after the euro-launch, Saddam's Iraq announced it was switching from selling oil in dollars only, to euros only -- breaking the OPEC agreement.. Iran , Russia , Venezuela , Libya , all began talking openly of switching too -- were the floodgates about to be opened?

    Then aero planes flew into the twin-towers in September 2001. Was this another Houdini chance to save the US (petro) dollar and the biggest financial/economic crash in history? War preparations began in the US But first war-fever had to be created -- and truth was the first casualty. Other oil producing countries watched-on. In 2000 Iraq began selling oil in euros.
    In 2002, Iraq changed all their petro-dollars in their vaults into euros. A few months later, the US began their invasion of Iraq .

    The whole world was watching: very few aware that the US was engaging in the first oil currency, or petro-dollar war. After the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, remember, the US secured oil areas first. Their first sales in August were, of course, in dollars, again. The only government building in Baghdad not bombed was the Oil Ministry! It does not matter how many people are murdered -- for the US , the petro-dollar must be saved as the only way to buy and sell oil - otherwise the US economy will crash, and much more besides.

    In early 2003, Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela talked openly of selling half of its oil in euros (the other half is bought by the US ). On 12 April 2003, the US-supported business leaders and some generals in Venezuela kidnapped Chavez and attempted a coup. The masses rose against this and the Army followed suit. The coup failed. This was bad for the US .

    In November 2000 the euro/dollar was at $0.82 dollars, its lowest ever, and still diving, but when Iraq started selling oil in euros, the euro dive was halted. In April 2002 senior OPEC reps talked about trading in euros and the euro shot up. In June 2003 the US occupiers of Iraq switched trading back to dollars and the euro fell against the dollar again. In August 2003 Iran starts to sell oil in euros to some European countries and the euro rises sharply. In the winter of 2003-4 Russian and OPEC politicians talked seriously of switching oil/gas sales to the euro and the euro rose. In February 2004 OPEC met and made no decision to turn to the euro -- and yes, the euro fell against the dollar. In June 2004 Iran announced it would build an oil bourse to rival London and New York , and again, the euro rose. The euro stands at $1.27 and has been climbing of late.

    But matters this month became far, far worse for the US dollar. On 5th May Iran registered its own Oil Bourse, the IOB. Not only are they now selling oil in euros from abroad -- they have established an actual Oil Bourse, a global trading centre for all countries to buy and sell their oil!

    In Chavez's recent visit to London ; he talked openly about supporting the Iranian Oil Bourse, and selling oil in euros. When asked in London about the new arms embargo imposed by the US against Venezuela , Chavez prophetically dismissed the US as 'a paper tiger'.

    Currently, almost all the world's oil is sold on either the NYMEX, New York Mercantile Exchange, or the IPE, London's International Petroleum Exchange.
    Both are owned by US citizens and both sell and buy only in US dollars. The success of the Iran Oil Bourse makes sense to Europe , which buys 70% of Iran 's oil. It makes sense for Russia , which sells 66% of its oil to Europe . But worse for the US , China and India have already stated they are very interested in the new Iranian Oil Bourse.

    If there is a tactical-nuclear strike on - deja-vu - `weapons of mass destruction' in Iran , who would bet against a certain Oil Exchange and more, being bombed too?

    And worse for Bush. It makes sense for Europe , China , India and Japan-- as well as all the other countries mentioned above -- to buy and sell oil in Euro's. They will certainly have to stock-up on euros now, and they will sell dollars to do so. The euro is far more stable than the debt-ridden dollar. The IMF has recently highlighted US economic difficulties and the trade deficit strangling the US-- there is no way out.

    The problem for so many countries now is how to get rid of their vaults full of dollars, before it crashes? And the US has bullied so many countries for so many decades around the world, that many will see a chance to kick the bully back. The US cannot accept even 5% of the world's dollars -- it would crash the US economy dragging much of the world with it, especially Britain .

    To survive, as the Scottish Socialist Voice article stated, 'the US , needs to generate a trade surplus to get out of this one. Problem is it can't.'
    This is spot on. To do that they must force US workers into near slavery, to get paid less than Chinese or Indian workers. We all know that this will not happen.

    What will happen in the US ? Chaos for sure. Maybe a workers revolution, but looking at the situation as it is now, it is more likely to be a re-run of Germany post-1929, and some form of extreme-right mass movement will emerge...

    Does Europe and China/Asia have the economic independence and strength to stop the whole world's economies collapsing with the US ? Their vaults are full to the brim with dollars.

    The US has to find a way to pay for its dollar-imperialist exploitation of the world since 1945.. Somehow, eventually, it has to account for every dollar in every vault in the world.

    Bombing Iran could backfire tremendously. It would bring Iran openly into the war in Iraq , behind the Shiite majority. The US cannot cope even now with the much smaller Iraqi insurgency. Perhaps the US will feed into the Sunni v Shiite conflict and turn it into a wider Middle-East civil-war.
    However, this is so dangerous for global oil supplies. Further, they know that this would be temporary, as some country somewhere else, will establish a euro-oil-exchange, perhaps in Brussels .

    There is one `solution' -- scrap the dollar and print a whole new currency for the US . This will destroy 66% of the rest of the world's savings/reserves in one swoop. Imagine the implications? Such are the desperate things now swimming around heads in the White House, Wall Street and Pentagon.

    Another is to do as Germany did, just before invading Poland in 1938. The Nazis filmed a mock Polish Army attack on Germany , to win hearts and minds at home. But again, this is a finger in the dam. So, how is the US going to escape this time? The only global arena of total superiority left is military. Who knows what horrors lie ahead. A new world war is one tool by which the US could discipline its `allies' into keeping the dollar in their vaults.

    The task of socialists today is to explain to as many as possible, especially our class, that the coming crisis belongs purely to capitalism and (dollar) imperialism. Not people of other cultures, not Islam, not the axis of evil or their so-called WMDs. Their system alone is to blame.

    The new Iranian Oil Bourse, the IOB, is situated in a new building on the free-trade-zone island of Kish , in the Persian Gulf . It's computers and software are all set to go. The IOB was supposed to be up and running last March, but many pressures forced a postponement. Where the pressure came from is obvious. It was internationally registered on 5th May and supposed to open mid-May, but its opening was put off, some saying the oil-mafia was involved, along with much international pressure. ..........................

    In 2007 Crude was trades around 60 usd. Everyone know dollar was getting weaker and weaker day by day. Than US with the help of their two NYMEX & IPE exchange started rising the price of crude by Future trading on crude( called speculation). Today crude is around 140 usd. It means whole world who were paying 60 usd, now paying 140 usd, means demand of dollar increase to 230% and dollar start again rising.

    Even OPEC recently that in hike og crude, 60% contribution is due to speculation (Future market).

    Moral of story is USA has & will go to destroy any nation to keep its monopoly of dollar in world.

    Cheers
    Mega

  • #2
    Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

    The Socialist Voice 264 was from 11th May 2006

    The bourse was officially opened earlier this year

    On February 17, 2008, the Iranian Oil Bourse was inaugurated in a video conference ceremony from the capital Tehran attended by ministers of oil, finance and economic affairs as well as chairman of Iran's Stock Exchange and a number of other officials and financial experts. The transactions will be made in Iranian rial, yen, euro and other major currencies. The Iranian Oil Bourse will likely accept Russian ruble as well. The first transaction of the IOB took place at 9:30 the following morning, when 2200 tonnes of low density polyethylene (LD-PE), held in 100 tonne cases, were traded.
    Also another article in the same vein from Pakistan - The oil bomb

    Iran has really gone and done it now. No, they haven’t sent their first nuclear sub into the Persian Gulf. They are about to launch something much more deadly " next week the Iran Bourse will open to trade oil, not in dollars but in Euros."Scottish Socialist Voice, issue 264).

    The Iranian Oil Bourse (OIB) was registered on May 5 this year. The consequences are horrendous: with the dollar no longer the sole currency with which to trade oil, its credibility as the benchmark has weakened gravely and thrown all world currencies into a tailspin" either crashing in value making essential imports unsustainable, as with Pakistan, or increasing in value reducing their exports drastically causing huge trade deficits, as with Europe. There has been a run on non-oil producing Third World currencies as capital flight continues unabated, as in Pakistan too. That is why soft currencies are weakening against all hard currencies while non-dollar hard currencies are strengthening.

    The fall in the dollar’s value was one of the triggers of the oil price rise. Three other triggers contributed heavily too: the greed-driven speculation of oil brokers and hedge funds, the Iraq war and the new Iranian oil bourse that caused a further decline in the dollar, raising oil prices even more, like a self-sustaining upward spiral. Now add a fourth trigger: the increasing probability of some kind of strike against Iran. Estimates are that the Iraq war alone trebled the cost of oil. By May the world had spent an extra $6 trillion on higher energy prices alone since the Iraq war. Else the price would have been $40" even less but for greedy speculators and hedge funds. Oil has been trading on two dollar-denominated oil bourses, NYMEX and IPE, both privately owned by US citizens. They play a huge role in determining crude oil prices. The New York Mercantile Exchange Inc (NYMEX) was established more than 135 years ago. London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), now Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), was established in 1980. NYMEX “pioneered the development of energy futures and options contracts in 1978 as [a] means of bringing price transparency and risk management to this vital market.” This is precisely what opened the door to greed-driven speculation that has driven the price of crude unnaturally high. “IPE is one of the world’s largest energy futures and options exchanges. Its flagship commodity, Brent Crude, is a world benchmark for oil prices…” Brent is British North Sea, not OPEC.

    This kept the demand for the dollar high as oil producers were paid in dollars that they invested in western, particularly American, banks, stocks, bonds, real estate, in bailing out US corporations (like Saudi Prince Al Waleed once did Citibank and recently the UAE did) and buying billions of dollars worth of useless armaments. It was also necessary for oil-importing countries to have huge dollar reserves to buy oil. But when on May 5 Iran registered its Euro-denominated IOB in competition with the dollar-denominated NYMEX and IPE, and many countries supported it, the dollar took more beating.

    This requires some explaining. Iran did this to break free from the tyranny of the dollar. Russia and Europe welcomed the Iranian oil bourse because 70 percent of Europe’s oil is imported from Iran. The two most oil-hungry nations growing hungrier by the day, China and India, also said that they were very interested. Now you see why Iran’s president is “the most dangerous man in the world?” It has nothing to do with the damned nuclear bomb. It has to do with the detonation of the oil bomb that has detonated the dollar bomb. For America this is war, literally, because having left the Gold Standard in 1971 it had, de facto, made oil the commodity on which the dollar is based by ensuring that oil is sold mostly in dollars.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

      Originally posted by Mega View Post
      Why the Dollar Bubble is about to Burst?

      IRAN HAS REALLY DONE IT...more deadlier than the nuclear..

      The Voice (issue 264 -) ran an article beginning, ' Iran has really gone and done it now. No, they haven't sent their first nuclear sub in to the Persian Gulf . They are about to launch something much more deadly -- next week the Iran Bourse will open to trade oil, not n dollars but in Euros' This apparently insignificant event has consequences far greater for the US people, indeed all for us all, than is imaginable.

      Currently almost all oil buying and selling is in US-dollars through exchanges in London and New York . It is not accidental they are both US-owned.

      The Wall Street crash in 1929 sparked off global depression and World War II. During that war the US supplied provisions and munitions to all its allies, refusing currency and demanding gold payments in exchange.

      By 1945, 80% of the world's gold was sitting in US vaults. The dollar became the one undisputed global reserve currency -- it was treated world-wide as `safer than gold'. The Bretton Woods agreement was established.

      The US took full advantage over the next decades and printed dollars like there was no tomorrow. The US exported many mountains of dollars, paying for ever-increasing amounts of commodities, tax cuts for the rich, many wars abroad, mercenaries, spies and politicians the world over. You see, this did not affect inflation at home! The US got it all for free! Well, maybe for a forest or two.

      Over subsequent decades the world's vaults bulged at the seams and more and more vaults were built, just for US dollars. Each year, the US spends many more dollars abroad that at home. Analysts pretty much agree that outside the US , of the savings, or reserves, of all other countries, in gold and all currencies -- that a massive 66% of this total wealth is in US dollars!

      In 1971 several countries simultaneously tried to sell a small portion of their dollars to the US for gold. Krassimir Petrov, (Ph. D. in Economics at Ohio University ) recently wrote, 'The US Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971 . While popular spin told the story of `severing the link between the dollar and gold', in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the US Government.' The 1945 Breton Woods agreement was unilaterally smashed.

      The dollar and US economy were on a precipice resembling Germany in 1929.
      The US now had to find a way for the rest of the world to believe and have faith in the paper dollar. The solution was in oil, in the petrodollar. The US viciously bullied first Saudi Arabia and then OPEC to sell oil for dollars only -- it worked, the dollar was saved. Now countries had to keep dollars to buy much needed oil. And the US could buy oil all over the world, free of charge. What a Houdini for the US ! Oil replaced gold as the new foundation to stop the paper dollar sinking.

      Since 1971, the US printed even more mountains of dollars to spend abroad.
      The trade deficit grew and grew. The US sucked-in much of the world's products for next to nothing. More vaults were built.

      Expert, Cóilínn Nunan, wrote in 2003, 'The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.'
      Dr Bulent Gukay of Keele University recently wrote, 'This system of the US dollar acting as global reserve currency in oil trade keeps the demand for the dollar `artificially' high. This enables the US to carry out printing dollars at the price of next to nothing to fund increased military spending and consumer spending on imports. There is no theoretical limit to the amount of dollars that can be printed. As long as the US has no serious challengers, and the other states have confidence in the US dollar, the system functions.'

      Until recently, the US-dollar has been safe. However, since 1990 Western Europe has been busy growing, swallowing up central and Eastern Europe .
      French and German bosses were jealous of the US ability to buy goods and people the world over for nothing. They wanted a slice of the free cake too.
      Further, they now had the power and established the euro in late 1999 against massive US-inspired opposition across Europe , especially from Britain - paid for in dollars of course. But the euro succeeded.

      Only months after the euro-launch, Saddam's Iraq announced it was switching from selling oil in dollars only, to euros only -- breaking the OPEC agreement.. Iran , Russia , Venezuela , Libya , all began talking openly of switching too -- were the floodgates about to be opened?

      Then aero planes flew into the twin-towers in September 2001. Was this another Houdini chance to save the US (petro) dollar and the biggest financial/economic crash in history? War preparations began in the US But first war-fever had to be created -- and truth was the first casualty. Other oil producing countries watched-on. In 2000 Iraq began selling oil in euros.
      In 2002, Iraq changed all their petro-dollars in their vaults into euros. A few months later, the US began their invasion of Iraq .

      The whole world was watching: very few aware that the US was engaging in the first oil currency, or petro-dollar war. After the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, remember, the US secured oil areas first. Their first sales in August were, of course, in dollars, again. The only government building in Baghdad not bombed was the Oil Ministry! It does not matter how many people are murdered -- for the US , the petro-dollar must be saved as the only way to buy and sell oil - otherwise the US economy will crash, and much more besides.

      In early 2003, Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela talked openly of selling half of its oil in euros (the other half is bought by the US ). On 12 April 2003, the US-supported business leaders and some generals in Venezuela kidnapped Chavez and attempted a coup. The masses rose against this and the Army followed suit. The coup failed. This was bad for the US .

      In November 2000 the euro/dollar was at $0.82 dollars, its lowest ever, and still diving, but when Iraq started selling oil in euros, the euro dive was halted. In April 2002 senior OPEC reps talked about trading in euros and the euro shot up. In June 2003 the US occupiers of Iraq switched trading back to dollars and the euro fell against the dollar again. In August 2003 Iran starts to sell oil in euros to some European countries and the euro rises sharply. In the winter of 2003-4 Russian and OPEC politicians talked seriously of switching oil/gas sales to the euro and the euro rose. In February 2004 OPEC met and made no decision to turn to the euro -- and yes, the euro fell against the dollar. In June 2004 Iran announced it would build an oil bourse to rival London and New York , and again, the euro rose. The euro stands at $1.27 and has been climbing of late.

      But matters this month became far, far worse for the US dollar. On 5th May Iran registered its own Oil Bourse, the IOB. Not only are they now selling oil in euros from abroad -- they have established an actual Oil Bourse, a global trading centre for all countries to buy and sell their oil!

      In Chavez's recent visit to London ; he talked openly about supporting the Iranian Oil Bourse, and selling oil in euros. When asked in London about the new arms embargo imposed by the US against Venezuela , Chavez prophetically dismissed the US as 'a paper tiger'.

      Currently, almost all the world's oil is sold on either the NYMEX, New York Mercantile Exchange, or the IPE, London's International Petroleum Exchange.
      Both are owned by US citizens and both sell and buy only in US dollars. The success of the Iran Oil Bourse makes sense to Europe , which buys 70% of Iran 's oil. It makes sense for Russia , which sells 66% of its oil to Europe . But worse for the US , China and India have already stated they are very interested in the new Iranian Oil Bourse.

      If there is a tactical-nuclear strike on - deja-vu - `weapons of mass destruction' in Iran , who would bet against a certain Oil Exchange and more, being bombed too?

      And worse for Bush. It makes sense for Europe , China , India and Japan-- as well as all the other countries mentioned above -- to buy and sell oil in Euro's. They will certainly have to stock-up on euros now, and they will sell dollars to do so. The euro is far more stable than the debt-ridden dollar. The IMF has recently highlighted US economic difficulties and the trade deficit strangling the US-- there is no way out.

      The problem for so many countries now is how to get rid of their vaults full of dollars, before it crashes? And the US has bullied so many countries for so many decades around the world, that many will see a chance to kick the bully back. The US cannot accept even 5% of the world's dollars -- it would crash the US economy dragging much of the world with it, especially Britain .

      To survive, as the Scottish Socialist Voice article stated, 'the US , needs to generate a trade surplus to get out of this one. Problem is it can't.'
      This is spot on. To do that they must force US workers into near slavery, to get paid less than Chinese or Indian workers. We all know that this will not happen.

      What will happen in the US ? Chaos for sure. Maybe a workers revolution, but looking at the situation as it is now, it is more likely to be a re-run of Germany post-1929, and some form of extreme-right mass movement will emerge...

      Does Europe and China/Asia have the economic independence and strength to stop the whole world's economies collapsing with the US ? Their vaults are full to the brim with dollars.

      The US has to find a way to pay for its dollar-imperialist exploitation of the world since 1945.. Somehow, eventually, it has to account for every dollar in every vault in the world.

      Bombing Iran could backfire tremendously. It would bring Iran openly into the war in Iraq , behind the Shiite majority. The US cannot cope even now with the much smaller Iraqi insurgency. Perhaps the US will feed into the Sunni v Shiite conflict and turn it into a wider Middle-East civil-war.
      However, this is so dangerous for global oil supplies. Further, they know that this would be temporary, as some country somewhere else, will establish a euro-oil-exchange, perhaps in Brussels .

      There is one `solution' -- scrap the dollar and print a whole new currency for the US . This will destroy 66% of the rest of the world's savings/reserves in one swoop. Imagine the implications? Such are the desperate things now swimming around heads in the White House, Wall Street and Pentagon.

      Another is to do as Germany did, just before invading Poland in 1938. The Nazis filmed a mock Polish Army attack on Germany , to win hearts and minds at home. But again, this is a finger in the dam. So, how is the US going to escape this time? The only global arena of total superiority left is military. Who knows what horrors lie ahead. A new world war is one tool by which the US could discipline its `allies' into keeping the dollar in their vaults.

      The task of socialists today is to explain to as many as possible, especially our class, that the coming crisis belongs purely to capitalism and (dollar) imperialism. Not people of other cultures, not Islam, not the axis of evil or their so-called WMDs. Their system alone is to blame.

      The new Iranian Oil Bourse, the IOB, is situated in a new building on the free-trade-zone island of Kish , in the Persian Gulf . It's computers and software are all set to go. The IOB was supposed to be up and running last March, but many pressures forced a postponement. Where the pressure came from is obvious. It was internationally registered on 5th May and supposed to open mid-May, but its opening was put off, some saying the oil-mafia was involved, along with much international pressure. ..........................

      In 2007 Crude was trades around 60 usd. Everyone know dollar was getting weaker and weaker day by day. Than US with the help of their two NYMEX & IPE exchange started rising the price of crude by Future trading on crude( called speculation). Today crude is around 140 usd. It means whole world who were paying 60 usd, now paying 140 usd, means demand of dollar increase to 230% and dollar start again rising.

      Even OPEC recently that in hike og crude, 60% contribution is due to speculation (Future market).

      Moral of story is USA has & will go to destroy any nation to keep its monopoly of dollar in world.

      Cheers
      Mega
      Mega, I don't think Israel or the US is going to bomb IRAN, for one simple reason, you don't showcase you military prowess, in public no less, demonstrating that you are capable of doing something.

      Before the Germans attacked pearl harbor (sorry, had to, love animal house),

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=rtP3whUbgZE

      you don't think that they publicly demonstrated that the were eminently capable of doing it to the world media, nor did they state that they were intent on doing it as well. You know why, they would have given away the element of surprise. I could be wrong, we'll see, but the military side of me thinks that that ship has already sailed out into the sunset.

      BTW you should know the back story for arms for hostages (contra-gate) and understand Israel's MUCH underreported involvement in sending arms to Iran. Ya, I know "we also gave arms to Sadaam, and look what happened there right?"

      I'm just saying be a little skeptical, not a lot, but enough, that's all.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

        I believe it was in the press at least 4 weeks ago that the Iranian Oil Bourse trading in Euros is in now in effect, however at this point in time they are only dealing in oil derrivative products not crude oil itself. Is the OP's quote possibly talking about Iran finally dealing crude oil?

        Mike

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

          what am i missing? the dollar bubble broke in 2001.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

            Originally posted by jtabeb View Post
            Mega, I don't think Israel or the US is going to bomb IRAN, for one simple reason, you don't showcase you military prowess, in public no less, demonstrating that you are capable of doing something.

            Before the Germans attacked pearl harbor (sorry, had to, love animal house),

            http://youtube.com/watch?v=rtP3whUbgZE

            you don't think that they publicly demonstrated that the were eminently capable of doing it to the world media, nor did they state that they were intent on doing it as well. You know why, they would have given away the element of surprise. I could be wrong, we'll see, but the military side of me thinks that that ship has already sailed out into the sunset.

            BTW you should know the back story for arms for hostages (contra-gate) and understand Israel's MUCH underreported involvement in sending arms to Iran. Ya, I know "we also gave arms to Sadaam, and look what happened there right?"

            I'm just saying be a little skeptical, not a lot, but enough, that's all.
            Just a footnote here:

            Iran used to have a pro-Western, pro-US, pro-democracy, pro-Isreal, pro-progress, pro-energy, pro-intellectual, LIBERAL, AND SOMEWHAT TOLERANT GOVERNMENT. And these stinkers, these Islamo-fascists, toppled the Shah of Iran and took over the Iranian Govn't.

            These Islamo-fascist thugs are still running Iran to this day. They are just as radical as ever, and don't think for one moment that they won't use their atomic bomb once they get it.

            How shameful--- and I mean SHAMEFUL---that BBC America and the BBC World Televison runs news programmes which showcase life in Islamic countries and make life in those countries, even in Iran, seem attractive. There is also sympathy for Islamo-fascists on university campuses to-day, campuses such as UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz. Sadly and amazingly, this sympathy with Islamic-radicals is by leftists.... Again, how shameful!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

              Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
              There is also sympathy for Islamo-fascists on university campuses to-day, campuses such as UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz. Sadly and amazingly, this sympathy with Islamic-radicals is by leftists.... Again, how shameful!
              Are you an infiltrator?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

                Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                Just a footnote here:

                Iran used to have a pro-Western, pro-US, pro-democracy, pro-Isreal, pro-progress, pro-energy, pro-intellectual, LIBERAL, AND SOMEWHAT TOLERANT GOVERNMENT. And these stinkers, these Islamo-fascists, toppled the Shah of Iran and took over the Iranian Govn't.

                These Islamo-fascist thugs are still running Iran to this day. They are just as radical as ever, and don't think for one moment that they won't use their atomic bomb once they get it.

                How shameful--- and I mean SHAMEFUL---that BBC America and the BBC World Televison runs news programmes which showcase life in Islamic countries and make life in those countries, even in Iran, seem attractive. There is also sympathy for Islamo-fascists on university campuses to-day, campuses such as UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz. Sadly and amazingly, this sympathy with Islamic-radicals is by leftists.... Again, how shameful!
                The Shah of Iran would not make it into my book about things that we, the united states should be proud of. The shah's repression and crimes against his people are quite honestly on par (if not worse) than the methods of the current regime. How do I know this, I was childhood friends some kids who went to our mosque. Their father just happened to be the US ambassador to Iran when the Shah's regime fell.

                You seem to like the term "Islamo Fascist". Here are my thoughts on it from wikkipedia:

                [One of the world's leading authorities on Fascism, Walter Laqueur, after reviewing this and related terms, concluded that "Islamic fascism, Islamophobia and antisemitism, each in its way, are imprecise terms we could well do without but it is doubtful whether they can be removed from our political lexicon."]

                You are correct, these are bad folks. I think you confuse political theater with actual intent. Have you noticed that George Bush tends to sound "crazy" and "not grounded in reality" when he sends messages to other leaders (the bad guys) in this world? There is a reason for this, and if you've ever played poker, you'd know what that is. It's the same reason Putin projects a "I don't give a **** attitude about the US".

                The things that you are commenting on are the ripples on the surface of the water, that's what the public sees and you should be forgiven for basing you perception of reality on that. But I'm here to tell you that beyond that raging surface of public chest thumping is the other 95% of what's actually going on. "The rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say.

                If you would tolerate me being a little paternal, please do yourself a favor and go see "charlie wilson's war" if you haven't seen it yet. I think you'll understand what I'm saying better if you do.

                BTW It's good in geo-politics to be though of as "a little crazy", this adds uncertainty and may aid in keeping your opponent off-balance. "Too crazy" is usually a detriment, because your enemies might actually believe you mean to do what you SAY you mean to do. That is the classic trade-off in brinkmanship, maintaining a credible position or threat WITHOUT forcing an actual armed conflict. That's why we play the game, to try to NOT fight wars.

                One last thing, you state that

                "and don't think for one moment that they won't use their atomic bomb once they get it."

                The Iranians may be radical, crazy, and muslim, but one thing they have clearly demonstrated they NOT, is irrational. Which is to say they are quite rational and having quite a go as an emergent regional power.

                Okay, one more last thing, just to put things in perspective for you.

                1). Who is Iran closer to militarily? Pakistan (a Muslim country) or India (a mostly Hindu country)

                2). Which country is Turkey (again a Muslim country) closet to militarily? (Besides the US, of course)

                If you answered
                1). India
                2). Israel

                Then CONGRATS, and you know what you are talking about. If not, well you have some reading to do, don't you?
                Last edited by jtabeb; July 27, 2008, 09:50 PM. Reason: grammer or grammar one of those two.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

                  Originally posted by metalman View Post
                  what am i missing? the dollar bubble broke in 2001.
                  Umm, nothing. What am I missing?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

                    Originally posted by jtabeb View Post
                    Umm, nothing. What am I missing?
                    title of thread: Why the Dollar Bubble is about to Burst?

                    fact: it burst seven years ago.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

                      Great post Jtabeb. Right on the money. Steve, I sympathise with a lot of your views, but there is much in Jtabeb's comment (most, if not all of it!) which is spot on. Very robust informed explanation there from Jtabeb. In one other sense however, I tend more to Steve's own view, that the repression under the Shah actually left a great deal of secular freedom in society, including an educational system that was gearing up to vault the country up considerably to become perhaps one of the most modern and permissive culturally in the entire Middle East. Not a small point, is it? Although I can imagine a good number of people here getting red in the face to read even the mention of such a thing as the Shah is a focal point of distaste for America's machinations abroad.

                      But here's the point: The people who got the chop under the Shah were those who ventured into political dissidence. And this is where I'd note to Jtabeb that he is not fully taking this actually very large distinction into account. There are many countries in the world today where political dissidence from what is essentially a one party state does not receive any less crude and repressive a treatment than Iranians did under the Shah. Because the Shah is the poster boy of "American Puppet" regimes, the extent and quite evident brutality of his Savak are "extolled" while quite similar practices among a half dozen other countries today are not regarded as providing such fertile ground for the damnation of American hegemonism.

                      American hegemonism is probably entirely real, but it's another thing entirely to start distorting historic parallels in the hot pursuit of agenda driven morality tales. The plain, ideologically ugly fact is, under the secular Shah, the vast majority of people not interested in probing their political freedoms paradoxically had considerable secular freedom - this translated into a country with a fairly robust economy. Contrast that to today's theocratic, stifling Mullah government, and the entire nation lives in fear of a far broader series of proscribed liberties than mere political involvement today, and the economy is grossly mismanaged and suffocating. Or look at the cultural attrition and resulting horror: Today in Iran, if you are gay and discovered, you are liable to be hung, even if you are 17 years old.

                      If you are a young couple and fall in love and have intimate relations outside of marriage, one or the other of you may risk death. Political dissent? Every bit as repressive as under the Shah. Except then their economy and the universities were flowering, and today they are stagnant and the economy despite a massive oil dividend is crumbling with soaring inflation. The big difference? In once instance, the vast majority of Iranians were upwardly mobile, the universities were producing some of the best educated graduates in the entire region, and the economy was very healthy. Today, you can flip ALL of those factors into reverse. Gee! What's the big difference then, if the Shah was also such an unmitigated dictator? Answer - one of them was secular, and that is key.

                      Therefore I caution you Jtabeb - it is possible to get "too sophisticated" in factoring in the products of American hegemonism, former and present "client states" with ugly one-party systems, and past ones, such as the Savak's rampages under the Shah. But what Steve is calling to your attention is that under any secular repressive state, there is a vastly greater range of freedoms than under a theocratic repressive state. The theocratic variety are the ones that become truly virulent, as they have a powerful mission at the core of the theocratic idea, to "proselytize" that religion eventually beyond their borders. In that view, I am squarely with Steve on this distinction.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

                        Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                        Great post Jtabeb. Right on the money. Steve, I sympathise with a lot of your views, but there is much in Jtabeb's comment (most, if not all of it!) which is spot on. Very robust informed explanation there from Jtabeb. In one other sense however, I tend more to Steve's own view, that the repression under the Shah actually left a great deal of secular freedom in society, including an educational system that was gearing up to vault the country up considerably to become perhaps one of the most modern and permissive culturally in the entire Middle East. Not a small point, is it? Although I can imagine a good number of people here getting red in the face to read even the mention of such a thing as the Shah is a focal point of distaste for America's machinations abroad.

                        But here's the point: The people who got the chop under the Shah were those who ventured into political dissidence. And this is where I'd note to Jtabeb that he is not fully taking this actually very large distinction into account. There are many countries in the world today where political dissidence from what is essentially a one party state does not receive any less crude and repressive a treatment than Iranians did under the Shah. Because the Shah is the poster boy of "American Puppet" regimes, the extent and quite evident brutality of his Savak are "extolled" while quite similar practices among a half dozen other countries today are not regarded as providing such fertile ground for the damnation of American hegemonism.

                        American hegemonism is probably entirely real, but it's another thing entirely to start distorting historic parallels in the hot pursuit of agenda driven morality tales. The plain, ideologically ugly fact is, under the secular Shah, the vast majority of people not interested in probing their political freedoms paradoxically had considerable secular freedom - this translated into a country with a fairly robust economy. Contrast that to today's theocratic, stifling Mullah government, and the entire nation lives in fear of a far broader series of proscribed liberties than mere political involvement today, and the economy is grossly mismanaged and suffocating. Or look at the cultural attrition and resulting horror: Today in Iran, if you are gay and discovered, you are liable to be hung, even if you are 17 years old.

                        If you are a young couple and fall in love and have intimate relations outside of marriage, one or the other of you may risk death. Political dissent? Every bit as repressive as under the Shah. Except then their economy and the universities were flowering, and today they are stagnant and the economy despite a massive oil dividend is crumbling with soaring inflation. The big difference? In once instance, the vast majority of Iranians were upwardly mobile, the universities were producing some of the best educated graduates in the entire region, and the economy was very healthy. Today, you can flip ALL of those factors into reverse. Gee! What's the big difference then, if the Shah was also such an unmitigated dictator? Answer - one of them was secular, and that is key.

                        Therefore I caution you Jtabeb - it is possible to get "too sophisticated" in factoring in the products of American hegemonism, former and present "client states" with ugly one-party systems, and past ones, such as the Savak's rampages under the Shah. But what Steve is calling to your attention is that under any secular repressive state, there is a vastly greater range of freedoms than under a theocratic repressive state. The theocratic variety are the ones that become truly virulent, as they have a powerful mission at the core of the theocratic idea, to "proselytize" that religion eventually beyond their borders. In that view, I am squarely with Steve on this distinction.
                        While I've heard it's true that you can find beauty in a horse's ass if you only look deep enough, I'll respectfully agree to disagree on this one. I'm not going to even touch the "secular freedom to consume and live a western lifestyle..." argument. Of course with the prerequisite to the former essentially being defined as lacking possession of any meaningful political power (or more appropriately, an existence predicated on being a non-threat to the existing power structure), I'm not sure any argument is required? "free to be, or free to buy, that is the question",if I understand you correctly.



                        But all the "bad stuff" in Iran right now is our best chance of success in dealing with them, believe it or not. The political battle with Iran will turn on which societies' internal inconsistencies will become overwhelming first. Theirs or ours (meaning the coalition of nations working to counter Iran's aims).

                        Very, luckily for us, their shame is more fragile and has less elasticity than our shame, so I think we will end-up okay in the end. I'm talking north korean success here, giving them a bunch of things that they want in order to drop it, essentially.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

                          Originally posted by jtabeb View Post
                          While I've heard it's true that you can find beauty in a horse's ass if you only look deep enough, I'll respectfully agree to disagree on this one. I'm not going to even touch the "secular freedom to consume and live a western lifestyle..." argument.
                          Not sure why you're "not going to even touch the secular freedom to consume and live a western lifestyle" argument Jtabeb, as this is the core of the (very fashionable) contemporary conceit I see a lot of people subscribing to. How many people do you see up in arms today about the Chinese version of "limited secular freedom to consume"? Is that a horse's ass too, compared to the Maoist theology that preceded it? Not a whole lot of people up in arms about the slavery of China's new consumer classe, eh? That's because the vast majority of Chinese remember a life that had so many fewer chances when it was an agrarian (theocratic) society under the tutelage of Mao. That's the point you seem to skip over, and that was really my main point. All those people "carrying a torch" for the horrific repression under the Shah don't seem to employ their somewhat academic, purist, Western OECD nation-focused Parliamentarian consciences too uniformly, seeing as they omit to express anything like this degree of democratic principled outrage at any number of other countries who are also without representative democracies. I think in short, that "oversight" contains a quantity of BS - you can't talk with lofty irony about "the freedom to be an enslaved consumer" under the Shah, or other one party states and be credible unless you are also heard voicing such objections robustly about countries like Singapore.

                          Now many people here may be offended to hear someone equating Singapore with countries like Iran under the Shah, but actually there were some notable similarities. And of course Singapore is a far more exemplary country than was the Shah's Iran, totally different, but that's in fact the core of the point. An "enlightened one party state" where the desire for true democracy has been tamed, can perfectly well proceed to become an exemplary state, if it is secular, pro-liberal education, pro business (means capitalist essentially in some form), and encouraging of free activity by foreign businesses entering that nation and prospering along with a growing middle class. There are a lot of things there which the Shah was on the road to.

                          I have some very highly educated and intelligent Iranian friends. They are not conservative or liberal. They are to a great extent apolitical. The sum of what I point out here is the sum of what they've had me understand. And you need to acknowledge the point without any fudging. In many, many countries of the world these almost stereotypically American ideas, of the "sanctity of constitutional democracy" are regarded as decidedly second tier concerns. What is the primary concern is for their economies to flourish, their children to obtain good secular educations and be competitive in the global workplace. If you go there and start waving your arms around haranguing them about the fact they are slave consumers with a ring through their nose to the state, they will tell you to "get real" and come live in their family and understand their number one priority - and that is to get ahead, and see their children climb above their station in life. If they can get that with an enlightened despot, or even just a strictly average despot, they will jump at that chance and tell you to take your ivory tower notions of the criticality of democracy somewhere else.

                          That's the point, and the corrollary is that under the Shah a great many working class Iranians had at least some doors open to higher education and joining the country's meritocracy. Under the Mullahs these opportunities are severely degraded in comparison. I wonder if you get this point - no-one is protesting the lack of democracy in China. They see a vast number of peasants with at least some more opportunities than they had under the Maoist theocracy, and that is a "good thing". That's the "black and white difference between the Shah's Iran, and Ahmedinejad's Iran. I trust those Americans most who have the cultural horizons to understand that a vast part of the world's population does not have our rather spoiled political heritage - for them every small step towards a non ideological government, a government dedicated exclusively to growing the working populations's wealth pragmatically, is a government they are happy to endorse. Are you on board with this distinction, and if so, do you recognise that our dismissals of societies that are merely "free to shop" is actually a somewhat unobservant outlook derived from having been somewhat spoiled by the constitution and centuries of parliamentary democracy?

                          I otherwise find all your posts excellent Jtabeb. Lots of very smart commentary IMHO. You (and ASH) provide some very good impromptu analysis of foreign affairs in this community.


                          IRAN_TRUMPS.jpg
                          Last edited by Contemptuous; July 28, 2008, 12:47 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

                            Originally posted by jtabeb View Post
                            If you would tolerate me being a little paternal, please do yourself a favor and go see "charlie wilson's war"
                            It does sound as if you may have read it already. The book covers substantionally more ground, but is also a very entertaining read. I found the movie boring. Maybe it was Phillip Hoffman that caused that.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Lefty's view on the $ (Good read)

                              Yes, I'll totally admit that I'm an idealist, I'm also a pragmatist. And that's the spirit in which I wrote the first response. I thought SS's first post was realy grounded in idealogical propaganda (observation, not a critique), and I was trying to add some pragmatic "color" as a contrast.

                              I think we agree though, the main point is that Iran is, and will be a problem for us. I was just trying to point out that alternative outcomes are possible, and that military conflict is not inevitable (even thogh some some have surmised that it is).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X