It wouldn’t be one you’d win…
Last time the US won a war (WWII) it was awash in oil, the biggest producer in the world at the time. If you were on your own, where would you find the energy to fight a WW? The US can’t even keep a lid on Iraq, so what’s the point ofstarting another WW? I don’t get this. Another WW wouldn’t be the beginning of the end, it would be the END.
This will hasten the process:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/33f5d15a-c010-11dd-9222-0000779fd18c,Authorised=true.html?nclick_check=1
[quote]The current strength of the dollar is temporary and the US currency risks a hard landing in 2009, according to a team of United Nations economists who foresaw a year ago that a US downturn would bring the global economy to a near standstill.
In their annual report on the world economy published today, the economists say the dollar’s sharp rebound this autumn has been driven mainly by a flight to the safety of the international reserve currency as the financial crisis spread beyond the US.
The overall trend remains a downward one, however, reflecting perceptions that the US debt position is approaching unsustainable levels. An accelerated fall of the dollar could bring new turmoil to financial markets. "Investors might renew their flight to safety, though this time away from dollar-denominated assets, thereby forcing the US economy into a hard landing and pulling the global economy into a deeper recession," the report says……
The UN team says that, as the financial crisis spread beyond the US, there has been a massive shift of global financial assets into US Treasury bills, driving their yields almost to zero and pushing the dollar sharply higher. But at the same time the US’s external debt has risen to new heights that could provoke a dollar collapse.
The report recommends reform of the international reserve system away from almost exclusive reliance on the dollar and towards a globally backed multi-currency system.[/quote]
Maveri,
"My sincere hope is that capitalism does indeed fall but that people band together to work on a new system that will be fair and equitable to all… " Here Here.
However, there is no need to sincerely hope that Capitalism falls - it’s unsustainable, it’s reached it’s limits to growth in it’s most essential comodity (oil) and is already falling. Capitalism is in terminal decline (or collapse) cannot be revived in anything like it’s current form. This truly represents an emergency because we have no other economic system to replace it, no other way to run the system that provides us with our needs and wants.
I recomend that all who read this site, read the ececutive summary of my forthcoming book "Peak Capitalism: Our Oppportunity to Choose between Survival and Collapse" in which I explain the problems we face and put forward a proposal for transition to a new economic system. here’s the link: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~lionelorford/Peak%20Capitalism%20exec%20summary.pdf
My email is available from my personal website: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~lionelorford/ Well considered, constructive criticism is welcome.
However, there is no need to sincerely hope that Capitalism falls - it's unsustainable, it's reached it's limits to growth in it's most essential comodity (oil) and is already falling. Capitalism is in terminal decline (or collapse) cannot be revived in anything like it's current form.
Oh my gosh! Lionelorford doesn’t know the difference between socialism and capitalsm, so he’s blaming the collapse of socialism on capitalism. Central banking is right out of Marx’s Communist Manifesto. We are not living under a capitalist system by any means. The book should be titled "Peak Socialsm."
What a great irony. The former socialist nations of Asia are growing wealthy through capitalism and the former capitalist nations in the West are sinking into socialist poverty.
hewittr,
Your response is so ridiculous that I really shouldn’t respond - but I just can’t help myself.
The Central Banking system is privately owned by a tiny rich elite and effectively places control of our money in private hands while exerting vast influence over our governments and the information given to the electorate. How can this be something that Marx would recomend? I openly admit that I have not read his Manifesto (or Das Capital) but I would be interested in a few quotes to support this proposition.
You really need to understand the stuff I put forward in my book - but alas, it would seem that your belief system would not allow you to read it.
A major concern with my proposal is that it will be branded - by the likes of yourself and many others - as socialism. It would be disingenuous for me to claim otherwise, although I do believe that mine is a proposal to avoid the pitfalls of 20th century socialism. My proposal is to maintain free enterprise within a monetary system controlled by ‘we the people’.
Lionford
You twist the facts. The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by President Wilson in 1913. It was set up as a banking cartel to get around the Constitution. It would be very disingenuous of you to argue that the Federal Reserve system is a private free market monopoly. It was set up subsidize government deficits with fiat money. It’s right there #5 in Marx’s ten points. Look it up.
The origins and purpose of the Federal Reserve is covered in The Creature from Jekyll Island, on Chris’s recommended
reading list. You are correct about the tiny wealthy elite. Which
argues that our government is more accurately a plutocracy or a
form of corporatism. But free market capitalism it ain’t. Once government takes charge, it ain’t free anymore.
You really need to understand the stuff I put forward in my book - but
alas, it would seem that your belief system would not allow you to read
it.
First you’ll have to convince me you understand free market capitalism. If you don’t understand it, then you are not qualified to criticize it.
My proposal is to maintain free enterprise within a monetary system controlled by ‘we the people’.
Controlled by the people? That sounds Orwellian to me. To a capitalist that means private ownership in a laissez faire setting. To a communist that means State ownership. A State sanctioned cartel like the Federal Reserve is a form of State ownership.
I have to go for the day. Do return. I’m sure I can pick your ideas apart with ease.
I’m confused by the link which lionelorford produced. In it it is stated:
"Capitalism is a monetary system in which all money is created as interest bearing bank debt,
through a system known as Fractional Reserve Banking."
But that sounds like the definition of a debt-based money system, not capitalism. Not that Google is the end all of true definitions but it is a voice:
By a majority of these definitions, capitalism can exist independently of fractional reserve banking.
I do not claim to be an expert in fractional reserve banking, capitalism, socialism, or any other "ism" for that matter, but it didn’t add up for me. I’m open to clarification.
Also, I found this statement:
"…However, it is crucial to have an inspirational leader to rally the people and generate
a sense of common purpose; and indeed, the people often choose inspirational leaders in
troubled times. The election of Barack Obama is a highly pertinent example of this.
The importance of his election, both for America and the rest of the world, can hardly be
overstated. He has restored to America the hope that their democracy can be made to work.
He has restored hope to the international community that America will again constructively
engage with the world to meet the monumental challenges that we face, after the devastating
antipathy towards international cooperation of the Bush Administration."
Ordinarily, in everyday conversation, I don’t correct people on this, but this document is written in a way that is, for the most part, polished and poignant, and it seemed to drop the ball in regards to the fact that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Again, ordinarily this isn’t worth mentioning, but at times this paper gets so granular and is so painstakenly specific, that it was strange when this discipline was given up, seemingly conveniently, to make later connections which would be more difficult, though not impossible, to make without the use of the word "democracy".
Besides that, I think that your use of the word "hope" would be better exchanged for the word "optimism."
For many, hope never leaves. For if it had, as is the premise of this statement, Obama would not have been elected. For Obama to be elected, hope would have had to already exist to mobilize one’s self. Therefore, I believe the election of Obama did not restore hope.
I believe you have, in fact, managed to overstate it.
An argument could more easily be made that it restored optimism, for even in hard times, real hope endures.
I can only speak for myself, but…
…Hope is what gives us the ability to make a difference in the lives of those around us, sometimes more so than any president. Hope is what speaks to us to do what is right. Hope is what helps us keep a watchful eye on those who are elected, and the strength to be diligent in this regard. Hope is what gives us the understanding that the ship can still be steered by the people, no matter who the president is. Hope is simultaneously our best reason against complacency, and our true cause for patience.
Hope is why we base our optimism on meaningful action, not on emotion.
True hope exists independently of our elected officials.
Thanks for posting the document. I have not finished reading it, but plan to.
LaFanze and hewittr: I agree with you 100%! Thank you for helping me maintain my optimism that this forum will not devolve into a senseless condemnation of capitalism based on false premises.
The Federal Reserve has effectively created a Command Economy here in which they are able to manipulate prices by loaning money into existence and freely adjusting the money supply to suit their desires. There is nothing "free" or "for the people" about our present system.
We have to realize that socialism always leads to inefficiency, failure, and collapse. We have no evidence to see otherwise. It tramples the rights of the individual under the false promises of collectivism while at the same time transfering the wealth of the People to the elite Commanders. That is exactly what is happening today with these bailouts.
Fractional reserve, fiat banking is a monopolistic price fixing scheme that is incompatible with a finite world and civil, individual liberty and freedom. Incidentally, a banking cartel prevents the existence of true capitalism (i.e. we don’t have capitalism today).
I don’t think I will ever trust the government to manage my life. It’s made things bad enough already.
The biggest Fraud of this era is that capitalism is what caused this financial crisis. That is the argument of the statists - the ones who want more control at the People’s expense.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." — Thomas Jefferson
I don’t know, I see stuff like this and wonder if the U.S.A. would ever
allow a gold standard - or another country to depeg the buck to oil or
any commidity. I kind of think that if we can’t print we can’t
empire…
Kind of makes me think another WW might not be out of the question.[/quote]
It wouldn’t be one you’d win…
Last time the US won a war (WWII) it was awash in oil, the biggest
producer in the world at the time. If you were on your own, where
would you find the energy to fight a WW? The US can’t even keep a lid
on Iraq, so what’s the point ofstarting another WW? I don’t get this.
Another WW wouldn’t be the beginning of the end, it would be the END.
[/quote]
Chuckle
It is next to impossible to win a defensive guerrilla war when you refuse to oppress the population. But it is relatively easy to win a guerrilla war if do suppress the population. That’s why Sadam didn’t have so many guerrilla problems.
But no, any WWIII examination begs the question of what kind of war it’d be? A nuclear war has an obvious end, but is unlikely – except between Pakistan and India. The second greatest possibility would be a mess starting with North Korea nuking South Korea as part of an opening gambit for a unification war. Probably while the USA and Japan are busy being depressed.
I’d pity the country that tried to directly invade the United States. Unless they had Canada and/or Mexico on their side, they’d be screwed. Talk about a logistical nightmare. Worse, unlike in WWII where we landed on ‘friendly-turned enemy territory’ against an overstretched and already worn foe who was caught fighting on three fronts, this would be a direct attack against the heartland of the world’s most powerful space, ground, air, and naval force. (In conventional War, the United States was winning something like 100:1 in casualty rates against Iraq). Worse, the one area of warfare that United States is bad at: A Grinding Insurgency, would instead be working in the USA’s favor. We have no shortage of crazy gun nuts here that’d be happy to blow the heads off of every invading soldier, free of charge.
Lets be frank, the United States occupies what may be the world’s most enviable defensive position. The US would be sheer hell to invade even by a much stronger invading military force.
If the United States is instead doing the invading, we already have a clear vision of what would happen. Likely a rapid conventional victory against any but an alliance of several powerful military nations, followed by a grinding insurgency after which we’d go home asking ourselves what the heck we were doing in the first place.
Of course, all this ignores the fact that nearly all the major military powers that could effectively oppose the United States happen to be strong allies…
No, if you are looking for the embers of WWIII, look for countries who have neighbors they’d like to invade. Especially those that might feel otherwise constrained by a powerful USA/NATO.
In any case, I’d point out that the USA produces a good chunk of its own oil and gets lots of the remaining oil from Canada and Mexico. We are certainly in a much much better oil position than Japan and Germany were at the beginning of WWII.
–
Steve
Lionel: I read more of your summary, you ENTIRE premise of Peak Capitalism is that fractional reserve banking and capitalism are the same thing. Nothing is further than the truth. This falsehood basically destroys the veracity of your entire document. With all respect, I hope writing like yours does not make it out to confuse people further about what the real Crisis at hand is
You forgot Israel and Iran
LaFanze, can you explain " United States is a republic, not a democracy. "? Why can’t a Republic be a democracy? The French Republique is a Democracy… what’s wrong with yours?
This argument about Capitalism NOT beng the same thing as fractional banking is splitting hairs methinks. Capitalism, by definition, relies on raising capital ‘to get things done’, so I fail to see how one would raise this capital without borrowing money from a bank, which all operate under the fractional system.
In fact, when I look out the window, EVERYTHING was built on debt, capital raised through fractional banking…
"
I’d pity the country that tried to directly invade the United States."
Who’d want to…?
"Lets be frank, the United States occupies what may be the world’s most
enviable defensive position. The US would be sheer hell to invade even
by a much stronger invading military force. "
All you’d need to do is turn the oil taps off.
There’d be gas riots in the streets in no time, and when you’re all done killing each other over gas at the pumps, we could come in and pick off the leftovers. Cinch…
But like I said, who’d bother…
As long as we control the seas, nobody will invade. China cant invade because the Navy they have is pathetic. The Army China has is huge, but how do you move it? Russia’s Navy is for the most part, mothballed. The only thing that will invade us is ICBM’s.
"In any case, I’d point out that the USA produces a good chunk of its
own oil and gets lots of the remaining oil from Canada and Mexico. We
are certainly in a much much better oil position than Japan and Germany
were at the beginning of WWII."
Mexico? Haven’t you heard of the Export Land Model? Mexico will probably stop selling you oil some time in 2010. Left to your own devices, your current reserves would last just six years at current consumption.
Re the second statement, WWII, it is rarely acknowledged, was all about oil. Hitler attacked Nth Africa and Russia for its oil (as its CTL plants were totally inadequate at running a war), whilst Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after your then government decided to stop selling oil to Japan because of its imperialist ambitions in the Pacific… Japan invaded China, Indonesia and Malaysia entirely for their oil…
Funny how some things never change. No one would bother invading the US for its oil, that’s for sure!
Greetings,
I worked in the record industry for a number of years and in that time I produced a lot of Hip Hop. I knew that one of the artists I was working with was a Crip (he had been in prison and was currently earning a living as a Pimp btw).
Stay with me here, there is a point to all this.
Anyway, about midway through his album I asked him some questions about the feud between his gang and the Bloods. Furthermore, I explained to him that an outsider, such as myself, had a very difficult time understanding the differences between the two gangs. "They wear red" he responded and gave me a look as to suggest that I might be dumb. "I understand that" I replied, "but how are you different?" "We wear blue - that is the difference."
The fact that other men wore a different color or did different things with their fingers made all the difference in the world to him. One kid I knew got life in prison for murdering two kids on their way to school. Their crime? He flashed them a gang sign and they didn’t know how to respond. Oh yeah, I don’t do hip hop anymore. Regardless, someone not immersed in that culture just can not see the difference between one gang and the next or know that the way you wiggle your fingers can mean life or death.
Now, I happen to be an Anarchist - a Noam Chomsky kind of Anarchist if that helps. Anyway, it is a political philosophy I’ve had most of my adult life. I’m somewhat politically active, have a 501(c)(3) non profit corporation that restores and archives audio recordings of historical importance and I do other fun things to try to help my community. Funny, but I’ve been this way so long that, like the gangs, Republicans, Democrats, Capitalists, Communists, Socialists, Fascists and Plutocrats all look the same to me - criminals.
I’m sick to death with everyone arguing about the merits of one criminal organization vs. another criminal organization.
Communism (Soviet Style): A small group of people have most of the power and resources.
Democracy (American Style): A small group of people have most of the power and resources.
Fascism (All Styles): A small group of people have most of the power and resources
Capitalist Democracy (S. Korea): A small group of people have most of the power and resources
Capitalist Communist (China): A small group of people have most of the power and resources
It doesn’t matter how you name it or mix and match the names because there is no difference. The faster we all learn this the better off we will all be. 
Actually, America stopped selling steel to Japan as well because it was alarmed of the naval buildup Japan was doing.
How about:
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
Explains it better than I ever could, and in one page.
Keith
( a TRUE republican, stuck in a democracy. 
One more for good measure, on gov’t in general:
http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-government-destroys-moral.html
Keith.