Democrats were willing dupes...again

[ALLCAPS]

FROM THE ARMCHAIR I GOT THIS BABY ALL WORKED OUT. WE NEED GUNS AND SPEED. ALL ELSE WILL WORK ITSELF OUT IN THE END.

[Bug]

 

Don't get me wrong, the Democrats are not God's gift either. I just think that anyone who focuses on the idiocracy's of any DC politician is missing the point. Its a forest dude.

Its a very sick forest.

 

Classic fall-back maneuver. Where's your spine, man?

I have actively scrutinized and criticized every President, Senator, and Rep represeting me since I came of voting age and registered. I get Christmas cards from all my friends in DC because they hear from me so often. To blindly accept any politician's statements is irresponsible.

Reagan was one of the WORST presidents this country has ever had because he started the dismantling of the constituion and bill of rights. He also re-wrote the Presidential Powers using public support via his brilliant propoganda machine.

Now we see the same trend with George Bush. The republican party controlled all three branches of government for 6 years.

Are we better off? Hell no.

Did they do any of the "Christian" things they promised? Hell no.

 

That anyone can support either party blindly in these times is scary.

You have to have your head in the sand.

Now THAT is spineless.

[Serenity]

Serenity's "creating a battlespace" theory has all the complexity and reality of a video game. Some points that seem to have been left out:

 

1) Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has been responsible for only a fraction of the bombings and attacks in Iraq. The majority of the violence has been brought on by rival groups within the country. It's a turf war, not a terrorist war. Prior to our invasion, these groups coexisted; it was our invasion and the destabilization that it caused, accelerated by the the sudden unemployment of 200,000 armed soldiers and an early tolerance of thugs like M.Sadr that created the violent rivalries we see today.

 

2) By what measure have we cleaned Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia out of Iraq? With our previously stated HUMINT deficit, how could we even know this? The violence levels certainly wouldn't indicate any such positive trend.

 

3) Terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda did not move wholesale into Iraq to be destroyed by Captain America's mighty shield. They recruited in country from an ample supply of disgruntled Iraqis. They have spread and grown around the world, and are now operating, very effectively, in many countries, in part spurred on by their publicized successes against U.S. forces in Iraq. One previous comparison is worthy of repetition, however; As what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan, we've had our asses handed to us by failing in nearly every single one of our conflict objectives, all the while losing 3 trillion dollars worth of our economic empire, creating a more dangerous and less stable East Asia, and flushing our international credibility, respect for human rights, and cooperative relationships down the toilette.

 

We are a poorer, weaker, less moral, and more vulnerable country after the invasion of Iraq.

 

 

EVERYTHING you just wrote is a misinformed opinion, that once again you have stated as fact. Your thoughts on many issues are so far off base, they're laughable. I usually keep you firmly on the ignore feature, and now I am even more content to do so.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

FW….did you vote for Bush? Because if you did….you are part of the problem. Over 1 million innocent people are dead because YOU VOTED FOR HIM!

 

 

Interesting, boner. So, if FW voted for Gore in 2000, then clearly Gore would have won Washington state and tipped the balance giving Gore enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

 

What a minute. Gore won WA state handily.

 

You're a dumbass.

 

[Hugh Conway]

Your thoughts on many issues are so far off base, they're laughable. I usually keep you firmly on the ignore feature, and now I am even more content to do so.

 

Are you going to tell us again how the US economy is larger than Europe and China combined?

[tvashtarkatena]

Serenity's "creating a battlespace" theory has all the complexity and reality of a video game. Some points that seem to have been left out:

 

1) Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has been responsible for only a fraction of the bombings and attacks in Iraq. The majority of the violence has been brought on by rival groups within the country. It's a turf war, not a terrorist war. Prior to our invasion, these groups coexisted; it was our invasion and the destabilization that it caused, accelerated by the the sudden unemployment of 200,000 armed soldiers and an early tolerance of thugs like M.Sadr that created the violent rivalries we see today.

 

2) By what measure have we cleaned Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia out of Iraq? With our previously stated HUMINT deficit, how could we even know this? The violence levels certainly wouldn't indicate any such positive trend.

 

3) Terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda did not move wholesale into Iraq to be destroyed by Captain America's mighty shield. They recruited in country from an ample supply of disgruntled Iraqis. They have spread and grown around the world, and are now operating, very effectively, in many countries, in part spurred on by their publicized successes against U.S. forces in Iraq. One previous comparison is worthy of repetition, however; As what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan, we've had our asses handed to us by failing in nearly every single one of our conflict objectives, all the while losing 3 trillion dollars worth of our economic empire, creating a more dangerous and less stable East Asia, and flushing our international credibility, respect for human rights, and cooperative relationships down the toilette.

 

We are a poorer, weaker, less moral, and more vulnerable country after the invasion of Iraq.

 

 

EVERYTHING you just wrote is a misinformed opinion, that once again you have stated as fact. Your thoughts on many issues are so far off base, they're laughable. I usually keep you firmly on the ignore feature, and now I am even more content to do so.

 

Uh oh. Now you're REALLY gonna ignore me. I'm SO devastated!

 

 

[Serenity]

Well Tvashtarkatena, considering your spew is all over about every other thread on this website, it's kind of hard to ignore you 100% of the time. You should try and separate your fantasy life and reconcile the reality that you're nothing more than a chronic opinionated poster on a web forum. I just hope your mouth clamps shut a lot faster than your fingers do on a keyboard.

 

 

*** A different P.O.V.

The prominent features of the global economy in 2008 will be oil and energy issues, a U.S. dollar that is weakening yet becoming more important and a strong performance by the U.S. economy.

 

Oil prices finally will fall in 2008. Much of the price buildup in recent years has been the result of geopolitical risk introduced by Iran war scares, the occupation of Iraq, Nigerian domestic politics, Venezuelan seizures, piracy in the Strait of Malacca, the war against al Qaeda and Russia’s energy policy.

 

The world has changed. Iran is moving toward an agreement with the United States on Iraq, Nigerian politics have calmed, the market has priced in Venezuelan nationalism, states in the Malacca region have managed to get piracy under control and al Qaeda’s operations have been sequestered in the Afghan-Pakistani border region. The only wild card remaining in 2008 is the Russians, who could limit their exports of oil and natural gas as part of Moscow’s struggle with the West. However, since such restrictions would impact Russia’s own exports, any geopolitical impact on energy prices in 2008 is unlikely.

 

The expected downward trend in oil prices will not carry over to other commodities, such as food and minerals. The price increases of these products in recent years are the result of rising and more varied demand — such as the new biofuels industry’s increasing need for crops. There is no reason to expect such demand to falter, and there are no new supplies of any minerals expected to come on line that might be large enough to cause prices to substantially drop. The one exception could be foodstuffs, whose supply in large part is determined by the weather (something we do not attempt to forecast).

 

While energy prices will moderate in 2008, there will not be a collapse. Since the declines will be relatively mild and since most oil exporters have managed to save up vast sums, very few producers will suffer any substantial financial stress. In fact, nearly all oil producers will continue to accrue near-record amounts of income, stabilizing them politically and economically despite the moderate downturn in prices. The two countries to watch are Argentina and Venezuela, which both have been spending their petroleum income as fast as it has come in, and whose lack of long-term investment in production has resulted in steady output drops in output for years.

 

Yet there is another aspect to this equation. Prices have been strong since 2003 and have given rise to a major trend that will surge forward in 2008: the steady deliberalization of the energy sector.

 

Producing states — from Venezuela to Kazakhstan — are seeking to rake in as much income from energy production as they can, regardless of how dependent they might be upon foreigners to produce that energy. On the coin’s other side, consuming states — from Malaysia to Argentina — need to assert control over their energy industries in order to head off the social and economic problems caused by sustained high prices. Some countries on both sides — such as China — are afraid of how powerful their energy firms have gotten, and they see deliberalization as a means of combating that challenge. Countries such as Russia see state control of the energy sector as a good thing — and a good thing that allows other policy options. Still, more — most notably Hungary — see such intervention as a means of preventing undue foreign influence.

 

In 2008, energy deliberalization will be the game of the day, and Stratfor expects the following countries to be particularly active in asserting the role of the state: Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, China, South Korea, Nigeria, Indonesia, Japan and Canada.

 

Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar — which has slipped by 50 percent in the past six years — will give more ground in 2008, since the trends that have shaped the past few years have not yet run their course. Unconvinced that the euro would succeed, central banks dumped European currencies when it was launched in 1998. They now are dialing back from that position, as well as purchasing more gold. Both of these trends have a negative impact on the U.S. dollar, and both have more room to run.

 

None of this is a vote of no confidence in the dollar; contrary to the crowing out of Venezuela, Iran and, on occasion, Russia, the dollar is in no danger of losing its status as the world’s de facto currency. In fact, contrary to conventional wisdom, the role of the U.S. dollar in the international economy is increasing.

 

All of the energy-producing economies sell their products in U.S. dollars. The Chinese yuan is de facto pegged to the dollar, and nearly every other economy in the western Pacific Rim is loosely pegged to it as well. Combine the dramatic increase in the size of the Chinese economy and the pileup of dollars in the Arabian Peninsula from high oil prices (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries members earned more than half a trillion dollars in 2007 from oil alone) and the result is a de facto dollar bloc.

 

Yet none of these economies boasts sufficient size or sophistication to handle all of this inflow, and how they manage such vast sums will prove a major development of 2008.

 

Many of the Arab oil states have chosen to invest in economic diversification so that they will not suffer as they have in times past the next time oil prices plunge. To this end, they are investing heavily in refining and heavy chemical industry facilities, both at home and in consumer countries. In most cases, the Arabs are providing only the capital for such ventures, with either imported expatriates or foreign hosts providing both the labor and the management for the projects. The Russians, of course, are investing in their own geopolitical push and are attempting to purchase as much energy infrastructure in Europe as possible (something the Europeans are resisting fiercely), while the Chinese are hoping to use at least some of the cash to bail out those of their state-owned enterprises that are worth saving. But even this leaves the vast majority of the accrued monies untouched — in dollars or U.S.-based investments.

 

Beyond the tactical details, the bottom line is that most of Asia, the Arabian Peninsula and the United States have de facto merged into a single system of exchange that has become more important in purely economic terms than the U.S. relationship with Europe. Not since the heady days of the British Empire has a single currency held sway over so much of the world. Yes, these entities are diversifying their investments, which is reducing the value of the U.S. dollar vis-à-vis the euro, but the more important trend is the strengthening of the dollar’s role as the reserve currency of the world — forming the base of the reserve economy of the world.

 

Combine weaker energy prices (which free up resources) with a lower dollar (which boosts exports) and the U.S. economy is primed for a strong performance in 2008. A brief slowdown in early 2007 shook out some inconsistencies that built up during the post-9/11 boom, and the stage is set for another extended expansion.

 

Many will mourn that the subprime lending crisis is about to cause major problems — and perhaps even a recession. Stratfor sees these fears as overblown for two reasons. First, mortgages that enter default are different from other defaulted loans in that mortgages have their own built-in collateral in the form of houses. Rather than getting back pennies on the dollar, creditors likely will recoup most of their money. This, combined with the fact that not all subprime loans will go bust, drastically reduces subprime’s impact.

 

Second, every so often, the Western financial sector needs a shock to remind itself that it is not Asia and that loans need to be evaluated on strict economic criteria before being granted. During the 2005-06 subprime surge, this lesson had been forgotten. Now it has been remembered, and banking institutions have forced the mortgage broker industry to rate loans more appropriately. As a result, most of those brokers have gone under, and many construction projects have lost funding. Those who have been hurt worst are those who leveraged subprime mortgage assets (and should have known better).

 

This rationalization of risk is bad for the housing sector in the short run but excellent for the banking sector and the wider economy in the longer run. Yes, one sector has taken hits and will take more in 2008. But the primacy of economic rationality already has reasserted itself. This is a core strength of the U.S. and Western systems; without it, these economies would look like Japan’s. The knocks resulting from the subprime crisis could indeed take some shine off of growth in 2008, but that would simply change it from a banner year to “merely” a strong year.

 

The global trade agenda will be somewhat muted in 2008. Talks on the next World Trade Organization round, Doha, have been all but suspended, and no major economy will join the organization in the next year. Neither will there be any progress on other major deals among or within trade blocks — largely a result of European efforts to push through their newest treaty (an echo of the constitution that failed in 2004) and the U.S. presidential election. Trade talks will be limited to ironing out a few minor bilateral deals between the United States and small powers — deals that are now before Congress — and between the European Union and its former colonies.

[tvashtarkatena]

 

 

Oil prices finally will fall in 2008. Much of the price buildup in recent years has been the result of geopolitical risk introduced by Iran war scares, the occupation of Iraq, Nigerian domestic politics, Venezuelan seizures, piracy in the Strait of Malacca, the war against al Qaeda and Russia’s energy policy.

 

What blog shat out this Farmer's Alamanac of bullshit economics? Global oil production is peaking while worldwide demand, lead by China, is growing rapidly. Prices will continue to rise. They may continue to dip slightly from their all time high, but not much. It's just not that complicated. Piracy in the Straight of Malacca? Might make for an action packed Wesley Snipes blockbuster, but such events hardly have much of an effect on world oil prices.

 

Oh, and if you don't like the kinds of things people post on this board, um, don't log on. Or try posting less patently stupid shit.

Edited March 27, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[sexual_chocolate]

ah yes, the eloquence shines again.

 

but seriously, what is the source for the above thoughts?

 

i find myself somewhat in agreement about the sub-prime situation....

[Matt Kidd]

"Out of Gas" David Goodstein

[kevbone]

FW….did you vote for Bush? Because if you did….you are part of the problem. Over 1 million innocent people are dead because YOU VOTED FOR HIM!

 

 

Interesting, boner. So, if FW voted for Gore in 2000, then clearly Gore would have won Washington state and tipped the balance giving Gore enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

 

What a minute. Gore won WA state handily.

 

You're a dumbass.

 

WA State had nothing to do with Bush becoming president. It was all about Florida and the Supreme Court.

 

How is it that Gore won the popular vote yet Bush is president? Because of the backwards voting system the USA has in place.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

FW….did you vote for Bush? Because if you did….you are part of the problem. Over 1 million innocent people are dead because YOU VOTED FOR HIM!

 

...

WA State had nothing to do with Bush becoming president.

 

EXACTLY. So your attack is meaningless. FW could have stayed home. No difference.

 

[JayB]

You do also remember that hostages held by Iranians were released in exchange for weapons, and there was also some cash in there that ended up funding Central American death squads. All of course enacted in secret without the knowledge of Congress. (read: illegal)

 

So actually, we were on some levels funding BOTH sides, which kind of kills the "clear and present danger", "pick the most altruistic motive for funding murderous regimes" rationalization.

 

Um, those were different hostages than the ones in question. And they were held by Hezbolla in Lebanon, not Iran. That Reagan was willing to strike a deal for Iranian influence and spare parts several years after the embassy hostage crisis is an issue separate from the one in question. I think you have your history mixed up.

 

No mix up here. I know exactly which hostages were which. In any case, last I checked, for all practical purposes, Hezbollah=Iran, doesn't it? The issue there is our government publicly proclaimed that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" yet did exactly that, without congressional knowledge.

"Spare Parts"? You mean weapons, and if current accusations against Iran are at all true, some remnants of which are probably being used against American troops in Iraq right now.

 

And alright then, I partially retract- I have no source to cite regarding poison gas elements coming from the US to Iraq, I have only heard this from unconfirmed channels- but does it even really matter which killing instruments we gave them?

 

The bottom line is, who do we think we are to provide support for such regimes while supposedly standing as the beacon for human rights in the world? On that note, let's go look at China- currently one of the world's most repressive, brutal, human rights abusing regimes. We give nothing more than tepid condemnation and idle urgings to them. Why? Because we have this great business relationship with them and without it, our economy would fold. They own our asses, and everyone knows it. And how did this come about?

 

So in the end, it seems that human rights, freedom, democracy, is not really what we are concerned with; we're concerned with meddling and interfering in shitty foreign situations in whatever way we can find that might benefit us economically, playing groups off one another and fighting wars whenever we piss off one side enough. Then we invoke the former issues as justification to keep everyone dutifully quiet and supportive.

 

Which specific conflicts does this apply to in your mind?

 

Which people are currently less free than they would have been had the US not intervened or taken sides in a particular conflict? Are there any cases where - to your mind - US taking sides has had the opposite effect? Can the US actions in all of the above cases be completely understood in terms of the economic advantages associated with them?

[Mal_Con]

I think the Bush administration made the mistake of believing forst the neocons and later their own propaganda. They thought it would be a quick toppling then installation of a friendly government followed by democracy, peace, oil and ponies for everyone. Enough of the dems (can you say Hillary and Cantwell) believed that it might happen to not ask embarrassing questions. Most people with any knowledge of the area in the CIA and State Dept though sure when pigs fly but wanted to keep their jobs or were allowed to spend more time with their families.

[Fairweather]

 

No mix up here. I know exactly which hostages were which. In any case, last I checked, for all practical purposes, Hezbollah=Iran, doesn't it?

 

This is interesting. Are you saying Israel would be justified in retaliating against Iran vis a vis the attacks and kidnappings conducted by Hezbollah thugs across the border in Lebanon a couple years back? If a nation (Iran) can't control their dog--go after the one holding the leash! I think we're actually on the same page here!

[Bug]

Follow the money

 

[StevenSeagal]

 

Which specific conflicts does this apply to in your mind?

 

Which people are currently less free than they would have been had the US not intervened or taken sides in a particular conflict? Are there any cases where - to your mind - US taking sides has had the opposite effect? Can the US actions in all of the above cases be completely understood in terms of the economic advantages associated with them?

 

I should have expanded that to include strategic/sphere of influence in addition to or alternative to economic advantages.

 

It would seem that communism has been dying a slow death in southeast Asia over the past 30 something years, in part due to pressure from the outside but mostly due to it's inevitably failings as a system of governance. Yet our hysteria over the domino theory fueled a war that killed 4 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans- all so the country ended up communist anyway, and now is slowly becoming an open society- as we'd hoped in the first place- but on it's own terms.

 

Are the Iraqis more free? What do you think? Tens of thousands of non-combatants have been killed. Tens of thousands more were forced to flee to become refugees. Those who remain either have few viable options, or are there to fight. Who the hell would want to stay there if they had a choice? To argue that Iraqis lives are now better than under Saddam is relative- for some it may well be better, but I'd be willing to bet that many would prefer the order of Saddam's police state to the disorder and grave danger of being killed just for being in the market at the wrong time, every single day. Or being killed for being Sunni, or Shia, or American sympathizer, or whatever. In time this situation will change, maybe pass, and perhaps in the future the answer will be more positive.

 

Bosnia: here was a case where we did little to nothing until too late, and should have acted much sooner. But why bother intervening in a massacre of muslims in a poor country that offers us no resources or economic exploits? Because it became too heinous to ignore, and Clinton wanted to make himself look good.

 

Sudan: see above. We talk of human rights and so forth but all we offer are UN "observers". Thousands dead. Ditto Rwanda. Except that featured over half a million dead.

 

East Timor: Didn't Clinton give dictator Suharto a shit load of weapons that helped fuel a massacre of over 300,000 people? Was there some benefit in this for us?

 

Iran/Iraq 1980's:

 

Whatever the long term results, we gave military advice and support to Iraq while knowing they were using poison gas on the battlefield against the Iranians. Gave arms to Iran same period to bribe release of hostages in Lebanon. At least 4 million people died in this war. These people were surely going to fight anyway, but our main concern was that the black gold kept flowing.

 

Central America:

Again, see SE Asia- communist governments eventually collapsed under their own flaws, yet we help pile onto the misery of these conflicts by funding secret guerrilla wars. Don't have a body count from that one.

 

Chile:

Help fund overthrow of democratically elected President to install military dictator whose apparatus tortures and kills thousands. The argument in favor of this action still is used for justification: Look at how robust Chile is today! Too bad so many people had to be "eliminated".

 

Argentina:

Did nothing at all while military government tortured and killed over 30,000 people. Not saying we should have done anything militarily, but again calls into question the motive of giving others freedom and democracy.

 

How easily can one write off so much wholesale murder as being necessary for the "greater good"? What makes you so certain that it's our responsibility to be regularly intervening militarily with the internal problems of other cultures? (e.g. the world policeman argument).

 

The failings of many of the above conflicts are always summarized as that they were the right action, but just poorly executed. Any possibility we've had it wrong from the start?

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

 

No mix up here. I know exactly which hostages were which. In any case, last I checked, for all practical purposes, Hezbollah=Iran, doesn't it?

 

This is interesting. Are you saying Israel would be justified in retaliating against Iran vis a vis the attacks and kidnappings conducted by Hezbollah thugs across the border in Lebanon a couple years back? If a nation (Iran) can't control their dog--go after the one holding the leash! I think we're actually on the same page here!

 

To a point we are...however, I think you would agree that it isn't necessarily as simple as starting a war with Iran. Most observers I think would see that a war with Iran will be a far worse situation to deal with in it's regional (maybe world?) destabilizing effects than continuing the Hezbollah/Israeli army tit for tat attacks/response/attacks/response/...etc. and trying to negotiate a settlement, however unlikely that prospect may seem to all involved parties.

 

 

[Off_White]

EXACTLY. So your attack is meaningless. FW could have stayed home. No difference.

 

Baseless maybe, but no attack is meaningless

[kevbone]

 

EXACTLY. So your attack is meaningless. FW could have stayed home. No difference.

 

Its not an attack, its the true. IMO. I was directing that towards every person out there who voted for Bush....not just FW.

[Fairweather]

I voted for Bush. Twice. And if the choices were the same vs Gore or Kerry--even with the hindsight I now possess--I would not change my vote.

 

But this thread is about a Democrat who visited an enemy of this country and gave comfort to that enemy while standing on his soil.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Fairweather

[billcoe]

*** A different P.O.V.

The prominent features of the global economy in 2008 will be oil and energy issues, a U.S. dollar that is weakening yet becoming more important and a strong performance by the U.S. economy.

 

Oil prices finally will fall in 2008. Much of the price buildup in recent years has been the result of geopolitical risk introduced by Iran war scares, the occupation of Iraq, Nigerian domestic politics, Venezuelan seizures, piracy in the Strait of Malacca, the war against al Qaeda and Russia’s energy policy.

 

The world has changed. Iran is moving toward an agreement with the United States on Iraq, Nigerian politics have calmed, the market has priced in Venezuelan nationalism, states in the Malacca region have managed to get piracy under control and al Qaeda’s operations have been sequestered in the Afghan-Pakistani border region. The only wild card remaining in 2008 is the Russians, who could limit their exports of oil and natural gas as part of Moscow’s struggle with the West. However, since such restrictions would impact Russia’s own exports, any geopolitical impact on energy prices in 2008 is unlikely.

 

The expected downward trend in oil prices will not carry over to other commodities, such as food and minerals. The price increases of these products in recent years are the result of rising and more varied demand — such as the new biofuels industry’s increasing need for crops. There is no reason to expect such demand to falter, and there are no new supplies of any minerals expected to come on line that might be large enough to cause prices to substantially drop. The one exception could be foodstuffs, whose supply in large part is determined by the weather (something we do not attempt to forecast).

 

While energy prices will moderate in 2008, there will not be a collapse. Since the declines will be relatively mild and since most oil exporters have managed to save up vast sums, very few producers will suffer any substantial financial stress. In fact, nearly all oil producers will continue to accrue near-record amounts of income, stabilizing them politically and economically despite the moderate downturn in prices. The two countries to watch are Argentina and Venezuela, which both have been spending their petroleum income as fast as it has come in, and whose lack of long-term investment in production has resulted in steady output drops in output for years.

 

Yet there is another aspect to this equation. Prices have been strong since 2003 and have given rise to a major trend that will surge forward in 2008: the steady deliberalization of the energy sector.

 

Producing states — from Venezuela to Kazakhstan — are seeking to rake in as much income from energy production as they can, regardless of how dependent they might be upon foreigners to produce that energy. On the coin’s other side, consuming states — from Malaysia to Argentina — need to assert control over their energy industries in order to head off the social and economic problems caused by sustained high prices. Some countries on both sides — such as China — are afraid of how powerful their energy firms have gotten, and they see deliberalization as a means of combating that challenge. Countries such as Russia see state control of the energy sector as a good thing — and a good thing that allows other policy options. Still, more — most notably Hungary — see such intervention as a means of preventing undue foreign influence.

 

In 2008, energy deliberalization will be the game of the day, and Stratfor expects the following countries to be particularly active in asserting the role of the state: Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, China, South Korea, Nigeria, Indonesia, Japan and Canada.

 

Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar — which has slipped by 50 percent in the past six years — will give more ground in 2008, since the trends that have shaped the past few years have not yet run their course. Unconvinced that the euro would succeed, central banks dumped European currencies when it was launched in 1998. They now are dialing back from that position, as well as purchasing more gold. Both of these trends have a negative impact on the U.S. dollar, and both have more room to run.

 

None of this is a vote of no confidence in the dollar; contrary to the crowing out of Venezuela, Iran and, on occasion, Russia, the dollar is in no danger of losing its status as the world’s de facto currency. In fact, contrary to conventional wisdom, the role of the U.S. dollar in the international economy is increasing.

 

All of the energy-producing economies sell their products in U.S. dollars. The Chinese yuan is de facto pegged to the dollar, and nearly every other economy in the western Pacific Rim is loosely pegged to it as well. Combine the dramatic increase in the size of the Chinese economy and the pileup of dollars in the Arabian Peninsula from high oil prices (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries members earned more than half a trillion dollars in 2007 from oil alone) and the result is a de facto dollar bloc.

 

Yet none of these economies boasts sufficient size or sophistication to handle all of this inflow, and how they manage such vast sums will prove a major development of 2008.

 

Many of the Arab oil states have chosen to invest in economic diversification so that they will not suffer as they have in times past the next time oil prices plunge. To this end, they are investing heavily in refining and heavy chemical industry facilities, both at home and in consumer countries. In most cases, the Arabs are providing only the capital for such ventures, with either imported expatriates or foreign hosts providing both the labor and the management for the projects. The Russians, of course, are investing in their own geopolitical push and are attempting to purchase as much energy infrastructure in Europe as possible (something the Europeans are resisting fiercely), while the Chinese are hoping to use at least some of the cash to bail out those of their state-owned enterprises that are worth saving. But even this leaves the vast majority of the accrued monies untouched — in dollars or U.S.-based investments.

 

Beyond the tactical details, the bottom line is that most of Asia, the Arabian Peninsula and the United States have de facto merged into a single system of exchange that has become more important in purely economic terms than the U.S. relationship with Europe. Not since the heady days of the British Empire has a single currency held sway over so much of the world. Yes, these entities are diversifying their investments, which is reducing the value of the U.S. dollar vis-à-vis the euro, but the more important trend is the strengthening of the dollar’s role as the reserve currency of the world — forming the base of the reserve economy of the world.

 

Combine weaker energy prices (which free up resources) with a lower dollar (which boosts exports) and the U.S. economy is primed for a strong performance in 2008. A brief slowdown in early 2007 shook out some inconsistencies that built up during the post-9/11 boom, and the stage is set for another extended expansion.

 

Many will mourn that the subprime lending crisis is about to cause major problems — and perhaps even a recession. Stratfor sees these fears as overblown for two reasons. First, mortgages that enter default are different from other defaulted loans in that mortgages have their own built-in collateral in the form of houses. Rather than getting back pennies on the dollar, creditors likely will recoup most of their money. This, combined with the fact that not all subprime loans will go bust, drastically reduces subprime’s impact.

 

Second, every so often, the Western financial sector needs a shock to remind itself that it is not Asia and that loans need to be evaluated on strict economic criteria before being granted. During the 2005-06 subprime surge, this lesson had been forgotten. Now it has been remembered, and banking institutions have forced the mortgage broker industry to rate loans more appropriately. As a result, most of those brokers have gone under, and many construction projects have lost funding. Those who have been hurt worst are those who leveraged subprime mortgage assets (and should have known better).

 

This rationalization of risk is bad for the housing sector in the short run but excellent for the banking sector and the wider economy in the longer run. Yes, one sector has taken hits and will take more in 2008. But the primacy of economic rationality already has reasserted itself. This is a core strength of the U.S. and Western systems; without it, these economies would look like Japan’s. The knocks resulting from the subprime crisis could indeed take some shine off of growth in 2008, but that would simply change it from a banner year to “merely” a strong year.

 

The global trade agenda will be somewhat muted in 2008. Talks on the next World Trade Organization round, Doha, have been all but suspended, and no major economy will join the organization in the next year. Neither will there be any progress on other major deals among or within trade blocks — largely a result of European efforts to push through their newest treaty (an echo of the constitution that failed in 2004) and the U.S. presidential election. Trade talks will be limited to ironing out a few minor bilateral deals between the United States and small powers — deals that are now before Congress — and between the European Union and its former colonies.

 

What a major treatise Mike! I wish all my countrymen had such rose colored glasses. I really really do. However, as we are now primarily a consumer based and driven economy, I don't have such a powerfully optimistic outlook, based mostly on how negative folks around me are, They know someone has to pay for the wars, and that someone about to take a hit is them. As they scale back their "irrational exuberance" a recession becomes a sure thing.

 

However, I'd like to re-read your post, it was well thought out and spoken, but perhaps not complete IMO.

[Hugh Conway]

Which specific conflicts does this apply to in your mind?

 

Which people are currently less free than they would have been had the US not intervened or taken sides in a particular conflict? Are there any cases where - to your mind - US taking sides has had the opposite effect? Can the US actions in all of the above cases be completely understood in terms of the economic advantages associated with them?

 

The conflict that comes best to mind is Indonesia's civil war. You might remember that Suharto slaughtered 500,000 suspected "communists", many of whom were ethnic groups not in favor, with US backing. The communists may well have exacted a similarly bloody toll but that is alternative history.

[Crux]

Reason #4 is a war crime, and its advocates are criminal.

 

Well I don't know how creating a battle space is criminal. Our other option was to what?

 

1. Fortify the shores of the US with coastal gun batteries?

2. Provide in depth search and seizure of every unlicensed illegal alien?

3. Storm into 130+ foreign countries unannounced capture, and deport known terrorists?

4. Swirl our crystal ball and try to figure out how many western hating crazed jihadist there might be out there?

 

Seriously, do you believe the proven enemies of America, your sovereign country, were content with the attack of 9/11? It was a failure in the sense that they weren't able to follow it up. If they had hit a port, and perhaps another sensitive target related to energy production in the CONUS sphere, that would have been their goal.

 

I think we're slowly getting a grasp on how to deal with things, but about the time you get it figured out, the whole game changes again.

The essential act of taking a country for the creation of a "battle space" is a criminal act, regardless of options. Under the lashes of fear it's understandable that many of us suggest the crime justifiable, yet we at once as a people stand defended like none other in history -- our options are such that no outside power can defeat us, plain and simple. A mortal threat to America can only present from within, and it will be evidenced by a culture of corruption and fear, the very sort of corruption and fear that would persuade us under a leadership of cowardice to justify our occupation of the homes of innocents so that our enemies might find us there instead of standing on our own. And all the while, we can surely stand. Can't we?

[Dechristo]

I'm guessing it's satisfying to hold such simplistic views.