WWIII?

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: WWIII?

Postby get louder at lambeau » Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:03 pm

Waldo wrote:
Trudge wrote:The chain of events are well known: China launches a sell off of it currency causing the dollar to lose value. Four chemical plants in China have been destroyed since that move.


Dem facts doo....

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/in ... style=1013

The dollar is ridiculously strong right now, more valuable than it has been for a very, very long time.


I think you found an error there, Waldo. Not sure if the author misunderstands or mis-"spoke". I'm guessing that he misunderstands. There is a lot of confusion about this. China DEVALUED the yuan right before those explosions.

US Politicians have been complaining for years about China gaining an unfair international trade advantage by artificially holding the value of the yuan DOWN. In the current global "currency war", if you want to call it that, the main weapon has been currency devaluation. Think of it as a global version of a price war. If you are going into a price war with your competitors, you LOWER your prices, like China did and has been doing for a long time. It's about market share and can be used to outlast and bankrupt competition, like Walmart did to so many companies domestically.

A major diplomatic goal of the Obama Admin. has been to get China to stop devaluing so our exports are not at a competitive disadvantage to theirs on the global market. They allowed the yuan to rise to at or near market rates earlier this year, then devalued it again, pissing off the US, right before the mysterious, coincidental, and massive explosions. These explosions blew up a massive amount of Chinese exports right at the port. There are pics of thousands of burned up, brand new autos and huge stacks of destroyed shipping containers in the aftermath.

Another angle - What are chemicals that can explode that massively good for making? Weapons. And they were at an export port, likely on their way out of the country, either as base materials or maybe even as actual assembled weapons.

China wants a weak yuan and strong dollar, especially now while they are selling their US treasuries, which are priced in USD.

User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby get louder at lambeau » Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:29 pm

Zbigniew Brezinski - ‘Bush disregarded the three basic imperatives of imperial geostrategy. As I described them (using deliberately archaic terminology) in The Grand Chessboard, these are “to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together”.’
http://isj.org.uk/brzezinskis-bunker/

That's the way that at least some (probably most) in the US foreign policy-making circles see the world - as a chessboard. Here is the geostrategic center of the world. Note the countries contained in these rough borders, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and even Ukraine. Libya is just outside. It is not coincidental that our wars are being fought here. -

Image

It is no coincidence that our wars tend to focus on this area. It is about oil, but not only about oil. It is also about geostrategy, Israel, the Saudis and the petrodollar, etc.
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby get louder at lambeau » Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:36 pm

“How can you even now fail to understand what a mess you have made?” - Vladimir Putin speaking at the UN recently, right before he started bombing ISIS, al Qaeda, and other CIA backed "rebels" in Syria.

He caught us in a seemingly moronic failure and is using it masterfully to tip the balance of power in the Middle East. Our excuse for invading a sovereign country was "fighting terrorism" in disregard for international law. Then, a year later, the terrorists are gaining ground (because of our help) and our real objective, overthrowing YET ANOTHER country's government is clear to see. So he basically said, "step aside" under the same guise of "fighting terrorism" but with the legal permission of the Syrian authorities and started bombing our illegal covert assets.

We need smarter and less evil people running this country. Enough BS terrorist games already. We are making a mess of every country in which we intervene.
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby Waldo » Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:26 pm

get louder at lambeau wrote:If you are going into a price war with your competitors, you LOWER your prices, like China did and has been doing for a long time. It's about market share and can be used to outlast and bankrupt competition, like Walmart did to so many companies domestically.


And just like Walmart, this price war leads to internal suffering.

While it may be good for the overall bottom line, Walmart workers (Chinese citizens in this analogy) get the shaft. It is the Waltons (the communist party) that see all of the profits of that nice bottom line.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17759/a ... se-workers

As unions have struggled and strikes have declined in the United States in recent years, labor militancy has surged in other parts of the world—and nowhere more so than China. Since 2010, China has seen thousands of strikes and protests in a tide of collective action that shows no sign of ebbing. Between January 2011 and January 2015, nearly 2,900 strikes and protests occurred nationwide, almost half of them in 2014 alone, according to the Hong Kong-based NGO China Labour Bulletin (the Chinese government does not report national strike statistics).


The problem for China...

As it now tries to shift China from a low-wage to a consumer-led economy, the government knows it must deliver a more broad-based prosperity to raise purchasing power and preserve its own legitimacy.


Devaluing their currency to prop up exports hurts the buying power of the people. And the Chinese people know this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/busin ... ction.html

Think about it in terms of our money. While the dollar dropping massively in value would be great for US exports and jobs, our money would be worth nothing, we couldn't buy anything that wasn't domestically produced, and domestically produced things could have prices jacked up because there is no international competition; if all foreign cars cost 50K minimum, why would GM sell one for anything less than 45K, even if they could sell them profitably for 20K?
Last edited by Waldo on Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: WWIII?

Postby Pckfn23 » Tue Oct 06, 2015 7:28 pm

What's the reasoning behind that circle?
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39682
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby Trudge » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:31 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:What's the reasoning behind that circle?


Titled "WWIII WIll Start in Syria" or something like that. The author's take on events leading up to now and why he thinks we may be on the brink of it and where / why it'll start. Just some thought provoking material from a different angle than our media is all. Like I said, can't individually verify a lot of the material covered, but seemed interesting enough as a discussion point.
Image
User avatar
Trudge
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby Pckfn23 » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:19 am

I mean, why would the author think there is a "geostrategy" to much of that circle?
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39682
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby Trudge » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:59 am

Pckfn23 wrote:I mean, why would the author think there is a "geostrategy" to much of that circle?


Talking Louder's or mine? :?
Image
User avatar
Trudge
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby Pckfn23 » Wed Oct 07, 2015 3:12 am

Louders post.
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39682
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby Waldo » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:38 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:I mean, why would the author think there is a "geostrategy" to much of that circle?


Oil
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4983
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: WWIII?

Postby Pckfn23 » Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:55 pm

Waldo wrote:
Pckfn23 wrote:I mean, why would the author think there is a "geostrategy" to much of that circle?


Oil


Not within that inner circle.
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39682
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby get louder at lambeau » Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:58 pm

Waldo wrote:Think about it in terms of our money. While the dollar dropping massively in value would be great for US exports and jobs, our money would be worth nothing, we couldn't buy anything that wasn't domestically produced,


Right. Here is the same thing, but taken to less of an extreme - "The dollar dropping somewhat in value would improve US exports and jobs, but our money would be worth less and we couldn't buy as many things that weren't domestically produced."

Sounds like part of the solution to some significant current problems, right?

In effect, with a weaker dollar, Americans who don't have money (poor people, young people, the unemployed, etc.) would have an easier time getting a job and earning money, but people who have money (rich people, established employees, retirees, etc.) would lose out to some extent. The poor would get richer, and the rich would get poorer. The recent increases of income inequality would reverse. Americans would also be naturally incentivized to buy more American made products, not due to nationalistic pride, but because those products would be more cost competitive. Domestic business creation would spike. Competition would drive increased efficiency. Jobs would be created.

Taken to the opposite extreme - "The dollar rising massively would destroy US exports and jobs, but our money would be worth much more, and those who have money would be able to buy much more, but most products would be imported." The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, as is happening now. Those that have money win, and those that don't have money lose. We have trended this way for quite a while now, as illustrated by the declining labor force participation rate and increasing wealth inequality.

and domestically produced things could have prices jacked up because there is no international competition; if all foreign cars cost 50K minimum, why would GM sell one for anything less than 45K, even if they could sell them profitably for 20K?


In that case the dollar could be described generally as being too weak to allow foreign competition, and could be seen as a form of protectionism. That's what China is doing to grow its economy. It's a balancing act. You don't want the dollar too strong OR too weak, just like you don't want your prices too high or too low. Pricing way too high or too low can eventually destroy a company. Too high or too low of a currency price over a long period can do the same to an economy. Greece is dying at least partially as a result of the Euro being too strong for their economy. Detroit died partially due to a perennially strong dollar making their products artificially expensive.

Right now, a Chinese guy can manufacture and ship products across the world to America cheaper than he could if he was an American with an identical manufacturing shop right next door to a Walmart distribution hub. That shouldn't be the case. The natural efficiency of a local producer should be a competitive advantage in our domestic market, but it has been overwhelmed, at least partially, by the distortions caused by an overly strong dollar. This is currently exacerbated by unusually cheap oil, which makes shipping costs less and diminishes the significance of the natural advantages of local production even further.

As to your GM hypothetical, if we had a functional, properly regulated, relatively free market economy domestically, GM charging 45K for cars that are worth 20K wouldn't happen long term, as those excessive profit margins are a significant inefficiency which should naturally entice multiple competitors to emerge and compete with them on price.

Effective anti-trust enforcement is key to maintaining a free market. We don't really have it though, because the corporations and their lobbyists have bribed their way into the regulatory agencies through our financially corrupted political system. It's a strategic move called "regulatory capture" that has become all too common in the modern American system. Instead of protecting the citizens from market abuses, the regulatory agencies now instead sometimes protect corporations from competition. Take Tom Wheeler, for example - he went from being a cable and cellular lobbyist, to an Obama fundraiser, to Chairman of the FCC. I'm sure when he's done there, he will get a high salary job at Comcast or Verizon in gratitude for his services. The key is the link between corporations and politicians, commonly euphemised as "campaign finance", which essentially transforms a free market into what is functionally more of a form of corporatism, AKA fascism.

Fix campaign finance, and you fix America. But how do you do that when the Supreme Court is backing the fascism-enabling corporate political bribery mechanism as being a form of "free speech"?

:bkw
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby get louder at lambeau » Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:12 pm

Pckfn23 wrote:I mean, why would the author think there is a "geostrategy" to much of that circle?


The map is from Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard", so it might even be slightly out of date now, after over a decade of wars. Here is what the article from which I copied that pic says -

The Eurasian Balkans:
It was at the middle of the unipolar moment in 1997 that Brzezinski authored “The Grand Chessboard” in which he laid out the US’ geostrategic priorities for Eurasia and how to best achieve them. He postulated that it was imperative for the US to retain a commanding influence over Eurasia, and that one of the best ways to do this was to prevent collusion between Russia and China. The strategic ‘Balkanizing’ of societies across the Eurasian landmass is a pivotal means of destabilizing the entire continent. If taken to its logical end, it is envisioned to create a tidal wave of ethnic, religious, and political anarchy that can crash into and dismember the diverse civilizations of Russia, China, and Iran. In some aspects, the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and their chaotic aftermath can be seen as following the philosophic dictates of this principle. The US has also historically undertaken regime change operations as a method of advancing continental destabilization and pushing Western power deeper into Eurasia.


A thinktank of neocons, "Project For The New American Century" advanced the theory before becoming part of the Bush Admin and implementing plans based on it. They said that it would take a long time, absent "a new Pearl Harbor" type event to change public opinion to allow the necessary actions. Then 9/11 happened, enabling their wildest dreams.

Image

We seem to have been following some version of that basic plan ever since.

Here's the whole article, which sheds more light on where we are today and how we got here. About as comprehensive as anything I have found. Don't miss the "To be Continued" link to part two of the article at the bottom of the page. -
http://orientalreview.org/2014/06/22/th ... dilemma-i/
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: WWIII?

Postby Pckfn23 » Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:51 pm

Oh I get it now, this was basically the foreign policy strategy since 2000. Basically the same as the red scare of the 60s.
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39682
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

Re: WWIII?

Postby Pckfn23 » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:33 am

get louder at lambeau wrote:Fix campaign finance, and you fix America. But how do you do that when the Supreme Court is backing the fascism-enabling corporate political bribery mechanism as being a form of "free speech"?

:bkw

You got it. Right here is the crux of the entire situation.
Image
No, every post is not secretly about wanting Capers fired.
User avatar
Pckfn23
Brigade
Brigade
 
Posts: 39682
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:24 am
Location: Western WI

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron