raoul Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Well, I'm no fan of Graham, but I'm even less of a fan of Hitchens. I'd call evil a guy who used his powers of persuasion to persuade two nations into supporting war in Iraq and the torture that followed. Sorry for the distraction. I really disliked that guy. Carry on. He was a foreign correspondent. Hitchens, that is. Interestingly, I remember reading a book by another foreign correspondent, talking about his travels reporting, and he was talking about Iraqi people supporting the war. I found the book, here: http://shop.abc.net....s/absurdistan-1 Thanks, I'll check it out when I get the chance. While writing that other thing to you I must have been thinking about a fairly big piece of work done by a British person who'd devoted his life, as a correspondant, to the Middle East and its problems. He began his work by talking about the late 1800s, early 1900s and moving through until recently. He wrote about the various things European and then American interests did to the countries over there to screw them over royally. Things like Winston Churchill pushing for the gassing of Arabs to test out chemical warfare or our propping up the Shah of Iran over a real democracy in order to protect business interests. Even the Iraq invasion and show trial/execution of Hussein. Not that he didn't deserve what he got I guess but one of the reasons cited, and this wasn't in any news reports ever, was that Hussein threatened to refuse to take the dollar for oil - he was considering going to the euro if we put any more sanctions in against his country. It all goes back to something I've been screaming about for years - most, if not all wars, are fought for the almighty buck. added comment - I check out the description from the http address you provided - it sounds very similar to what I referenced to you. One thing I forgot to say was that the writer I referred to and, sorry but I can't recall his name, was actually able to interview binLaden twice with the last one being a couple of years before 9/11. It's been years since I read the book, so I'm not entirely sure if it's the same guy. As far as the Iraq war being more to do with the sale of oil in US dollars than anything else, I did read a piece on that by a Middle-Eastern macroeconomist whose name escapes me. I remember him saying that an agreement was made in the 1970's to only sell oil in USD with the House of Saud. America would support their power, and they would sell oil only in USD. If oil is only sold in USD, then every country around the world requires huge reserves of USD in order to purchase oil, thus keeping the USD high. The higher the USD remains, the cheaper their loan repayments to other countries are. That's what the piece said. At this point in time, I am unable to corroborate it. But that was it's main argument. It sounds very accurate because the Saudis are pretty much quietly pulling the strings for everything that goes on over there. More dismaying is that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi. But the clueless masses over here just cheered Bush on when he pushed for the invasion of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 If oil is only sold in USD, then every country around the world requires huge reserves of USD in order to purchase oil, thus keeping the USD high. The higher the USD remains, the cheaper their loan repayments to other countries are. That's what the piece said. At this point in time, I am unable to corroborate it. But that was it's main argument. This all basically lines up with what I remember from my IR professors. I'm not really sure I understand the dynamics related to why countries like Russia don't switch though as the US doesn't have the leverage to enforce it there. It's probably above my paygrade. Oh, and that's what I forgot to write (had a feline demanding attention at the time)- apparently Saddam managed to do two transactions in Euro the bombs started dropping. That was in the article, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Well, I'm no fan of Graham, but I'm even less of a fan of Hitchens. I'd call evil a guy who used his powers of persuasion to persuade two nations into supporting war in Iraq and the torture that followed. Sorry for the distraction. I really disliked that guy. Carry on. He was a foreign correspondent. Hitchens, that is. Interestingly, I remember reading a book by another foreign correspondent, talking about his travels reporting, and he was talking about Iraqi people supporting the war. I found the book, here: http://shop.abc.net....s/absurdistan-1 Thanks, I'll check it out when I get the chance. While writing that other thing to you I must have been thinking about a fairly big piece of work done by a British person who'd devoted his life, as a correspondant, to the Middle East and its problems. He began his work by talking about the late 1800s, early 1900s and moving through until recently. He wrote about the various things European and then American interests did to the countries over there to screw them over royally. Things like Winston Churchill pushing for the gassing of Arabs to test out chemical warfare or our propping up the Shah of Iran over a real democracy in order to protect business interests. Even the Iraq invasion and show trial/execution of Hussein. Not that he didn't deserve what he got I guess but one of the reasons cited, and this wasn't in any news reports ever, was that Hussein threatened to refuse to take the dollar for oil - he was considering going to the euro if we put any more sanctions in against his country. It all goes back to something I've been screaming about for years - most, if not all wars, are fought for the almighty buck. added comment - I check out the description from the http address you provided - it sounds very similar to what I referenced to you. One thing I forgot to say was that the writer I referred to and, sorry but I can't recall his name, was actually able to interview binLaden twice with the last one being a couple of years before 9/11. It's been years since I read the book, so I'm not entirely sure if it's the same guy. As far as the Iraq war being more to do with the sale of oil in US dollars than anything else, I did read a piece on that by a Middle-Eastern macroeconomist whose name escapes me. I remember him saying that an agreement was made in the 1970's to only sell oil in USD with the House of Saud. America would support their power, and they would sell oil only in USD. If oil is only sold in USD, then every country around the world requires huge reserves of USD in order to purchase oil, thus keeping the USD high. The higher the USD remains, the cheaper their loan repayments to other countries are. That's what the piece said. At this point in time, I am unable to corroborate it. But that was it's main argument. It sounds very accurate because the Saudis are pretty much quietly pulling the strings for everything that goes on over there. More dismaying is that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi. But the clueless masses over here just cheered Bush on when he pushed for the invasion of Iraq. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on the article again- I hope grandpa might still have a copy. It was a very interesting read. That being said, though, I always found macroeconomics more interesting than microeconomics LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Actually, it just came to mind that both of you, Vigile and Raoul, might find the writings of an Australian economist very interesting. His name is Clive Hamilton, and he's a proponent of socially and environmentally responsible economics. These were my two favourite books of his: http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Growth-Fetish-Clive-Hamilton/9780745322506 http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Affluenza-Clive-Hamilton/9781741146714 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Resource based economy? It looks like the criticisms are similar to the Century of Self documentary. I agree a growth oriented economy is unsustainable in a world with limited resources. I don't know if this guy's solution is resourced based, but what I've seen on the Zeitgeist docs looks pretty close to managed economies, which is essentially communism. This has proven an utter failure, but again, the criticisms of the current system are valid and there does need to be some way to better address this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 If oil is only sold in USD, then every country around the world requires huge reserves of USD in order to purchase oil, thus keeping the USD high. The higher the USD remains, the cheaper their loan repayments to other countries are. That's what the piece said. At this point in time, I am unable to corroborate it. But that was it's main argument. This all basically lines up with what I remember from my IR professors. I'm not really sure I understand the dynamics related to why countries like Russia don't switch though as the US doesn't have the leverage to enforce it there. It's probably above my paygrade. Oh, and that's what I forgot to write (had a feline demanding attention at the time)- apparently Saddam managed to do two transactions in Euro the bombs started dropping. That was in the article, too. Thanks for confirming what I wrote about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Actually, it just came to mind that both of you, Vigile and Raoul, might find the writings of an Australian economist very interesting. His name is Clive Hamilton, and he's a proponent of socially and environmentally responsible economics. These were my two favourite books of his: http://www.bookdepos...n/9780745322506 http://www.bookdepos...n/9781741146714 Dunno if I'll buy the books but I'll check them out and see if I can find a summary/outline of some kind. thanks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Resource based economy? It looks like the criticisms are similar to the Century of Self documentary. I agree a growth oriented economy is unsustainable in a world with limited resources. I don't know if this guy's solution is resourced based, but what I've seen on the Zeitgeist docs looks pretty close to managed economies, which is essentially communism. This has proven an utter failure, but again, the criticisms of the current system are valid and there does need to be some way to better address this. Ah... No, Clive Hamilton is not into communism. His concerns tend to centre around the whole idea of continuous economic growth, and whether we are actually any better off for it. He talks about the fear that governments seem to have if economic growth is not occuring, and how the whole concept of economic growth has trickled down to every day people, and the impact that it has on us. He examines the relationship between economic theories currently in use in the western world, and the social ills we currently suffer from. Basically, are we any happier in our comparative richness to generations past, and if not, why not? Is it because we're working longer hours, etc, etc? I've been trying to work out what you were referring to by "resource based economy". Australia is typically described as such over here, due to our dependence on mining exports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Thanks for confirming what I wrote about him. That's cool- it was in that article. I really need to get a hold of it again. Dunno if I'll buy the books but I'll check them out and see if I can find a summary/outline of some kind. thanks.. I think you'd quite enjoy them. He's an engaging writer, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I've been trying to work out what you were referring to by "resource based economy". Australia is typically described as such over here, due to our dependence on mining exports. Yeah, same term, different concept. I don't know enough about the RBE I mentioned here to discuss it well. It's what is offered as a solution by the Zeitgeist doc makers. Essentially, it is the sharing of worlds resources and the removal of money from the system. That explanation is probably a strawman of some sort, so don't quote me on it. As for your economist, I completely agree with his critiques, but unfortunately, with the current economic system that has global participation, growth is necessary. And, it actually has contributed toward higher standards of living globally and even at home in places like the US and Australia. The problem is in its sustainability as well as widening gaps in wealth, etc... I'm personally just not smart enough to offer up a better solution. The ones I've seen so far have their own flaws and given how bad things have gotten in the past when we've tried to switch, I hope we tread carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I've been trying to work out what you were referring to by "resource based economy". Australia is typically described as such over here, due to our dependence on mining exports. Yeah, same term, different concept. I don't know enough about the RBE I mentioned here to discuss it well. It's what is offered as a solution by the Zeitgeist doc makers. Essentially, it is the sharing of worlds resources and the removal of money from the system. That explanation is probably a strawman of some sort, so don't quote me on it. As for your economist, I completely agree with his critiques, but unfortunately, with the current economic system that has global participation, growth is necessary. And, it actually has contributed toward higher standards of living globally and even at home in places like the US and Australia. The problem is in its sustainability as well as widening gaps in wealth, etc... I'm personally just not smart enough to offer up a better solution. The ones I've seen so far have their own flaws and given how bad things have gotten in the past when we've tried to switch, I hope we tread carefully. I hadn't really heard of the other use for the term. Though that's hardly surprising, because it's really only used in one way over here. I don't actually have a problem with capitalism. I just don't like rampant capitalism. Free markets left to self-regulate have only been proven detrimental time and time again. Certain regulations are necessary for the well-being of the general populace. And a social safety net is a good idea to enable people to live with dignity. But communism has never, ever been successful, and merely amounted to state-controlled capitalism. Which was severely inefficient, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 That guy is still around? Fucking bloody hell haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted June 14, 2012 Author Share Posted June 14, 2012 That guy is still around? Fucking bloody hell haha! Well pilgrim, if you think he's bad you should hear his son the idiot savant Franklin talk... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts