posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:59 PM
reply to post by Observor
The current moves are nothing more than allowing the known energy sources to stretch for a longer time before new ones are proven as viable
alternatives. The way chosen has been to allow low per-capita energy consuming economies to grow while allowing high per-capita energy consuming
economies to stagnate and collapse.
Yes energy is an issue but it is not at a point that would promote the recent process of dismantling the US that only gained momentum after the US
pressured the WTO for accepting China (to me the epitome of how government lobbying corrodes public interests)
How China Outsmarted the WTO
The processed had really been on the cards before, it started with the moves of the US industry to Mexico and Latin America. The results were pretty
obvious then, I find it idiotic that some still say that the opening the markets to China was to permit a social reform there...
I understand you view regarding the energy issue but global peak oil is now it was mostly unplanned and it has yet to be felt, but some alternatives
makes the issue less dramatic (there will be changes, especially in the flow of merchandise and some artificial distortions) but for the next 20-50
years I do not see much changing (beyond a continual rise in price). I would soon worry about food prices and potable water issues than energy. But
yeah that could be a factor but not the main motivation...
The political stability in the nations/regions you mentioned will not be allowed to be affected. The costs of maintaining security and stability will
be provided from the global economy, not the US economy, which is what I meant when I said "world policing costs" in my previous post. The US
military will not be significantly affected, but its actions world wide will be controlled by the UN rather than the US government, because the money
will be coming directly from the global economy rather than US economy
I don't agree with this, the UN is mostly a geopolitical tool of the US and old great nations to enforce international law that secures their
interests (not the interests of all) if the US collapses the UN will collapse also. Your idea for maintaining security and stability provided from
the global economy is an interesting idea nevertheless, but such a thing would have to be very well timed to be pulled out and I doubt that the UN can
be called to act in such a coordinated way in a moment of crisis that will permit avoiding unilateral actions by the strongest members.
Note that the US "world policing costs" are in policing its own interests (well at least of the 1% that controls government).