posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by Panic2k11
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...
Peak oil was understood way back in 1970. Moving manufacturing to Mexico and China was the result of that understanding. OPEC formation and the
consequent rise in oil prices was to speed up the search for alternate energy sources before
peak oil hit. Of course, the hope then was that
something would be discovered to replace oil and hence the US and other Western economies were allowed to continue to grow despite rapid
What is being implemented now, is Plan B, if we hit peak oil without an alternative in place.
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).
I believe that the disagreement stems from a mistaken assumption that those that control the US government all necessarily reside within the borders
of the US. Also a collapse of the US economy will not
mean a collapse of the US military might, when the same is financed from outside.
When I said the UN will control, I meant the discussions will be conducted at the UN and no justifications of US national security interests need be
offered for those actions. They will be completely outside the control of the US Congress, since even the funding for those operations will come from
outside and not the US government's internal revenue. This is nothing new or revolutionary. Most UN peace-keeping operations already operate under
the same terms. The UN has a budget for different peace-keeping operations (the budget coming from the contributions of the member states) and those
countries willing to spare their troops for the operations do so and get paid the amount budgeted for it.
Remember, Gulf War I was financed by a huge number of countries and according to some estimates the external finances exceeded US costs.
At the moment the US navy by its very presence on the high seas ensures safe passage for merchant vessels. In other words, all the merchant vessels
regardless of country enjoy the safety of high seas provided by the US navy. US Navy will simply get paid
for doing the same. Have you noticed
the increasing incidents of piracy on the high seas of late? These are being allowed
to happen to justify the payments in future for preventing
similar incidents on a large scale. Safety of the high seas is an absolute must for global trade.