reply to post by kwakakev
I don't directly compare a collapse in the economy to a world war. I do explain how attempts to repair that slipping petrodollar can lead to a world
Follow me on this: As long as there is sufficient tie between oil and the US dollar, the dollar must remain strong regardless of debt. The petrodollar
is a sort of "get out of jail free" card for national debt. Without the petrodollar, the US is already far over its head in debt beyond any chance
of recovery. If not for the petrodollar forcing the US currency to be the International Reserve Currency, our economy would have crashed twenty years
or more ago.
The moves you mention about the IMF moving to a currency basket have been well under way for some time, and these moves threaten our IRC status. But
the petrodollar makes such attempts fruitless, because the IMF cannot force OPEC to accept monies it does not want to accept. Our goodwill with Saudi
Arabia from back in the 30s has protected the petrodollar via OPEC. Any large producer "going rogue" and accepting other currencies, however,
undermines that status. Iran produces enough oil to do just that, and indeed has converted all of its oil sales to non-dollar currencies. The balance
of power is shifting away from the US dollar as the IRC, endangering our economic status.
That has nothing to do with war... that is International economics.
War comes into the picture when the US realizes that it has but one chance to survive economically, and that is to maintain control over oil-producing
companies trading policies. We did that in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc. through the Arab Springs and Gulf War. But we cannot get covert operatives into
Iran because of our sordid history with mistreating Iran. We have only one option left to force them away from trading in non-dollar currencies, and
that is destruction of the country.
If we attack Iran openly, we run a strong risk of drawing other major powers, such as Russia and possibly China, into the conflict. A victory over
Iran would be a piece of cake, but against some of these other superpowers with nuclear capability and massive resources, we would be in for a
prolonged bloody fight. To get around that, we can use Israel to attack Iran as our proxy, by using propaganda to build up the threats Israel already
feels from Iran and by supporting and supplying Israel covertly.
So we need Israel to take out Iran to stop the decline of the petrodollar.
In order to accomplish that, Israel must be free to strike without a gun already pointed at their heads. That gun is Syria, a nation which is a strong
Iranian ally, who already has an intense dislike of Israel, and is sitting next door, well within immediate strike range. Our answer was another Arab
Spring overthrow of the Syrian government, but that didn't work out. Syria's government is too strong to overthrow, as the prolonged fighting
indicates. So in order to assist the rebels in their task of overthrowing Assad and minimizing any threat to Israel, we need an excuse to launch a
direct strike. We are attempting that using the excuse of chemical weapons capability and use.
So we launch a strike against Syria to help the rebels win so Israel can take out Iran to stop the decline of the petrodollar.
Now the issue is that the American Congress and the American people are dead-set against the strike, and Obama's very political career is threatened
if he goes through with the strike. He needs public support for the strike. The answer is to use a terrorist attack against the US on US soil, blamed
on Syrian terrorists, to drum up support for action against Syria.
So we allow a terrorist attack in the US to blame Syria to get support for a strike on Syria to help the rebels overthrow the Syrian government to
protect Israel while they take out Iran to stop the decline of the petrodollar.
To fix the US economy the answers are closer to home.
You are absolutely right. But this is not about fixing the economy; it is about keeping the economy broken but functional. To revert to the comparison
with a person's finances, how many people have found themselves deep in debt, at the point of bankruptcy, but still refuse to give up those credit
cards and even accept more?
We may agree on what is best for the economy (and I think we probably would if that were the question here), but what we think is irrelevant. Neither
of us have the power to make public policy. We don't have the ability to stop this immediate future either, but if we at least understand it, maybe
we can make positive changes from there.