The US Dollar And The Stability Of The World Economy

Why do you think the great depression happened exactly at oil peak?

Why do you think the great depression happened exactly at oil peak?

I don't think I follow you. The great depression of the 30's obviously was a long way before peak oil.

the G.D. was the result of the bust following the boom of the 20s, which was the creation of the newly founded federal reserve and its expansion of the money supply. And of course, what might have been just another depression, like we experienced throughout the 19th century, became 'Great' largely because of the government interventions,

When I first started looking into some of these topics, I came across the movie 'Zeitgeist,' which does a pretty good job explaining the corruption inherent in the monetary system, but concludes with a glowing endorsement of the Venus Project. It seems disturbing to me. Dreams of utopia usually end in dystopia.

Exactly. Problem, reaction, solution.

Exactly. They loan us the money to buy the stuff they produce. They get to develop from a feudal agricultural society to an industrial society faster than any other nation in history, and we get (temporarily) high standards of living, and no industrial base.

Dreams of utopia usually end in dystopia.

If the agenda of these people is carried out, there is no reason to believe that they won't suceed in establishing themselves as the permanent ruling class, which we will be unable to ever overthrow.[/COLOR]

China can just pull the plug of the US economy and thereby the military, right?

Let me ask you this. Do you think that this debt bubble came into being by pure incompetence?
It is the stated goal of Marxists to destroy nations to implement communism. Karl Marx said that to implement communism in rich nations, that wealth would first have to be destroyed. That is done by intervening in the cycles of up and down. You freak people out in times of down, you get them to intervene, and you do that until you crash the economy. The goal is crashing the economy!

It's going on in this very moment. They banned a conservative talk show host from Britain for his thought crimes.

Yes. China could sell all of its dollar holdings, trillions public and private, tommorow and the dollar would be worth nothing by Friday, as this would start a chain reaction of every one of our creditors bailing in order to salvage something before the dollar collapsed. Of course, they would have to sell at a loss, so its not really in China's interest to do this, unless we leave them no other choice; i.e. unless we do something suicidal like start a war, either with China itelf or with one of its major allies: Russia, IRAN.

No, I think the powers that be have deliberately amassed an untenable amount of debt. On the one hand, debt grants control to the creditor (the bankers), makes them rich, and is the vehicle for manipulating the economy however they like; on the other hand, this amount of debt simply will, inevitably, cause the collapse of this nations currency and of the economy is general. That, reducing the lone superpower to third world status, is a neccessary precondition for international socialism. This is exactly what these same finanicial interests have done in almost every third world nation around the globe, via the IMF and American corporations. It seems confusing, and sometimes it seems like these elite powers are nationlistic Americans, even if they are authoritarian. However, in my view, they are simply using America as a vehicle for their agenda. The easiest way to control the world is to covertly coopt the greatest power in the world. The fact that, in using us for this purpose, they also destroy the middle class and the Republic, only helps them.

Might be.
Maybe I wasn't very clear on that idea. I meant that to gain total power one must destroy the freedom that is in the way of that. And intervention in the cycles of the free market, with the ultimate goal to make the economy going bust, is that way to destroy the economy. Communists see the economy as a hindrance. By way of freaking people out about mild economic downturn they push for intervention that will have the same effect as it had in the G.D.

Yea I agree, just trying to elaborate a little. I tend to be a little loooooong winded..

Neither, but by the human nature of serving self-interest.

I see you are clapping each others wonderful examination of the failed ideology of socialism but find it extremely hard to reconcile your well held beliefs with the reality of the moment...Tell me do you honestly believe the bankers greed ..was it initiated by a social determination or capitalist motivations?

Ah so the allowed excesses of capitalism has nothing to do with its values but the excesses of communists has everything to do with moderate democratic socialism.

What is the 'capitalist motivation?' If you're talking about greed, then yes, the bankers are motivated by that, along with the desire to gain power, for the sake of itself. If you crack a book, however, you'll find that these motivations are as old as history and have nothing to do with capitalism except in the way that human nature is involved in any economic, political, or other societal system, including socialism. If you begin by stating that human beings should be other than they are (not selfish), you are 1) being hopelessly unrealistic, or 2) implicitly suggesting that humanity should be forcefully changed, which means that you are advocating the most oppressive totalitarian state imaginable. Government enforced morality is in no way comptable with freedom. Ergo, you are opposed to freedom if you are in favor of enforced morality. If you are opposed to freedom, then we simply begin our arguments with different premises and found our world-views on completely different values. In that case, there's nothing more to discuss, except, amoung people who are on my side fo the issue, how to defeat your side.

However, Xris, I don't think you are opposed to freedom. I think you don't understand the issues. I think you don't understand your ideology or its full implications and you surely don't understand mine. I've presented my own views in addition to my criticism of your views, but you address neither and repeat the same montra, which basically amounts to 'capitalism is bad because it encourages greed and causes X, Y, and Z negative effects.' As Wittgenstein would say, greed is the case, a peice of given information in the equation; it is not a property which, under any circumstances, can be eliminated. As for X, Y, and Z negative effects, I've explained over and over and over and over how those are not products of the free market, but rather of government intrusion into the free market. If you disagree with that point, address my arguments and refute them with facts or logic. Otherwise, concede that you are mistaken. Or, concede that you have no interest in logical debate.