Stirling, Stirling, Stirling.......
You might consider reading a post before you attempt to rip it apart. Ironically, your post entitled "bulldog manifesto craps on the facts" is shining example of how to defecate on facts. After reading your post, I am left to wonder a few things:
- Did you even read my post?
- Why did you choose to take such a rude tone?
- How much money do you have tied up in the United States market?
You claim that I get my "basic economic history" wrong. The funny thing is, I didn't even attempt to propose a "basic economic history." I merely cited the economic theory of Dollar Hegemony. Insofar as "Dollar Hegemony" contains elemetary historical references, my post remained true to those references. (Please note, this is an ACTUAL ECONOMIC THEORY, not as you childishly label it-- a 'tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.')
Amusingly, you list an assortment unreferenced points which you believe support your position that my post was "crap." You make a lot of noise. You manage to use a ton of buzzwords. But in the final analysis, your "points" do nothing to refute my post. They merely illustrate your need to masturbate in public.
Here you begin:
"1. The US Dollar was the important currency in 1945 because the US was the only major industrialized nation not bombed and burned by the war. The US had half of GDP, and most of the world's industrial base."
Well done Stirling! You managed to tell us something that, while perhaps true, does nothing to refute "Dollar Hegemony." In fact, you managed to provide the historical context for "Dollar Hegemony". Thank you!
"2. The US Dollar had been an important currency before the war because the US ran a surplus with the rest of the world - we were the China and Saudi Arabia of the day. But petroleum was not as important in 1920 or 1945 as it is today. What was important was that the US had surplus capital. We bankrolled the Dawes Plan to keep Europe afloat in the 1920's. Keynes - who had critiqued international monetary policy in that era (The economic consequences of the peace) designed Bretton Woods not around oil, but around capital flows, which were to be restricted in order to produce comparative advantage.
Once again, you manage to impress the uninitiated with your "cut and paste" of economic history, but you fail to show WHY THE FUCK THIS REFUTES DOLLAR HEGEMONY.
Like a parrot, you spout red-letter buzzwords "Dawes Plan"...blah blah blah... "Bretton Woods"...blah blah blah.....but what the heck does this have to do with refuting Dollar Hegemony? If anything, you are merely bolstering the point I made that:
"Fortunately for the U.S., this system (in place since WWII) creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold even more dollar reserves, making the dollar stronger still.
Then you continue with some more mastubatory parroting of history:
"3. Between 1945 and 1972 US supremacy is based on the availability of capital, our place as a consumer market, and our exports of capital goods - as well as our military. Oil is not priced in dollars at that this time, and it is not until the late 1960's that the US has finished coopting France and Britain in control of the oil reserves in the rest of the world - the turning point being in the late 1950's with consolidation of the US position in Iran.
"4. It is not until the lifting of oil import quotas in 1971 that there is a significant petro-dollar interest, it is not until the oil embargo of 1973 that OPEC has significant leverage on US economic policy. Oil as the dominant monetary reality US policy was not understood until the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The US would overthrow governments to keep reserves open, but it did not fight one war in the 1946-1989 period over oil, but worked by proxy. Oil is a problem now, but it is a tremendous mistake to project this backwards in US strategic thinking. In the 1945-1971 period oil is one strategic resource out of many."
LOL. First off, you attempt to distract the reader into believing that my post was merely about "US Supremacy". That way, you can go on to refute everything I said. Very Roveian of you. KUDOS!
Next, you make this hilarious statement which I just have to refute eventhough it doesn't have shite to do with my original post:
The US would overthrow governments to keep reserves open, but it did not fight one war in the 1946-1989 period over oil, but worked by proxy.
This one really made me laugh. You admit that the US overthrew governments by proxy, but you claim that the US did not fight one war in the period of 1946-1989 over oil. This is semantic bullshit. Nice try.
When you overthrow governments by proxy, you are committing acts of war, my friend. You can play with words all you want, but when a country funds counterinsurgency campaigns, supports death squads, and causes coup d'etats, that country is engaged in war, albeit a devilishly sinister and covert war.
You can play with semantics all you like, but overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran with a tank or with a CIA backed campaign is only different in the form, not in the result.
5. The position of the US Dollar as a unit of account adds little to GDP. Conversion of countries such as Venezuela, which use the dollar as a unit of account, and do not have significant wealth to store, means very little....blah blah blah...
Here you go again Stirling, confusing apples with hand grenades. Off in your world of verbal masturbation, you are now ranting about GDP. Far be it for you to realize that GDP differs from GNP in that GDP EXCLUDES inter-country income transfers. So what the heck are you talking about GDP for?
I'm skipping your #6 because, frankly, your ranting was starting to get on my nerves. Which leads us to your #7:
7. Which leads to the worst part, the conspiracy theory bullshit that Iraq converting to Euros had any part in causing the invasion. It did not trouble the sleep of even the little-est neo-con....
Citation please, Stirling? Can you please tell me where you are pulling this from?
You see, in my post I humbly offered up referenced facts which suggest the possibility that currency played a part in the decision to invade Iraq. I did not say "this is the way it is, like it or not!" As a rational observer, I believe it's prudent to consider all possible theories, regardless of my own personal beliefs, until such time as a theory becomes untenable on it's own merits.
Guys like you begin with a conclusion, then work backwards until you've created a comfy path that you can live with. Accordingly, for people like you, "being rationale" begins with an emotional response. That is hardly "rationale" if you ask me. That is delusion, my friend.
Labeling an alternative (yet viable!) theory as "tinhat conspiracy" is just a way to relieve oneself of the pain of having to endure an uncomfortable truth.
Have you ever heard the anecdote about the child who loses a quarter on the dark sidewalk? Rather than look for the quarter on the sidewalk, where there is no light, the child searches for the quarter in the street where there is more light. Why does this anecdote remind me of you, Stirling?
2. Why did you choose to take such a rude tone?
I find it most remarkable that you chose to take such a rude tone with me Stirling. I am relatively new to the Kos board, and I posted my message in good faith. Akin to a bully, you felt the need to flex your veteran status on Kos against a relative newbie. Congrats!
All you had to do was recite some buzzwords, make some misguided conclusions, and voila, you had an entire coalition of followers who believed what you said without second thought.
I wonder why?
Could it be that perhaps a few people in the Kos community are scared shitless of the possibility of a currency crisis? Could it be that my original post made some people a bit too uncomfortable? Could it be that Stirling's post was a welcome bit of "gospel" to a group of people who just can't stomach the possibility of the floor dropping out?
"Say it ain't so Stirling! Say it ain't so!"
"Thank you Stirling! Thank you!"
Here are some facts that cannot be refuted.
In 2000, Iraq switched from petro-dollars to petro-euros.
In 2003, Iraq was invaded and occupied Iraq switched back to the petro-dollar.
In 2003, Venezuela moved to replace the dollar with the euro.
Beginning in 2003, there has been a remarkable increase in chatter related to attacking Venezuela.
In 2005, Iran has made gestures that it will switch to euros.
Do what you wish with these facts. I simply offer them up.
3. How much money do you have tied up in the United States market?
Due to the fact that Stirling responded to my original post with such rudeness and arrogance, the question begs to be answered: "How much money do you have tied up in the United States market, Stirling?"