Thread: Economic impacts on politics.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=12944
Article highlights some impacts of USA via international financial system on Russia, China and other countries around the world.

Quote from article:

"The U.S. media are silent about the most important topic policy makers are discussing here (and I suspect in Asia too): how to protect their countries from three inter-related dynamics: (1) the surplus dollars pouring into the rest of the world for yet further financial speculation and corporate takeovers; (2) the fact that central banks are obliged to recycle these dollar inflows to buy U.S. Treasury bonds to finance the federal U.S. budget deficit; and most important (but most suppressed in the U.S. media, (3) the military character of the U.S. payments deficit and the domestic federal budget deficit.

Strange as it may seem ­ and irrational as it would be in a more logical system of world diplomacy ­ the "dollar glut" is what finances America's global military build-up. It forces foreign central banks to bear the costs of America's expanding military empire ­ effective "taxation without representation." Keeping international reserves in "dollars" means recycling their dollar inflows to buy U.S. Treasury bills ­ U.S. government debt issued largely to finance the military."

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia...omic_Community
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangha...n_Organisation

Turkey and China to Shun the Dollar Wall Street Journal. Saturday, October 9, 2010

ISTANBUL—Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and China Premier Wen Jiabao said Friday their two countries would from now on trade using their own currencies, effectively excluding the U.S. dollar. The announcement, at a joint news conference in Ankara, came on the final stop of Mr. Wen's European tour. Mr. Erdogan announced eight trade agreements between the two countries, whose leaders also pledged to triple trade between China and Turkey to $50 billion within five years, and to $100 billion by 2020.
"We are forming an economic strategic partnership," Mr. Erdogan said. "In all of our relations, we have agreed to use the lira and yuan." Beijing has steadily been trying to raise the profile of the yuan, perhaps hoping it will someday play a bigger role in the world economy. In late September, China supported a Russian proposal to start direct trading between the yuan and the ruble. It has brokered a similar deal with Brazil.

More at Turkey, China Shun the Dollar in Conducting Trade - WSJ.com

Note that this is also excluding the euro.


These are the sorts of things that the world needs to see more of to build a more equitable future for all nations. The previous financial system based largely on the US t-bill standard has created a free ride for the USA, at the expense of other nations' economies. Recent activity to increase the currency raiding powers of US corporations has lead to virtual weaponization of the US dollar. More about this here Why the IMF Meetings Failed | Michael Hudson . Recent calls to revalue the yuan upward are simply attempts to carry out the currency raid of the century.

China's promoting yuan. Makes sense, I suppose.
But without the world's common reserve currency the global economy would disintegrate pretty quickly. It's obvious that dollar is not qualified for this role any more but I fail to see an alternative. Asia will stick to yen and yuan, Arabic states will use their own currency and South America as well. It appears that we'll have only about 3-4 world's currencies remaining.

[QUOTE=Ramil;208742] but I fail to see an alternative./QUOTE]

Золото и серебро

Yeah sperk is right, I think. At least with gold you know what you have...

The dollar and Bretton Woods setup is based on nothing. Possibly the biggest scam ever pulled and everyone is carrying on with the charade. The European currencies are not much better.

Maybe the the Yuan is the strongest currency but I really hope not!
As much as I don't like the current US dominance I'd really not want to live in a world run by China either.

Since the system is such a darn fake, do you think it's possible that the economic system / capitalism will collapse or implode like some ideologies predict? What would happen then...? Or is the current system of globalism and bank speculantism invinsible and bound to bounce back whatever happens?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Since the system is such a darn fake, do you think it's possible that the economic system / capitalism will collapse or implode like some ideologies predict? Or is the current system of globalism and bank speculantism invinsible and bound to bounce back whatever happens?

I think our thinking is next to useless as the thinkers you mentioned have already thought their thoughts through rather thoughtfully leaving us only to think what side to pick in this thinking game. However, I think we can't really think straight as the convincing thinking is just what it is - convincing and not necessarily true.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think our thinking is next to useless as the thinkers you mentioned have already thought their thoughts through rather thoughtfully...

At the national and international level, our thinking about what should be done, is just as you say. But what we should do at a personal level is quite another matter. People can do things to save themselves. I suppose the bankers would just as soon that we didn't do that either.

Originally Posted by Seraph

But what we should do at a personal level is quite another matter. People can do things to save themselves.

There are some things that could be done at a personal level under certain conditions. Should the conditions change, so the value would change. Money is just a means to transfer value under certain conditions. At a personal level, never trust any money in the long run. If you dislike USDs, exchange the current value of your USDs for the real estate or raw materials like gold. However, should the communists win the tomorrow elections, they would expropriate your real estate as much as your gold (to help those in need, of course, or whatever). Or, if tomorrow's government would decide to build a nice monument on your real estate and declare that place 'historic' or something like that, you would be obliged under law to hand your real estate over to the government for whatever price they see fit.

That is a way of thinking of a man whose views have been spoiled by capitalism and the world of consumption If the communists win (well, if this ideology dominates the majority of minds) people would not object to sharing the property. Communism is nicer than capitalism. It's the interim stage that's awful and involves breaking quite a few necks.

Originally Posted by Ramil

If the communists win (well, if this ideology dominates the majority of minds) people would not object to sharing the property.

And what would happen with the poor minority which would still object? That, of course, just can't happen, can it?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

And what would happen with the poor minority which would still object? That, of course, just can't happen, can it?

I doubt anyone would object after the interim stage. To everyone according to his needs, after all. )))

Originally Posted by Ramil

I doubt anyone would object after the interim stage. To everyone according to his needs, after all. )))

That is a famous populist slogan which cannot by definition have a decent implementation. So, I need my two islands and a Moon, can I have it? The only real implementation could be is to teach the people they do not need anything except for the bare minimum which would be established by the Communa (=by the present governors of the Communa that is). I don't really feel like loving that scenario very much. Do you?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That is a famous populist slogan which cannot by definition have a decent implementation. So, I need my two islands and a Moon, can I have it? The only real implementation could be is to teach the people they do not need anything except for the bare minimum which would be established by the Communa (=by the present governors of the Communa that is). I don't really feel like loving that scenario very much. Do you?

Have you ever try to read commi/merxist books in order to understand what this phrase really means?
To understand this phrase in your way is like to think that anarchy it's when one can wear leather jacket and poop at the streets.

This phrase rises from class unequality in that times. Workers had to work almost whole day and have a piece of bread while nobels could waste their time having fun with prostitutes, drinking and hunting using money which workers made for them.

The whole point that you wouldn't want islands and Moon.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The whole point that you wouldn't want islands and Moon.

Exactly. And you won't want car either. And an apartment too. And the two pairs of suits. Hell, you wouldn't even need one! Also, you wouldn't need to eat meat every day. (It's not that healthy.) Also, macaroni and cheese would make you fat, so it's another no-no. The present governors of the Communa will make those decisions for you. What you want and what you don't want. By the way, you haven't mentioned what should be done to those sick people who still want. I think they should be isolated from the society so as not to infect anyone else. Isn't that just great? Everyone is equal though. The social justice in its beauty.

so Ramil, are you a communist? Would you like Russia to return to a soviet lifestyle and economy?

Well I think everyone fundamentally agree that communism is hard to implement, due to shortcomings of the human nature.... But that's not what this discussion was about!

But in response to Crocodile's original comment, The one reason that makes it interesting to reconsider the future of capitalism / consumerism is that so much has changed since the major political philosophies were constructed, in the 19th century.

For example; Marx said that working class revolutions were inevitable, etc etc... Yet not that many have actually happened. Social democracy was supposed to lead to Communism; that hasn't happened anywhere.

Other political thinkers were writing that Capitalism is so clever and self-correcting and could literally never go very far wrong... ("the invisible hand" etc) Yet it's pretty much destroying the planet at a fast pace.. and the world is polarising between West and anti-west sympathies: something that none of the major political thinkers saw coming. So that line of thinking did not hold up very well either.

JS Mill, Marx, Hegel, Rawls etc, etc saw the world from the perspective of their own place in time and the state of the world back then.

Plus now everyone is affected by the endless media streams: Is media great or are we getting brainwashed at a level that a 19th century philosopher could never have envisaged. In the 19th century many could not read. Now everyone has a computer and internet. How does this change things.... etc!

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yet it's pretty much destroying the planet at a fast pace..

Could you spell it out for me? How's that happenning due to the capitalism? Don't the socialist states have thier own ecological issues? I think it's actually a question of the better usage (technology-wise) of the present ecological niche rather than the discussion about the ownership and the distribution of goods and services.

sperk, there's a great difference between communism and socialism. Unfortunately, you can't have communism without first taking socialism and that's a big problem.

Crocodile, you're looking at everything in bad light. Moderate consumption can be easily satisfied without violence, etc.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Crocodile, you're looking at everything in bad light. Moderate consumption can be easily satisfied without violence, etc.

I think I'm just being realistic and not idealistic. I think the term "moderate consumption" is very subjective. Is that necessary to drive a car? Depends, isn't it? Some people are ready to work really hard to get their two islands and a Moon. Why should they be fundamentally deprived of that right?