Thread: Putin's increasing police state and smth about some other countries

There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others - to maintain the status quo.
=> Please, provide some proof.

There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries.
=> Not all. Some of it is produced in the second world countries. For example in Canada.

All of this is bought in exchange for US dollar - a green piece of paper that's worth nothing.
=> Any money worth nothing unless another person is [temporarily] willing to give you something for it (and vice versa). I think we have discussed it extensively in the past.

Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country.
=> I would really like to learn more about that. Would you be able to provide me some links (not the google search results, but something that made your mind that way). I mean, what's so special about the golden dinar?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others - to maintain the status quo.
=> Please, provide some proof.

By 'golden billion' I mean North America and Europe. All who has enough food, shelter and clothes and some extras. This definition includes you and me as well. This billion people is called 'golden' because it controls 4/5 of the world's wealth. So, tell me, will you give away 80% of your posessions in order to save the starving in Africa? No, I don't think so. You'll point at someone who is richer than you and generally say that the hunger is not your fault and blah blah blah. So this is your policy. No matter what particular government you have, they can be liberalists, conservatives, republicans, democrats or even communists - you won't give away 80% of your wealth. And nobody would. This makes you a collaborationist.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries.
=> Not all. Some of it is produced in the second world countries. For example in Canada.

And does it prove anything?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

All of this is bought in exchange for US dollar - a green piece of paper that's worth nothing.
=> Any money worth nothing unless another person is [temporarily] willing to give you something for it (and vice versa). I think we have discussed it extensively in the past.

Yes, we discussed that. The key word is 'willing'. People don't have any choice and any attempt to provide an alternative gets smothered with 'winged democracy'. And people do want an alternative but this will be against US interests.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country.
=> I would really like to learn more about that. Would you be able to provide me some links (not the google search results, but something that made your mind that way). I mean, what's so special about the golden dinar?

There's nothing special about it except the fact 'it's golden' and they planned to sell oil for dinars only. US can live with free yuan, rouble even, but oil is a blood of economy.

Why Qazzafi was Targeted? He was introducing Golden Dinar
Is Libya being bombed because Gaddafi wants to introduce gold dinar?
The Daily Bell - Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack
The Gold Dinar: Saving the world economy from Gaddafi

Originally Posted by Ramil

By 'golden billion' I mean North America and Europe. All who has enough food, shelter and clothes and some extras. This definition includes you and me as well. This billion people is called 'golden' because it controls 4/5 of the world's wealth. So, tell me, will you give away 80% of your posessions in order to save the starving in Africa? No, I don't think so. You'll point at someone who is richer than you and generally say that the hunger is not your fault and blah blah blah. So this is your policy. No matter what particular government you have, they can be liberalists, conservatives, republicans, democrats or even communists - you won't give away 80% of your wealth. And nobody would. This makes you a collaborationist.

Can we go one step back though? When you said "There is policy of the 'golden billion' against all others" I was under impression you mean the 'richer' states deliberately want the existence of the 'poorer' states. And, as such, they make efforts to keep the 'poorer' states even poorer (as the anti-globalist ideology suggests). Was that your intention? Or, your way of thinking goes along with Hanna's in that there's a finite amount of resources and so the 'richer' countries possess all the resources and do not want to share any (=give some of them up) of the resources with the 'poorer' countries? So, using your and Hanna's terminology, me and you should stop taking expensive vacations to Carribean and rather send that money to Africa where that money can purchase livestock and feed the entire families? Or, you mean something else?

Originally Posted by Ramil

There are natural resources - metal, oil, gas, water, wood, etc - all of this is produced or extracted in the so called 'third world' countries.
=> Not all. Some of it is produced in the second world countries. For example in Canada.
And does it prove anything?

It proves there's no deliberate policy of the 'richer' states to deliberately keep the 'poorer' states poorer. That is also a proof that you don't need to own the FRS's printing machines to not to be poor. In addition, it's a proof that an oil/natural resources exporting country can also export goods. (When the Canadian dollar rises as a result of the oil rise, the Bank of Canada tries to lower it as much as possible by all measures to make the export of goods be profitable.)

Originally Posted by Ramil

There's nothing special about it except the fact 'it's golden' and they planned to sell oil for dinars only.

Ok, you gave me a homework to read all those articles, so I'll get back to you on that.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Anyone who tries to introduce some other international reserve currency (like golden dinar as it was with Gaddafi) immediately gets a 'democracy operation' in his country. [...] There's nothing special about it except the fact 'it's golden' and they planned to sell oil for dinars only. US can live with free yuan, rouble even, but oil is a blood of economy.

Ok, I've done my homework. Phew! Here's what I think about it. It is highly unlikely the introduction of the golden currency was so decisive as to cause the military operation in Libya, however, the operation might have won a much broader support in the goods-exporting countries for that reason.

The major point neither of those article touch (and I hope you will) is: if the US (with its allegedly еphemeral green paper) was so afraid of the golden dinar, why is that the major call for the military operation came from Europe and not from the US? Unless I get a satisfactory answer I'm not sure I can proceed any further on taking this claim any seriously. (And by a satisfactory answer I mean anything except for: "well, the US ultimately controls Europe, and the US is so inspire-conspiring that it wanted others to act on its behalf." )

As a side note, according to one of your articles Why Qazzafi was Targeted? He was introducing Golden Dinar “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen," and neither time was Gaddafi attacked.

By the way, one of the results of the two world wars was to form an agreement to work business issues like that out collectively in a global forum and not unilaterally (which can cause new wars). So, strictly speaking, Gaddafi was provoking the goods-exporting countries to go on war with him, but every time he did it again those countries preferred relatively peaceful counter-measures. This time the military operation just coincided with the global Middle East unrest.

So, I'm afraid Hanna's bet on it was too hasty.