| Blood for Oil: Clarifying a Half-Truth | 1 comment |
|
18 Apr 2007 @ 19:52, by Trent Crace
In the current political discourse, one aspect that I see neglected by even the most astute commentators is the role of fiat currency (paper money) in the conflict with Iraq and with the seemingly imminent conflict with Iran. The US campaign in Iraq has been called a “blood for oil” campaign with the understanding that the Bush administration, representing corporate interests, is simply commandeering the oil in Iraq. In light of an incisive article by Krassimir Petrov called “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse,” the supposed rationale for the so-called “blood for oil” campaign looks like somewhat of a half-truth.
In the current political discourse, one aspect that I see neglected by even the most astute commentators is the role of fiat currency (paper money) in the conflict with Iraq and with the seemingly imminent conflict with Iran. The US campaign in Iraq has been called a “blood for oil” campaign with the understanding that the Bush administration, representing corporate interests, is simply commandeering the oil in Iraq. In light of an incisive article by Krassimir Petrov called “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse,” the supposed rationale for the so-called “blood for oil” campaign looks like somewhat of a half-truth.
Petrov writes that the US is an empire in the sense that it taxes other nations. It does not do so directly but by inflation. It buys resources from other nations and pays them back later with devalued dollars. This is easy to understand. If a person buys a house on loan at a certain rate of interest, as long as that person prints enough money to ensure that the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of interest, that person is actually buying the house for less.
Other nations are forced to do business with the American regime for they must hold the dollar. Why? The dollar is the dominant exchange currency for oil and of course, everyone needs oil. Therefore the nations of the world use the American dollar because they simply must possess it. Backing the American dollar with oil not only keeps it afloat and valuable in the global economy but it also provides the American empire a means to tax the world. Keeping the dollar as the dominant exchange currency for oil is what is motivating the push to establish stronger and stronger control in the Middle East. In light of this information, it’s interesting that according to Petrov, Saddam Hussein attempted to demand Euro for the oil produced in his country. Shortly thereafter, Iraq was attacked and invaded. Now it looks as if the Iranians have gone one step further by not only selling their own oil for Euro but creating an exchange where anyone may do so.
If the US regime did back out of its campaigns in the Middle East, as more and more citizens of the US and the world are demanding, what would happen to the American economy? The US would then lose its control of oil therefore rendering it unable to ensure that the American dollar was being backed by oil. Hypothetically, nations could begin using another form of currency to purchase oil (likely the Euro). The American dollar would then be used less and less on the global market thus its essence would soon be revealed: total worthlessness. Due to the fact that the US has been producing less and less goods of its own, this trend would be recognized as a serious shot in the foot. These goods would no longer be able to be obtained for stacks and endless stacks of useless paper are not going to satisfy foreign sellers. Horrific devaluation of the dollar and serious economic depression would be a very grim and probable reality.
Understanding the role of fiat currency in the US conflicts in the Middle East should make anyone who has an opinion a little more careful of what they wish for. Not to suggest that these campaigns should at all be supported but their opposition should be tempered by the suggestion of a concurrent idea as to what should be done concerning the ultimate worthlessness of the American dollar.
|
|
Category: Articles
1 comment
19 Apr 2007 @ 12:04 by nraye : Nom de plume
Life may be preferable in Mexico after all. Slowing down the people movement rate worldwide, everyone left standing on their own two feet. Now is the time to be at the right place at the right time. Improved person to person relations, power to the people, at last. Swings and roundabouts. Certainly the Euro is up at the moment, and the dollar down. One downside in the UK which is already being cited, the reduced number of touring visitors to these shores. A huge slice of the economy is geared to visitors by the service industries in a swing away from real industry and farming (they culled most of the cattle population to reduce the UK role in dairy production during the last foot and mouth epidemic, a conspiracy here for some reason). So perhaps with less visitors there will be a swing back to local production?
As far as what to do with sunken dollar? can't really say.
Other entries in Articles
8 Jul 2008 @ 15:35: Kill the Middle Man
1 May 2008 @ 23:43: Impossibility and the Blood-Sick Kid
27 Mar 2008 @ 05:18: A Return to the Land of My Birth
28 Aug 2007 @ 16:21: "Yes, Sire": The Pursuit of Wholeness
9 Aug 2007 @ 14:44: Beautiful Lies, Ugly Truths and the Answer to an Age-Old Paradox
14 Feb 2007 @ 01:16: Free Will in Drag
16 Jan 2007 @ 13:05: Ideas on androgyny, bisexuality, homosexuality and other garbage
29 Nov 2006 @ 15:54: Passive-Aggression in the Workplace
22 Nov 2006 @ 17:25: Transcendence and Immanence
|
