Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple
John Maloney wrote: (01)
> "Dow Jones industrials falling nearly 440 points."
>
> A lot of this capital flight is international investors fleeing from an
> America too beholden to asymmetric support in the Middle East and
> counterfeit international 'trade' organizations. This is wrong. (02)
Really? I thought I lot of it was reductions in the huge dollar volume
that were going into the market in the form of retirement accounts,
some of which are being withdrawn in the wake of the dot comm
fallout. Perhaps you have better numbers? (I have no feel whatever
for the pulse of foreign investors, but I've got a pretty good insight
into the mindset of domestic investors.) (03)
> Global trade leads directly to economic colonialism, interventionism,
> global government, war and terrorism. Sadly, it is linear and
> predictable. (04)
Interesting assertion. I've not observed or read anything that leads
me to agree, off hand. I don't disagree, necessarily, but it would help
if there were some way to connect the dots. (05)
> America imported $91 billion in oil last year, half of all the oil
> consumed in the country. Oil dependency has forced the USA to give war
> guarantees to criminal states in the Gulf and forced the country into
> power politics in Central Asia and the Caspian. Greed, free trade,
> globalism and oil politics created Osama Bin Laden, plain and simple.
> This is wrong. (06)
If I get this right, we're wrong because we're the lackeys of the oil
exporters, and we're wrong because we defy the oil exporters.
And we're wrong because we import so much oil in the first place.
(I agree with that one, btw.) (07)
However, the issue wrt to oil import is cultural, not political. I am
indebted
to the Calif. energy crisis for showing me just how fast the culture can
shift, but of course like the crisis in the 70's, as soon as the problem
abates, we go right back to our old ways. (08)
It seems to me that oil importers act very much like pushers, in this
regard -- keeping prices low enough that demand will stay high. Why
aren't they watching out for global world interests by keeping the
prices at the painfully high levels that would encourge, or even force,
conservation. (09)
After all, they have a whole cartel -- a roomful of people who can
make a decision in an afternoon that will benefit the world. We
meanwhile, have to persuade hundreds of millions. Where does
the control lie, and therefore the bottom-line responsibilityh? (010)
> When America is strong and INDEPENDENT the whole world benefits. It is
> textbook leadership-by-example. This is what Washington, Jefferson,
> Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt understood and implemented. They were
> patriots, not isolationists. (011)
Ok. I didn't mean to make isolationism a perjorative term, but rather
a descriptive term. I don't think the solution is greater "patriotism",
after
all. But if you think isolationism is a real solution, it is probably worth
bearing in mind that our "free society" represents the epitome of evil
to those wishing us harm. To those who are so inclined, heaven on earth
follows the destruction of that society. The difficulty with isolation is
that
it gives such forces all the time they need to develop bigger and better
weaponry. If we stay totally out of the way and don't step on anyone's
toes, will they fail to act for lack of an excuse. I fear not. Our very
culture is a religous enemy -- anathema to those who oppose it. (012)
> Teddy Roosevelt warned of the "pernicious disease" of free trade. It is
> easy to see his globalism forecast leading directly to international
> terrorism. (013)
Hmmm. An historical reference I was unaware of. There is a chain
of causality you are seeing here that I have not been exposed to. (014)
> For you scholars, free trade traces its roots to 'liberalism,' a
> doctrine that demolished the traditional concept of the nation-state as
> a thriving collective organism, a flourishing community, in favor of the
> economic theory of laissez-faire, or the free market. This is wrong. We
> know it's wrong. It never worked, and it never will. It runs counter to
> 5 million years of evolution and human brain physiology. (015)
Fascinating. I'd like to know more about this. (016)