Iraq and Iran were just about to start selling oil in Euros and other currencies in 2002, which is why we hastened to invade Iraq.
Iran is still planning on opening an oil bourse in 2006, where oil will be sold in other currencies. In reply, we are getting ready to use tactical nukes on their nuclear research facilities.
Also, I would no depend at all on the Saudis being America's ace in the hole -- they are going to undergo a complete upside down revolution in the next few years. Most of their population is under 25, and unemployed, and very upset about America being in the Middle East. The House of Saud already has their escape planes waiting on the runway, and their money and diplomatic arrangements waiting overseas. Frames exist within larger frames. Draw a larger frame around your opponent's frame; he will appear wrong or insufficient. This is how wizards play.
There you go again, bein' all reality-based. ;-)
Seriously, though, the current administration is admittedly operating in a non-reality-based world, right? What does reason matter to them? The very reasons you state for de-bunking this threat are the very reasons I see that the smallest threat is probably very real to these people -- they know all this too. Plus, they believe, in ways normal people apparently can't grasp, that perception is everything.
I think they very much operate in a perception-based world. Money isn't a real thing to them -- it's pure power. They get more by manipulating perceptions. They manipulate the stock-market, they peddle influence, they dip in and out of industries trading on insider knowledge. Of course they see currency the same way. And in this world, what is the reaction going to be if someone starts fucking around with intangibles?
You list these things as very important: a common currency, existence of a standard, references, trustworthiness, and stability.
There's nothing concrete there. These are all ideas, giant ones, held together by nothing more than mutual agreement. I think the warmongers understand exactly the same how important these things are, and that's why they take any threat to the idea very seriously. It doesn't have to seem real to us, it does to them. Do you think control of the oil has anything to do with the war? If so, do you think your idea of control and their's is the same? Because I don't think they're all that interested in running refineries. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
The threat (that one takes into account in one's planning) depends always on one's perception of existing threats. These perceived threats are often different to real threats due various cultural and personal reasons and assumptions.
Usually you do not know real threats until afterwards when things have happened like they did and truth finally starts to filter through. This time lag could take long time depending on organization or person involved.
So, money based on the Gold standard is based on the belief that, if the going gets tough, you can buy the favour of powerful people by giving them gold so they can look pretty.
A fiat currency, all right. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
We're dealing with, I think, the problems associated with whatever is the agreed upon standard, be it gold, oil, seashells, or whatever else. It is, at bottom, all about trust. The problem with people like the current administration is that they don't really understand trust. They only understand loyalty, fear and force. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
And I wouldn't say that the whole idea of gold was to bribe favors from the powerful. I'd say it was a tangible manifestation of something of agreed upon value that could be used to back up pieces of paper that we would trade -- something to show so it wasn't all just trust.
But, if a monarch or country printed pieces of paper based on gold that was hidden somewhere, but in reality that gold had been looted -- would the rulers still fight to protect the hiding spot? It's been shown throughout history that they'll fight harder to protect the revelation that there's no gold than they would to protect the actual gold.
So at what point does it make a difference? And when one thing is a symbol of something else that may or may not even exist, does that make the subsequent warring any less real? Because I'd argue that much of the behavior we're witnessing right now is a result of something like gold fever, even though there's no gold involved.
The oil, having some useful purpose, actually clouds our vision when we're trying to understand what's going on. Just because we have a fiat currency, doesn't eliminate the human impulses behind certain behaviors we've seen in the past. That's why I think some things can be about the oil and have nothing to do with oil at the same time. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
