Unfortunately the mechanics of the site don't allow for sub audiences to form within the overall structure. This is Markos' fault, I don't know if he keeps his FIFO structure out of design or laziness. HuffingtonPost and the TPM empire have both figured out ways to be more magazine like. Both of them are run by experienced media people and it shows. Markos has gotten thrown into the deep end without adequate experience or a development team.
As for your main point, I'm afraid that things are going to get worse. There are two fundamental problems. The first is that the world leaders don't know how to deal with global resource shortages. They have no prior experience and lack the imagination to come up with new economic models. We have had a couple of discussion on this over the past few days, and I've seen more thoughtful comments then I've seen from anyone in a position of authority in either the US or the EU.
The second problem is that the infrastructure doesn't easily adapt to the scope of change needed. Let's take a trivial example - bottled water. If tomorrow there was some sort of international directive issued that prohibited the use of bottle water in any part of the world where potable water was available the trade would collapse. What would be the most visible result - thousands of people thrown out of work or seeing their incomes decline because they worked in the water distribution industry. The outrage over the lost jobs would be terrific.
Now try to extend this to something more central, like food distribution, or commuting to work. Any steps to change the dependency on liquid fuel will take decades to implement, assuming we have technological solutions. In my estimation the US has already decided how it will handle resource constraints. The one area that hasn't been spared is the development of the military means of international intimidation. The goal is to turn most of the world into a resource supplier. This explains the continuing rise in military spending, the existing plans for dealing with China and Russia militarily and the development of space-based weaponry.
I wonder how Europe will respond when they find that they are going to be tossed overboard along with Africa and Asia?
The American people implicitly support this agenda which is why there is never any discussion about diverting military spending to more productive uses. It worked for Rome for a few hundred years and the US has only had one century of domination. I see no good solutions.
Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
Even if you start looking into war footing situation, I fail to see how the USA could deny Europe the oil and gas flows it gets right now, as these mainly come from Russia, North Africa or the Middle East via inland routes that the US will be hard pressed to control in a situation of hot conflict against Europe and Russian and the locals... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
What recourse does Europe have? Is it going to be able to apply a credible military threat to the reluctant suppliers? The US not only has the means to do this, but now has an international reputation for an unhinged foreign policy which makes such threats seem possible.
I know all this is far fetched, but remember starving people don't behave rationally. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
They could also put a fleet in the Mediterranean before the start of "hostilities" and use Israel as a base.
It would be interesting to see which side Turkey and Britain would take if NATO were to fall apart into two opposing factions. Which brings Malta and Cyprus (both former UK protectorates) into the picture as well. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
And quite frankly, we're allies, remember?
Eventually the Americans will do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other options. I hope. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The US military robot empire is o-v-e-r. Iraq and Afghanistan proved that the US doesn't do effectiveness, and maintaining the biggest military in history is about to become unaffordably expensive. So there will be no rods from god - space war is just too damn expensive.
The US mainland is also wide open to an EMP attack and cyber war, either of which would cripple the country almost instantly. While Bush has been having wet dreams about himself as Commander in Chieferator, the real threats have been proliferating elsewhere.
I can't see a hot war between the EU and US developing for at least another couple of decades, and the US is unlikely to be recognisable by then.
I'd be more concerned about relying so heavily on Russian gas - it's a single choke-point, and even if Russian intentions remain honorably mercenary, it's not wise to leave such an obvious vulnerability so very exposed.
JakeS and I were considering sailing to South America: nuclear fallout takes months to cross the equator by which point the most toxic part of it has decayed... When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
But I guess the Brits are looking forward to trying out their brand new HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales when they are completed in 6 and 8 years. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
You make it sound as if that is likely to be a good thing. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Yes, and unnecessary, and too vulnerable.
I think there is a perceived (but false) time window during which the Cheneys and Feiths think tactical nukes can be used, and that they could change the equation in a way that could be used to rehabilitate their "place in history"--and toast some evil dooers. Imagine a smoking crater somewhere in Iran with the remains of a few thousand centrifuges floating around in the cloud.
How might the strategic planning of the world's leaders- Europe at the head of the list- change?
Blair kissed the ring to share the loot. Oops. and today? The more thing change--
Sarko the same, I think. But he's a fool who runs on greed and elitism, so it's not so surprising there.
Berlusconi? Never saw a crook he wouldn't embrace.
Granted that to a rational mind, the nuke seems almost a weapon of self-immolation. But such a last-gasp gamble is not so unlikely for an administration that has sneered at "the reality based" thinkers for years- who believe the perception of strength and real strength are not usefully different, and who are themselves going up in smoke, and need a huge diversion.
Sorry- this is getting to be a rant. I'll shut up now. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
Which is why by 1996 the CIA was on the case. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
It's an oversimplification that the CIA does things- or is "on the case", so to speak. More like a catfight than a company, then. Once, that was it's great asset- differing but well-informed perspectives. Victor Marchetti wrote a book ("The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence") that illustrates the bitter conflict between the directorate of operations, (the "Covert cowboys"), and the analysts. During the period of 1992 till 1998 or so, the jury was very much out as to whether to treat the idea of European cooperation (no one even spoke about unity, I am told,) as a threat, a temporary aberration or as a joke. Of course, the threat guys won, -more or less- but they were not the analysts, but ops. Things to do! Stuff to break! Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
"In my estimation the US has already decided how it will handle resource constraints. The one area that hasn't been spared is the development of the military means of international intimidation. The goal is to turn most of the world into a resource supplier. This explains the continuing rise in military spending, the existing plans for dealing with China and Russia militarily and the development of space-based weaponry."
Yes. I've been dodging brickbats (and thinly concealed sniggers) around here for maintaining the same thing for about two years.
I claim no prescience or predictive acumen--just the ability to "Know a hawk from a hacksaw".
Rub, rub. (Rubbing it in).
Iraq was a testbed for phase two of "resource theft as a national strategy", phase one being using the economic weapons of neoliberal BS, market theology and stuff addiction. Problem is--they became so effective at parasiting the real economy--they nigh unto kilt it. As a weapon, neoliberal economic orthodoxy is damaged goods. Thanks to brave and bright people like Jerome, more and more people will see this. Time to loose the dogs of war.
But the Iraq test case is, so far, an incredible failure as a tool of empire. Conventional weapons and military tactics have failed for many reasons, but firstly because they are inappropriate weapons for urban warfare, and because their cost far exceeds their value as tools of resource capture. So far.
--Will this equation change with, for example, oil at Euro100?
I don't think so. I don't think conventional weapons and tactics will ever again be able to effectively supply the Empire. At least for this purpose, their day is over, rdf. This is why:
--An entire spectrum of improvised and very deadly weapons have emerged in the last five years. Our attack -our Iraqi test case- has fueled a technological explosion in guerrilla tools and tactics, not the least has been the huge proliferation of the most intelligent and deadly bomb in existence- the suicide bomber. There is no reason to expect this technological development to stop. A handful of box knives in fanatically brave hands have brought the empire to it's knees, and caused it to turn on itself.
--A quarter of US troops manage their day medicated.
--A fifth of them are psychologically broken. 20%-- that the DOD's tame scientists will admit to. What's the real number? Who in their right mind will enlist for--that? And word's getting out.
--Real US military budget, 95% of it for conventional weapons and empire maintenance is already more than all the rest of the world's military expenditures combined. Balance of payments, deficit issues, the unavoidable costs to patch together neglected and collapsing infrastructure, and a crash in tax revenues will, like the concatenation of the elements Jerome enumerates, brutally limit new expenditures for mass arms buys.
What will happen-- the only option left to the empire-, is the nuclear one. What's the biggest bang for the dollar? What do we already own in huge numbers?
Project ahead for the web of processes that already roll on over the landscape--policy, political and fiscal realities- and what does the future hold? Before the fog of uncertainty sets in, I see deterioration in about every area, a closing off of alternatives for the empireists. Leaving that one.
From the point of view of the empireists, we need an event that will put the nuke back on the table as a tactical weapon, as well as a strategic one. I rejoiced at the NIE that stalled the drive to blast Iran. But the events of yesterday suggest a crisis point is coming, and soon. Monday will be interesting. Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
I pray that I am just a paranoid old geezer... As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
