Community | February 08, 2009 | 21 comments

Two years recession, or ten years of hell? (Part 3)

source: http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3267

Vierotchka
Engdahl: The danger is the US may turn to military might as their financial power weakens.

Discussing the global economic crisis, the context, and the history of the U.S. financial meltdown, Paul Jay continues our interview with William Engdahl, political economist and author. “I think it’s a symptom but not a fundamental cause of the crisis,” says Engdahl of the stagnation in wage increases in the United States. He continues to explain that, “if you go back to August 1971, when Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold, the United States went into what’s called in the Banking world ‘a Fiat Money System.’ Initially, after the decoupling, the U.S. dollar was backed by oil, but over the years, the United States became “increasingly dependent on the dollar being backed by the U.S. military power projection in the world. F16s and Abraham tanks instead of gold.” Engdahl continues to explain that, “this allowed the U.S. administrations to run deficits like no other nation in the world was able to. I think that is what now is reaching its limits.” As the U.S. financial dominance in the world comes to an end, Engdahl says he fears that, “certain powerful actors will turn to the U.S. military power projection around the world,” and that, “this is the real danger of a World War III.” He points out that the team Obama has brought into his administration is a, “really hawkish continuation of the old [Bush] team.”

F William Engdahl is an economist and author and the writer of the best selling book "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order." Mr Engdhahl has written on issues of energy, politics and economics for more than 30 years, beginning with the first oil shock in the early 1970s. Mr. Engdahl contributes regularly to a number of publications including Asia Times Online, Asia, Inc, Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine; Freitag and ZeitFragen newspapers in Germany and Switzerland respectively. He is based in Germany.

See Part 1 at:

http://current.com/items/89796259/two_years_recession_or_ten_years_of_hell_part_...

See Part 2 at:

http://current.com/items/89796275/two_years_recession_or_ten_years_of_hell_part_...

See Part 4 at:

http://current.com/items/89807549/two_years_recession_or_ten_years_of_hell_part_...

.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Current News US,   1 more
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Politics,  Economy,  9 more
  3.     
    |

21 comments // Two years recession, or ten years of hell? (Part 3)

  • Robroy1
    • 0
      Robroy1  

    • I don't agree with this article, this guy is reaching pretty far. Most world leaders are not looking for a war. And America for all its faults and problems is still the greatest nation in the world. I think the new leadership will restore America's position in the world arena again. No other country can compete with America and the freedom as well as will power of the people that has been bought with freedom. I don't agree with everything our government does and no one ever will agree with everything thier leaders do. But after traveling around this world and seeing how the other half lives, I feel I am lucky to have the freedom and rights that we have in America. In some countries I would not be able to even go on the internet and state my opinion or correspond with a person from a foreign country. America has its problems but it is still one of the best systems in the world. We need to riegn in GREED and the GREEDY American corporations. We need to get jobs back, and we are on track for this to happen. This headline is to negative, we are on the dawn of a new direction, give it a chance to take hold and see where it leads us before we begin to nay say.

    • 3 years ago
  • akamaial
    • 0
      akamaial [removed]  

    • Interesting point of view, I'm not at all sure that it has merit that is valid or coherent in relation to substance, yet worthy of thought and plumbing the depth of cohesive cognizance....BWAHAHAHA

    • 3 years ago
  • rosettastar
    • 0
      rosettastar  

    • yep, back to my plan of planting lots of root vegetables. If i'm wrong i eat well, if i;m right i eat.

      It all brings me back to the garden......

    • 3 years ago
  • courage
    • 0
      courage  

    • maybe we need WW 3 1/2 to clear the air and push humanity to the next level or push us over the cliff we have hanging from the last 30 years

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • The guy's evidence and speculation is a little hokey and he relies on some shaky ground to make his claims.

      I didn't really agree with it, it sounded more like an eloquent conspiracy theory rather than a valid prediction of what might happen.

      That being said, the interview gave you a lot to think about.

    • 3 years ago
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  

    • I think the conflict issues being discussed are overstated. I also think the Real issue is the US economy and resultingly the global economy.

      Having said that, we are very, and truly fucked in the US. Europe and Asia will depend on the extent to which they can un-couple from the dollar, and bad mortgage securities. I suspect Europe will survive, I'm not so hopeful about Asia, particularly China being so dependent on exports to the US.

      The last thing the US will do, when it becomes mired in the deepest depression it has ever seen, is start a war with Russia or China. Iran? Possibly a proxy war vis a vis Israel.

      We better start screaming for jobs, now, and loudly.

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • neocongo:

      "The last thing the US will do, when it becomes mired in the deepest depression it has ever seen, is start a war with Russia or China. Iran? Possibly a proxy war vis a vis Israel."

      Now THAT sounds overstated.

      This depression is bad, but it's wayyy unlikely that it will be as bad the Great Depression. We'd have to hit 25% unemployment for that to happen.

      You get to punch me in the face and dance around saying I told you so if it does. But let's not act like chicken little just yet.

    • 3 years ago
  • neocongo
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • neocongo:

      You think we're going to maintain this level of job loss for 2-3 years?

      Not only has that never happened before, the idea itself is completely insane.

      On what basis would our job losses stay that high? Things would have to get EXPONENTIALLY worse for that to happen.

    • 3 years ago
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  
    • neocongo:

      I would seriously love to hear reasons why we are not going to stay at this rate of job loss for a few years. And don't start with the stimulus package, it is a joke.

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • neocongo:

      We're not going to say at this level of job loss because things aren't going to continue to get worse for no reason.

      There would need to be retail losses CONTINUING to exceed current loss to ensure that kind of unemployment, hence the point I made earlier about things getting exponentially worse.

      These past few months were the worst on record, they are in NO WAY the norm!

    • 3 years ago
  • artemis6
  • keithponder
    • 0
      keithponder  

    • Lady V,

      I watched parts 1,2 &3 this this morning. I 've been a supprter of The Real News for quite some time now.One person (Barack) cannot make a difference. This is a sobering message of fate.

      It really seems like it is time to start stockpiling food, weapons, & water.

    • 3 years ago
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  

    • Another post hijacked by Highroller to rant about Israel. Of course all the ills in the world are due to Israel. 1.5 million Palestinians are the center of the entire geopolitical spectrum? Is it your position them if the US forced Israel to completely withdraw that everything would be alright? Is that also include them giving up half of Jerusalem, continuing to financially support them and allow them to come and go as they please into Israel? Of course after that Iran, Syria and Al Qaeda would throw us a big tea party right? Why do you refuse to admit that that terror client states such as Iran and Syria are equally responsible for the plight of the Palestinians as Israel. Maybe world war III will occur because a Fascist ex KGB officer is in control of a country whose economy is in free fall due to falling energy prices. Then China, a country who every one thought had the US by the balls, suddenly discovered that when Americans quit buying as much Chinese goods that maybe they needed us as much as we needed them. Possibly the US economic influence in the world isn't quite dead yet. More polispeak attempting to demonize Israel.

    • 3 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • mik661
    • 0
      mik661  
    • mik661:

      Ah yes dont tell high roller to stay on point, tell me not to respond. Of course if it was someone talking smack about Palestinians you would be all over it.

    • 3 years ago
  • akamaial
  • Highr0ller
    • 0
      Highr0ller [removed]  
    • Image

    • A STRATEGIC LIABILITY

      According to the American

      ‐Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) website, "the United States and Israel have formed a unique partnership to meet the growing strategic threats in the Middle East . . . . This cooperative effort provides significant benefits for both the United States and Israel."11 This claim is an
      3

      article of faith among Israel's supporters and is routinely invoked by Israeli politicians and pro

      ‐Israel Americans.
      Israel may have been a strategic asset during the Cold War.12 By serving as America's proxy after the Six Day War (1967), Israel helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. Israel occasionally helped protect other U.S. allies (like Jordan's King Hussein) and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more backing its losing clients. Israel also gave the United States useful intelligence about Soviet capabilities.

      Israel's strategic value during this period should not be overstated, however.13 Backing Israel was not cheap, and it complicated America's relations with the Arab world. For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. Moreover, Israel's military could not protect U.S. interests in the region. For example, the United States could not rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of Persian Gulf oil supplies, and had to create its own "Rapid Deployment Force" instead.

      Even if Israel was a strategic asset during the Cold War, the first Gulf War (1990

      ‐91) revealed that Israel was becoming a strategic burden. The United States could not use Israeli bases during the war without rupturing the anti‐Iraq coalition, and it had to divert resources (e.g., Patriot missile batteries) to keep Tel Aviv from doing anything that might fracture the alliance against Saddam. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the United States to attack Saddam, President Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines again.14
      Beginning in the 1990s, and especially after 9/11, U.S. support for Israel has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab or Muslim world, and by a set of "rogue states" that back these groups and seek WMD. This rationale implies that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press Israel to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead. It also implies that the United States should go after countries like the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and Bashar al

      ‐Assad's Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America's enemies.
      4

      This new rationale seems persuasive, but Israel is in fact a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

      To begin with, "terrorism" is a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups; it is not a single unified adversary. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel (e.g., Hamas or Hezbollah) do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or "the West"; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip

      .
      More importantly, saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. U.S. support for Israel is not the only source of anti..............................

    • 3 years ago
  • ejasun
  • hsaleem
    • 0
      hsaleem  

    • I can't agree more with Engdahl with his views on Afghanistan and Pakistan and the encirclement of Russia and China which will end up in World War 3.

      @Vierotchka: Please give the link to Part 4.

    • 3 years ago
  • Vierotchka
more from Community:
from the community

top videos