Joseph Stiglitz on How the Iraq War Ruined the Economy

[Trisscarro]

overseas/foreign wars aren't a bad thing by default, but fought the way in Iraq and Afghanistan they are. the NATO coalition (IFOR) in Bosnia for instance. in that war the major deciding parties where the soldiers on the ground and Bosnian locals, so the people who actually understood the situation got to decide rather than politicians.

if we fought both the Afghan and Iraq war like that they'd be over in 4 years, fully independent after 2 more that and completely rebuilt another 3 after that.

[xylfox]

China is the winner of this war,even if you substract the less exports to U.s.a.They spared ,U.S wasted trillions and invested them quite good.

[ezra106]

Oil didnt rise because of the war, oil rose because of inflation.

Gold rose EXACTLY the same as oil, but you can't say that gold has anything to do with war.

Inflation is the cause.

[MMIIXX]

@ezra106 duh ...what caused the "inflation" ?

The Fed printing more and more money to finance the WARS of choice !

Are people getting stupider in the United States?

[ThePatcam]

@ezra106 wtf? oil prices didnt rise because of inflation, inflation rose because oil prices rose, among other things, and oil prices rose because the war made access and export of oil in the middle more costly. and gold has nothing to do with anything stiglitz is saying.

[MrJs1G]

What's a bit ironic to me about this analysis is that those who criticize the US for not owning up on Saudi Arabi's funding of Wahhabism (atrocious, I know) also criticize high gas prices, which are inevitable if relations tense.

Deal with one or the other, damn hypocrites.

[sysopkc]

Hahahahhaha the Iraqi/Afgan conflict accounts for less that 5% of Govt. expenditures annually. The GAO ITSELF presented that. And of course prices have collapsed since this blub. I am no fan of the war and dont support it, but fuck off....Your DISHONEST. Dont try and lie to people to promote an agenda...You just look like a douchebag.

[selfrealizedexile]

those on the extreme periphery of human knowledge and experience (quantum mechanics for example). Yet, without avail, economists are always and habitually running into brick walls with predictions and economic repairs. Doesn't this just scream out that there's probably SO many flaws to their approach? That perhaps their "closed experiments" were anything but and that their "established" cause and effect was just mere correlation?

[ImperialUSA]

@selfrealizedexile I'm not trying to say that Keynesian policies were necessarily the sole cause of strong growth in previous decades, but what reasons do you have to think that the market, untouched by the state (which is asking the impossible) will always produce the best outcomes? Is that your argument? I'm not entirely sure. And how there can be an economy based on pure reason? The economy with all its variables doesn't operate in a vacuum.

Perhaps you could clarify for me what you mean?

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

Read more on Anarcho-Capitalism.

[ImperialUSA]

@selfrealizedexile Perhaps I would, but could you maybe give me the gist? No state intervention in the economy, resulting in huge inequality and no provision of public goods? Or what? You've got to give me more than philosophical theories.

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

There is no such thing as "public goods." It is a machination of the State and mind. A truly free market would indeed distribute wealth unequally because of the unequal qualities of mankind. However, each individual would still be much richer than if gov't attempted (assuming a benevolent gov't) to redistribute wealth, or, in the more realistic scenario where gov't isn't benevolent, merely steal wealth for itself, throwing out crumbs to the mob. The distribution of wealth

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

in a truly free market is synonymous with Justice. If you work hard and serve consumers, the market rewards you. If you don't, you aren't rewarded with much. However, the ensuing abundance would still crash prices, allowing even the poorest among us to live decent lives, only improving over time.

Start off reading the wikipedia article on Anarcho-Capitalism so that you can ask more pointed questions.

[ImperialUSA]

@selfrealizedexile This will never end if we keep debating here. Perhaps we should continue on your page?

[ImperialUSA]

@selfrealizedexile Because I'm not sure why we're onto talking about scientific method.

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

That's what Keynesianism / Neoclassicalism's method is. You, yourself, attempted to use a derivative of it in your analogy.

[selfrealizedexile]

every economic collapse, we have no remote clue as to why the system didn't just keep on chugging away? Even the supposed "brightest" or at least most institutionalized (Nobel laureates) have not a damn clue as to how we can quickly recover from an economic collapse. That NEVER happens in the physical sciences. If a rocket explodes prematurely, we have teams of scientists and engineers who come to a satisfactory conclusion within weeks. The only problems that evade the brightest minds are

[selfrealizedexile]

With regard to the Scientific method in the Social Sciences vs the Physical Sciences, compare the progress in each field. The physical sciences every decade or even every year, comes out with important breakthroughs in falsifying and reforming theories that we have more confidence in so we can better understand reality and engineer around such knowledge. These breakthroughs direct future growth opportunities. What breakthroughs have occurred in the Social Sciences? Why is it that each and

[selfrealizedexile]

The Iraq War, which I don't support, was nothing in creating our current depression compared to the Fed. How can he keep a straight face arguing this minutia? No question Iraq will be expensive when it's all over and (if) the debt is paid, but it, again, was miniscule during the housing bubble.

[SCRuBSfANdB]

@selfrealizedexile I support the war. Other than that, I agree with everything you just wrote there.

[selfrealizedexile]

@SCRuBSfANdB

I started off as a free market conservative myself, too, for years infact. Given more time to think about it and research, I slowly moved toward Libertarian after I saw the inherent beauty of the market until I finally became an Anarcho-Capitalist. The more you think about it, the more you'll head in that direction. Give it time. I'm not a pacifist, far from it, but I'm not naive enough to be brainwashed like a good sheep on American wars. That's no slight on your

[selfrealizedexile]

@SCRuBSfANdB

intelligence; you probably just haven't spent enough time thinking and reading about the relevant ideologies in detail. The sooner you wake up, the longer you'll be wiser.

[selfrealizedexile]

It's funny how this Keynesian claims Iraq ruined our economy, yet "WWII got us out of the Great Depression."

There's no consistency to these political hacks.

[ImperialUSA]

@selfrealizedexile You've got to understand that the situation is more complex than that. After WW2 America had taken her moment and seized global capitalist leadership, thus ensuring through trade and strong economic dynamism, her dominance in economic terms.

But America is different. She is in recession; Bush blew hundreds of billions on defence spending and on two very costly wars. To claim the Iraq war was not bad for the economy is ludicrous. Things were on the slide before the GFC.

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

We already had it prior to WW2. I'd say it's far more accurate to say right before WW1 we seized leadership (the European countries by this time were depending on our agricultural production so they could even afford their war).

Either you didn't read what I wrote or didn't comprehend it. I never said Iraq will not be bad for the economy. I'm just stating facts. In the short-term, Iraq has done little (aside from deploy men and women overseas who could instead be

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

actually producing consumption and capital goods instead of bullets and bombs and their later destruction) to impact the US economy. The US gov't is paying for Iraq on a credit card. It will no doubt assist in obliterating US prosperity when the total interest rate payments reach ~1 trillion USD a year in the coming years and the bond market subsequently collapses.

All this aside, you still haven't clarified how you think WW2 was different from Iraq 2.0. In both cases, you

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

have men relegated to unproductive (indeed, destructive) tasks in a time when each's domestic economy needs nothing more than increased savings and production. If you witness an economic recovery during either situation, you've witnessed a recovery in spite of each war's wealth destruction. I know you probably adhere to the AD and propensity to consume model, but there's nothing really one can say to someone who believes in the random underconsumption theory or that inflation

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

comes about because of "overheating" or that deflation is a perpetual spiral into oblivion (how did we even make it out of the cave times then?) instead of a necessary correction.

In either case, I'd like to see you elaborate on how you think WW2 was different.

[ImperialUSA]

@selfrealizedexile I must have been mistaken, because I thought you thought Iraq had no large negative effect on the economy.

After WW2 was different as the global environment was extremely different, as was the regulatory domestic environment. America had been one of the victors of WW2, had given huge loans to other countries, had a positive balance of trade, and had seized control of the Asia Pacific so that favourable trade may be expanded.

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

Positive balance of trade means you're investing in other countries (or possible getting ripped off like China is right now). This is a demarcation of status as your country is rich enough to supply loans. A country isn't "rich" per se because it can physically produce a positive balance of trade, but because it has enough total savings with which to loan. The large supply of loans makes you rich--the loaning behavior is merely a consequence of that, not cause.

[ImperialUSA]

@selfrealizedexile Also domestically, the US was still following the Keynesian model to a certain extent, had strong regulation, high taxes, and welfare provisions. Yet the economy still grew massively. Showing that:

i) As attractive as capitalism without restraint seems, there is always a certain amount of mixing and government intervention required to ensure things run smoothly and cohesively.

ii) At the height of her laissez faire policies (right now) the economy is in terrible shape.

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

Here you demonstrate well the flaws of the Keynesian method.

You have no way of knowing true cause and effect a posteriori with regard to "good growth" and "strong regulation," etc.. I could type a whole dissertation on this point, but I'll let this simple statement suffice for now.

i) No, there isn't. Insofar as you have so-called "mixing," you have collusion and coercively-enforced mono/oligoplies.

ii) How can you even say that with a straight face? The US economy

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

has never been more regulated by the gov't. Every problem you could ever show me (current or past, in this civilization or another) is either or both a result of gov't intervention or your own incomplete understanding of the interrelationships within the market. By your logic, a free market shouldn't even exist to any degree. I seem to be the only one here who can take his own premises to their logical conclusion (Anarcho-Capitalism, not some garbled-version of

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

state-capitalism where there are no elegant lines drawn between what should be gov't-regulated and what should not be).

Balance of payments isn't technically a problem so long as it's investment and not pure consumption (which is ofc what's going on today and therefore is a problem).

You still haven't explained in detail exactly why you think and how WW2 expenditures were an "investment." Afterall, I'm sure there are a number of gov't contractors who will attest to DOD

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

A posteriori reasoning is notorious for being liable to produce truly absurd conclusions (look into Stiglitz's paper on minimum wage laws not producing unemployment). For example, let's say it rains tomorrow and I get sick that same day. Using your previous logic ("strong regulations" coupled with "good growth"), I could just as well say it was the rain that got me sick when, infact, it could have been caused by a number of other factors. You Keynesians are gravely mistaken

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

believing the Scientific method can be applied just as well in the Social Sciences as it can be in Physics and Chemistry whom diligently attempt to control and isolate variables, not set up "proxies" or average away heterogeneous interrelationships (the price of milk on one street in relation to the price of milk on another street and the consequences of each other on each other with regard to transportation services and consumption--geoeconomics). It's not that you guys are

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

superior or more noble for undertaking such a method. It's that you guys are FAR more off for applying a method (which strictly requires isolated variables and closed experiments) incompatible with your test subjects--all of society (all 6 billion of us)! What you should instead do is start off with extremely rigorous first principles or premises and apply deductive logic from them about what individual market actors will do (praxeology) and the concatenation of such activity

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

(catallactics). From such a strong foundation, you can better hope to understand market behavior and the ripple effects of gov't intervention. If you're earnest enough to actually read what the other side writes, you'll either see the flaws in over-aggregation or be better equipped to critique Austrian econ. Either way, you'll be only wiser for it.

[ImperialUSA]

@selfrealizedexile What I mean is, WW2 was sort of an investment, whereas all Iraq has done is drain billions from the treasury, with no clear benefit nor any foreseeable benefits, and the GFC was in part caused by lack of oversight to financial institutions. America's balance of trade is negative, and owes a shitload of money to the rest of the world.

P.s. I probably could have structured my argument better but I hope you get what I'm trying to say here.

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

funds as a form of "investment" in their company and their productive capacity (submarines, bombs, bullets, tanks, humvees, etc.). The point here is that these are all expenditures the market doesn't naturally want. Gov't has to force these expenditures into existence. Therefore, when each war ends (WW2 and Iraq), the market is poorer of real savings and, thus, production. Even if you could demonstrate remote prolonged utility yielded from war production factories (which I

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

don't think you can), it still wouldn't be the ideal maximization to market standards.  There is simply no way you're going to get "smart" regulators into a position where they can "outthink" a market. Not gonna happen, never will.

[arzoyan]

Capitalism is the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated tyrannical market system of artificial scarcity and manipualtion to perpetuate the conditions of bondage and servitude of the working class in the interest of the owning ruling class. A system of commodity production for the abstract process of capital accumulation and concentration . Capitalism is historically outdated,dangerous,destructive socio-economic imposition.

[arielco04]

Hiram- I believe this argument is based on a book called 'the 3 trillion dollar war'. Here he is trying to condense the argument outlined in that book into 2 and a half minutes, how 'clear' can he possibly make it in that time? I also doubt he won a Nobel prize for producing sloppy arguments.

[markinu]

What does this have to do with the housing bubble? So house prices would have continuted to increase where not because of the Iraq war?

Was it true or not true that banks were lending to people incapable of paying?

What does this have to do with the price of oil?

[ignati123]

@markinu The Soviets once triggered a recession by confiscating planting seeds. They did this to destroy people's faith in God and to force people to integrate themselves into the Soviet Socialist economy.

So too did the Democrats pressure banks to give out sub-prime mortgages, and caused Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to buy up sub-prime debt. The ensuing recession is causing the American people to loose faith in Capitalism, as if it is was cause.

[leeroynaggins]

@ignati123

Right, it had nothing to do with Wall St. investment firms pushing the housing bubble and then betting against it by selling insurance.

No, that wasn't it...

[ImperialUSA]

@ignati123 Buddy, that's incredibly dumb. The Democrats had nothing to do with the Firms' shifty dealings. You think they would have got away with that if there had been proper regulation? Also, comparing Soviet Russia's economics to America's is disingenuous.

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

Actually, they did. It first started through Jimmy Carter and then Clinton. Banks were even prosecuted on the grounds of discrimination if they didn't loan the necessary funds. I don't think the CRA or regulated industries were the exact source of the current depression, but they were no doubt catalysts. The original source was the great destabilizer and distorter of capital allocation in the Fed.

[HiramBinghamIII]

Stiglitz is presenting very sloppy argumentation here. I am still attempting to decide whether he is a sophist or merely inept. Very clear? Even though he cannot even present a relevant statistical correlation? I would expect as much from a Keyensian. After all, what type of individual follows a school of econ. theory that the founder (Lord Keynes of course) admitted was unsustainable long-term, but that did not matter according to him, because he would be dead!

[icarusinbrazil]

He does offer statistics in his book FreeFall. I don't see any statistics in your rebuttal which support an opposite position. He is clearly not a sophist (as a man with considerable hands on experience) but your critique--on the other hand--about Lord Keynes and his school of economics is rather specious.

[lanceawatt]

I believe the Iraq war may have been a a factor in terms of recovery, however I don't think it can be said to be a significant link to the financial crises itself - that was due to reckless banking on a global scale.

With or without the war this recession would have occurred.

[Fuzzy192006]

Do we really NEED oil ?

I mean, can't we use butter or something ?

[Maikkeru]

we don't really need oil. we need energy. We can get energy. We can get that form the sun and the wind! We can power the world with wind alone.

[MaxwellBennett]

@Fuzzy192006 no.

[thesilvernymph]

nah, man, olive oil.

[imurr08131988]

He has no actual facts to support his claims. There is no proof that anything he is saying is true. This is clearly just another leftist ivy league professor using shallow analysis in order to promote his agenda. On the surface it might make sense, but in reality it's untrue.

[DanMorgan98]

Ad hominem.

[FUZZYisBIG]

I certainly agree with oyur leftist critique... but the enormous spending of the Iraq war certainly could have been better used.

[micmore007a]

The War on poverty has cost more then in Iraq. I still see poor people.

[0nyxBlackman]

For the war on poverty, we spent money HERE (which is good for the economy.) For the war in Iraq we spent money THERE (not good for our economy.)

[ronpaul101789]

The war on poverty is such a joke. Not too fond of the Iraq war either.

[Snoopies622]

Thanks for posting. I think this guy is very smart.

[averageworkinggal]

Nonsense, Stiglitz.

Oil Production was not disrupted.

It simply was a global bubble economy with increasing demand.

The oil commodity bubble deflated, even though the Iraq War is still going on, because the global economy deflated.

The Economic Bubble peaked 2004-2007 which caused the oil peak.

[Ezzedeen01]

Your trying to debate an Economist who has won the Nobel Prize.

Pardon me, but who the FUCK are you?

I know Americans are arrogant pricks, but your pushing the envelope

[averageworkinggal]

Stiglitz like Krugman are closer to far left Daily Kooks bloggers than real economists.

All one has to do is read their articles on the financial crisis in comparison to the reality.

It's all far left ideology and that is what gets you a Nobel Prize in the field of economics.

[Ezzedeen01]

Alright, let me repeat the question.

Who the FUCK are you trying to debate a Nobel Prize winning economist?

AND

If you think draining the US economy of OVER HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS will have no effect, i suggest you quickly commit yourself to the nearest asylum because you are off your fucking rocker!

[ronpaul101789]

Oil played a very small role in the downturn of the current economic crises. I wonder why he didn't talk about the housing bubble or the MASSIVE DEBT caused by the Iraq war.

So are you saying it is wrong to question people in the academic world?

[Ezzedeen01]

Give me your credentials! Go ahead, i will be waiting.

Because unless you are at least an economist, you have NOTHING on this guy and should keep your mouth SHUT!

Kapish!

[ronpaul101789]

Are you saying that you believe everything you hear? You know there are other economists in the world. Not just this douchebag. You are just a pist off Muslim because America invaded Iraq.

[Ezzedeen01]

Let me get this straight.

You think i am pissed off, because America invaded Iraq, bankrupted itself, had 5000 of its animals slaughtered, and brought the western world to financial bankruptcy?

Keep smoking that Afghan Heroin, lol

[ronpaul101789]

You know there were other points in my response. I can see why you agree with this economist. I also would like to say that America was once a great country until its leaders and people stopped thinking. However, I don't expect you understand. You would have to read Atlas Shrugged to know what I mean.

[Ezzedeen01]

Ayn Rand is a mediocre author. I read Anthem suffice to say it wasn't a good book/novella.

America was NEVER a great country. You think Bush or Obama are the source of your problems?

Neither of them did anything except pander the same foreign policy of Clinton, Reagan, and all the other sadistic ******* US presidents.

[ronpaul101789]

Like I said, you wouldn't understand. Also, America was a great country, the greatest in human history.

[Ezzedeen01]

No, that award goes to Byzantine who maintained an empire for 1000+ years.......until they got careless and attacked the Muslims, which then amounted to their downfall.

Funny how history doesn't change eh?

[ronpaul101789]

What I found funny is how religious differences play a role in the destruction of nations. Islam and Christianity will also have there downfalls or it will lead to the end of human existence.

What does it mean to be a Muslim?

[Ezzedeen01]

It means to submit yourself to the one God (Allah = God in Arabic) and to accept the Quran as divine guidance to attaining success in this life and the afterlife

It also means recognizing the prophets who came bearing scripture, from Adam (peace be upon him) to Mohammed (peace be upon him). We must accept ALL prophets but recognize them as ONLY prophets.

A perceptive question indeed.

[ronpaul101789]

That is all I needed to know.

[0nyxBlackman]

This "douchbag" happens to be a Nobel Laureate.

[ronpaul101789]

He is a leftist douche bag. Are you saying that just because he won the Nobel prize we shouldn't question him? Milton Friedman won the Nobel prize and leftist douche bags like Stiglitz hate the guy. Naomi Klein continues to misrepresent Friedman's work. Should she not be doing that solely on the fact that he won a Nobel prize?

[ImperialUSA]

Stiglitz was in a high position of the IMF. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to the economy. Whatever his political leanings, (and it is not clear from this video that he is even a leftist) he knows what he is talking about. And you are 19 and call people a douche bag and say things like America was the greatest country in human history. By what criteria? The fact that you live there? Grow a brain kid.

[selfrealizedexile]

@ImperialUSA

Being in the IMF, one of the largest defrauders in human history, is a reason to discredit, actually Stiglitz probably hasn't given much thought to the institution (he wouldn't be a (insert your fotm suffic here)-Keynesian if he had) itself and wouldn't commit such immoral acts knowingly though.

[kenny8331]

@ImperialUSA how did the price of oil hurt the housing market and predatory lending?

[NLbusiness]

@ImperialUSA World Bank, not IMF.

[pretorious700]

@ImperialUSA A high position in the IMF just means he's an expert in subjugating people by monetary means. Yeah, he knows what he's talking about, and he's a part of the problem.

[Ezzedeen01]

"Douche bag" Very descriptive. How scholarly of you!

NEXT TIME, you want to criticize someone, at least be DESCRIPTIVE about what YOU ARE CRITICIZING.

And then prove your criticism with credible sources!

[pkinneyis1337]

@Ezzedeen01 It's a 2 minute and 24 second video. You expect WAYYYYYY too much with that time. lol.

[Ezzedeen01]

@pkinneyis1337

I was responding to a user that referred to Mr. Stiglitz as a Douchebag for no reason than criticizing the wars.

Youtube at the time didn't have automatically put the username of the person you were replying to

[DanMorgan98]

Ad hominem.

[weestro7]

lmao!

[28g34ajbsd]

So was Henry Kissinger.

[Ezzedeen01]

According to BBC:

"2003 IRAQ WAR

The American-led invasion of Iraq led to the loss of oil production in the Gulf state. "

The loss of production meant more demand than supply which meant higher prices, which finally (thank god) broke America and the world's back,

Imagine that, the Invasion of Iraq and the resistance of Iraqis brought the whole world into a downturn!

God Bless Iraq, the grave of invaders

[MiKikaIwaShizaru]

An ill wind brought Bush into power.

A mentally ill wind.

[Ezzedeen01]

Called Americans.

[Chuichupachichi]

Perhaps the American economy would be in much better shape if the worlds major commodities were already being sold in Euro's?

Then the supermarkets could sell a heavily taxed loaf of "Wonder" at perhaps 10 or 12 dollars? Maybe that would help to almost pay for just the interest on Americas debt? Or income tax could be raised to the level of simply giving employers the Capitol buildings address to mail everyones checks to.

[sturgonhaldor]

Stiglitz is a fraud. If you look for valid criticism of globalisation, read Chomsky. Or Marx.

[shevegen]

He is no "fraud".

Chomsky is great, but

(a) Chomsky is too old now, unfortunately

(b) although I think Chomsky is one of the smartest intellectuals to ever grace this planet so far, I am afraid that he has extremely strong opinions which sometimes are not always correct. Disbuting with him can sometimes become a battle over egos, not about facts (although to be fair, when citing facts, he is correct 99% of the time)

[shevegen]

"disputing"

[Chuichupachichi]

(although I think Chomsky is one of the smartest intellectuals ever, I am afraid that he has extremely strong opinions)

Do you think you may be correct in saying that? I'm not so sure? Due to the fact that your statement is rather strongly opinionated.

[Chuichupachichi]

(opinions which sometimes are not always correct)

"which sometimes are not always correct"?

Just wondering, exactly how do the quantities in that statement, compute to at least produce a ball park figure?

Sorry, just that I'm always bewilderingly befuddled whenever "sometimes" and "not always" are both present within the same equation. I find it terribly difficult to grasp a clear understanding of the computational workings behind that, which would produce a figure located somewhere on the map

[krokete2005]

WOW, this guy won the Nobel prize? It is the dumbing down of America...

gee

[ShinigamiKage]

krokete2005, are you retarded? He didn't win a Nobel Prize for this youtube video you horse's ass.

He won the Nobel Prize for altering the international trade model to correctly account for misinformation.

If you don't understand what that means then I guess you were correct about your dumbing down of America

[falcon2154]

Stiglitz is the man! Congrats on the Nobel prize, well deserved.

[starrynightuk]

Mel Brooks tbh

[PhotonDrive]

It was and IS a World Conquest Conspiracy, and it LOOKS like it has FAILED and led to COLLAPSE through unbridled money-printing which cannot UNFREEZE credit "Black Holes"?

[PhotonDrive]

He has it BACKWARDS! US Gov. DEMANDED ARMS, WAR, OUTSOURCING, etc. Their PLAN was to print money ("deficit financing"); EXTEND credit, then DUPLICATE CREDIT ("refinancing-CDO bundling) resulting in more interest, debt and issued currency. SELL debt as "assets"; BURY this "dust" under "soveirgne trusts" - as "backing" for their "booms" - and thus MAKE WORLD PAY FOR THEIR OWN OCCUPATION (through new "base-leases")! All this accompanied by hectoring over others "not paying their SHARE"!

[stone1home]

Can't argue with that. It doesn't strike very much depth. It is, as takatak said, obvious. What surprises me is the non-mention of facts additionally obvious: Bush, the Saudis, et al knew the foregone conclusion, and launched the wars to realize it. This is far from the first time oil prices have been employed as an international economic weapon.

This also is a very plainn, obvious observation.

[takatakishio]

This is such a simple and obvious point that it's no wonder so few understand it. Nice that you state this clearly and hope that a few more people start to listen. Whether we will actually learn from this mistake remains to be seen - I'm guessing that we won't.