Contemporary Wars

I understand what you say about the importance of reserves, yet a massive switch to Euros will make the dollar worthless, by removing that artificial and pointless boost and offer it to the Euro. So its more of a political decision, and the countries interested in stopping the US will make it.
But when those countries also have very large oil reserves (Russia talked about the switch to euro in energy export, Venzuela, Irak and Iran) then the things are not very comfortable.
The energy exporting countries can afford switching to the euro, because their loss is quickly replaced by selling liquids produced by mother-earth millions of years ago. (they don't have to produce anything). Moreover, for them its rather an imperative to sell in the toughest highest-value currency on the market.
Oil prices, oil and currency and oil reserves are the keys of Weltpolitik today.

take care.

Good question! Fission materials too are finite. And they are far more difficult to find/rare than oil was.

Anyway the thing is that someday it will become obvious that not the resources are the whole problem, but the number of people and the excessive importance given to economic growth. As more and more people go "on-line" and consume more and more, whatever the resource we jump to will be quickly exhausted.
For example nuclear energy may be feasible now, when the consumer pressures on it are small, but what will it happen when that will grow?
The economist will say a rise of prices. OK, but I'm talking about the physical base, not the prices.
Man's dependence on Earth's produce will never be broken.

And I'm not apocalyptic, for anybody interested...

@Imperialist: so far, IIRC no solid arguments have been made in this topic in favor of the fantastic notion that all of a sudden bankers and politicians worldwide would decide to simply dump 70% of all their assets and enslave themselves and their nations to the EU.

And while the EU leaders would certainly salute that decision, I see no reason for which those OPEC would try to ruin the entire rest of the world and themselves too in the process (remember, like the entire non-EU world, the OPEC countries keep their assets in US$), with such a move.

Re. the apocalypse scenarios, didn't you mention Mad Max, guerilla and the revival of Lebensraum acquiring as a consequence of the future oil depletion shock? Those referencese made me pretty anxious, don't know about others though.


@Chandernagore: http://globalresearch.ca/ and http://www.commondreams.org/ may be many things but they hardly are peer-reviewed websites of research institutes. Of course, that doesn't mean that their theories can't come true, in time. So please notify me when they're actually confirmed, ok? Not sooner, though.

Valachus, remind it to me, please ... what was the fantastic reason to "enslave" the same people to the US in the past ?

I'm sure you can answer that type of question yourself and see why nations could be interested in changing - not "dumping" their assets. But that sort of freedom it not allowed on the neocon agenda. By the way, did Irak flip back to $ ?

Oh man stop, please...

You rarely bother to show any source of your own and didn't give any on this subject, but you qualify as a sort of wonderbioman when it comes to energetically spitting on anything not of your liking. A true believer.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on February 14, 2005 07:10 pm

If you really insist on showing your utter ignorance of basic economic history, may I remind you that the history of the 20th century has seen, in fact, a similar mass politically-based dumping of hard currencies in favor of a politically chosen one, and also a unilateral, total dismissal of traditional trade relations that had previously sucessfully contributed to the prosperity of its benefitors: it's the inclusion of the Eastern European nations in the sphere of influence of the USSR and the subsequent politico-financial reforms that were undertaken there.

Thus, I take the liberty of reminding you, (if you ever knew that, of course) that Easterners were forced to give up trade with western nations and especially with the USA, and to limit themselves to the use of Rubles and barter exchanges. Is it necessary to dwelve further into the effects of that policy? On the other hand, nations within the capitalist-imperialist US$-using camp were able to skyrocket from the medieval age to 21st economy global powers in a matter of decades (see: South Korea, post-1950 history).

Lately, I hear that that Hugo Chavez guy is trying to do something very similar with 1950s East Europe economics in his country, in Latin America. I'm on the edge of my seat to see where that's going to lead Venezuela. And as I said, please keep me notified of further developments on the front of progressive economics. After you stop laughing, of course.

This post has been edited by valachus on February 14, 2005 07:41 pm

The notion is not fantastic at all, and its not about dumping. The Central Banks simply exchange their current reserves in $ for euros, buying the latter at inter-bank exchange rates.
It already happens in Europe in the countries that adopt as their new currency the euro.
There are some inevitable losses, but the decision is taken in view of the future gains, and also some countries receive aid from other banks interested in the process.
Hey, I'm kind of pro-US, but I can't refrain from asking: how come in the case of the EU its about enslavement, but in that of the US it is about "sound economics"?
Somehow I perceive a slight ideological touch in that position...

Well, this is the market economy. OPEC would try to maximise its gains, why should it give a rat's tail about how the others manage to pay for what they consume? Selling their oil in Euros will actually give OPEC better incomes, not ruin them.

Mad Max -- innocent joke.
Lebensraum -- well, call it Resource Wars, does that make you feel better?

Well, all I can see here is a symmetrical situation. The Free-World politically adopted the currency of its strongest member, which defended the freedom of its allies, while the Communist Camp politically adopted the currency of their occupier.
The one being more successful than other shows either a better managment or better use of resources, not the immortal monopoly of that politically-adopted-reserve-currency.
Now Euro is a competitor. Which is good.

If you really insist on showing your utter ignorance of basic economic history, may I remind you that the history of the 20th century has seen, in fact, a similar mass politically-based dumping of hard currencies in favor of a politically chosen one, and also a unilateral, total dismissal of traditional trade relations that had previously sucessfully contributed to the prosperity of its benefitors: it's the inclusion of the Eastern European nations in the sphere of influence of the USSR and the subsequent politico-financial reforms that were undertaken there.

Thus, I take the liberty of reminding you, (if you ever knew that, of course) that Easterners were forced to give up trade with western nations and especially with the USA, and to limit themselves to the use of Rubles and barter exchanges. Is it necessary to dwelve further into the effects of that policy? On the other hand, nations within the capitalist-imperialist US$-using camp were able to skyrocket from the medieval age to 21st economy global powers in a matter of decades (see: South Korea, post-1950 history).

Lately, I hear that that Hugo Chavez guy is trying to do something very similar with 1950s East Europe economics in his country, in Latin America. I'm on the edge of my seat to see where that's going to lead Venezuela. And as I said, please keep me notified of further developments on the front of progressive economics. After you stop laughing, of course.

Blablabla.

Answer the question : Did Irak reverse it's oil currency to $ after US invasion. The readers are mature enough to draw their own conclusions.

Chandernagore, drop the unfriendly tone.

It's good because it will promote healthy economic management. But the US will have to admit that it cannot hold the whole pie in it's own hands indefinitely and that currency reserves are going diversify. It's going to happen anyway. Invading shifting OPEC countries is not an answer, at least not one worthy of the trumpeted ideals.

Ok, I wanted to state that this oil currency problem is one important parameter in the middle east - GWOT equation. But it's not the only one.

No, I won't . You find that Valachus tone with me has been any more friendly ?

Ban me, close the topic, do whatever you want.

No, I won't . You find that Valachus tone with me has been any more friendly ?

Ban me, close the topic, do whatever you want.

I feel the same way. It would be unfair to warn only Chander... Better warn as all, "in general"...

I think the debate can be carried reasonable enough with arguments only, leaving aside thorny and personal remarks. But in the end it is your call, I just warn you to be aware what it is and what it is not tolerated here.

I haven't got the slightest idea. However, I would find it quite surprising to learn that the new Iraqi govt would resort to political moves that would liberally help the EU, given the "enthusiastic" support and "kind" words EU leaders have for Iraq now vs. what they had for Saddam's regime. I also trust that you are acquainted with the notion of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy and are careful enough not to try to pull one on anyone here.

The answer was "yes", they shifted back. And the fallacy is to believe they had the freedom of choice.