I have to think that the main shortcoming of your thesis is that despite the appearance of imperialism, the US is not and has never been an empire, and as a nation has no real desire to do the things which empires do, such as dominating or colonizing other nations.

You seem to be laboring under the restrictions of terminology and paradigms of the 19th century while attempting to examine relationships between modern nations which aren't easily pigeonholed by concepts like 'imperialism' and 'colonialism'.

Good case in point is the assumption you repeat that the 'empire' is characterized by overwhelming military power, when that's certainly not true of the US. What we see demonstrated in Iraq today is how inadequate our military capabilities are to dominate even a relatively small area and disorganized enemies. When compared to real 'imperial' powers the amount the US spends on its military and the size of that military are insignificant.

Dave

Dave, firstly, if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter whether it has an identity crisis. There's no basis to believe imperialism died with the 19th or the 20th century. Why then did the United States appoint a pro-consul as their first act after the invasion and conquest of Iraq?

Secondly, I'm not sure if you've read Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, but in the very beginning, he talks about how civilizations move from an Age of Expansion to an Age of Conflict, characterized by a declining rate of growth and expansion, growing tensions and class conflicts, and frequent and violent imperialist wars. That sounds pretty much like the social dynamic of the United States in particular in the world today. He goes on to analyze why the Universal American Empire is a near certainty, and its eventual decay.

The longevity of empires is much reduced, as has been pointed out elsewhere, and you seem to prove the point by your description of the difficulty of maintaining even the semblance of imperial rule in Iraq.

Incidentally. there is a regional imperial power with greater longevity who seems to be only too ready to step into the American vacuum, but that's another story.

The viewpoint of the author is entirely one-sided, Leftist, and distorted. For example, he repeats the old Leftwing canard: "In countries like China, Vietnam and Indonesia the workers who earn low wages cannot buy the goods produced by them", yet this hasn't been true for years. Chinese workers are buying cars, homes, and other consumer products at a record rate, and although the pay scales may be somewhat lower than the U.S., the prices of their goods are also lower.

He fails to criticize the utter depravity of 9/11, an attack without any particular purpose other than to terrorize New York City, and he suggests it's the moral equivalent of righteous "blowback" from the poor and oppressed, yet nobody believes Saudi Arabia was poor, nor was Osama bin Ladin ever "oppressed". The Saudi citizens who went to flight school could certainly afford it and the airline tickets required to hijack the airliners.

What is true is that the USA has sacrificed a large portion of its industrial base to help other countries bring their living standards higher and move them into a modern age. If the resistance to moving 7th century living standards into the 21nd century is "blowback", then perhaps it is one of those things necessary to advance the human race.

Some criticisms are justified, and the Soviet army could have been allowed to remain in Afghanistan undisturbed as it ultimately made no difference whether they won or lost there, when collapse of the Soviet state was inevitable. What did make a difference was that guerrilla warfare methods had been taught to America's future enemies. The CIA made many mistakes and misjudgements in dealing with the Islamic revolution because it failed to understand it, and many of those mistakes have caused American fatalities, so critical comments are merited, yet there must remain the criticism of Islam that it remains a deadly religion that results in genocide against Christians, Buddists, Hindus, and others, wherever Islam has been allowed to spread.

The Islamic revolution is not a result of empire but developed as the result of a lack of empire when the British and French withdrew from the middle east region, and to say it is "blowback" is the ultimate in disinformation.

Dear Zharkov,
we do not advance a debate if we call a viewpoint 'entirely one-sided, Leftist, and distorted.'By calling your response a extreme right-wing view of a neocon I do not advance the cause of rational debate either.So let me respond to the issues raised by you.

"In countries like China, Vietnam and Indonesia the workers who earn low wages cannot buy the goods produced by them" 'yet this hasn't been true for years. Chinese workers are buying cars, homes, and other consumer products at a record rate, and although the pay scales may be somewhat lower than the U.S., the prices of their goods are also lower.'

You appear to have missed the main point of the argument that shipping high wage jobs to low wage economies is beneficial to US corporations in the short term but it also replaces high wage consumers with low wage consumers. The paradox is that by job losses in US & Europe leading to loss of purchasing power in middle and lower class of consumers is not made good in countries where the consumers have poor pay.If there is compression of demand in Rich countries on account of job losses the economy gets into a tailspin of depression. The ripple effect on low cost economies would be that outsourcing would slow down and cripple the low cost economy. As things stand US is the consumer of last resort and if things go wrong there countries like China and India would also be in trouble.For the world economy to be stable the corporations in US and Europe would have to ship jobs overseas with the same pay as workers in US and Europe(a silly thing to do from the perspective of corporations).

The terrorist attack of 9/11 may be an act of depravity but does not tell you the reasons.The flawed foreign policy of supporting and aiding the repressive Saudi ruling elites produces anger in the Middle East. Foisting of tin pot dictators elsewhere does not help US in making friends but produces angry people who would like to hurt US by acts of terrorism.Incidently, the Saudi terrorists were not poor but angry people.

If US sacrificed its Industrial base by favoring Japan, it was not for altrusitic reasons. The primary reason was to show the world that Japan was a star pupil of capitalism. To serve the interests of cold war and to prove that communism/ socialism would never succeed Japan was propped up post II world war,for which US paid a heavy price.

And your last comment'The Islamic revolution is not a result of empire but developed as the result of a lack of empire when the British and French withdrew from the middle east region, and to say it is "blowback" is the ultimate in disinformation.' You are assuming that the British & French Empires were civilising influences, an assumption which betrays an elementary knowledge of history.

Islam does not have the monopoly of violence in history.In the blood splattered pages of history Christanity does have its share of intolerence and violence too.

Dear Dave,
Thank you for your comments.

Post cold war, US has relied less on diplomacy and more on military force and financial manipulation when it came to foreign policy. She maintains military bases all over the world and her military budget for the year 2007 was raised to a total of US$ 532.8 Billion.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$9106 billion.

In view of the staggering military expenditure,it would be extremely naive to say that US does not have hagemonic intentions or that she is a weak military power as the war in Iraq was botched up.

...her military budget for the year 2007 was raised to a total of US$ 532.8 Billion.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$9106 billion.

Setting aside for the moment that these two figures refer to two different years' budgets, 533 billion is not 47% of 9106 billion, it's more on the order of 6%. Perhaps you meant to say the world budget total in 2003 was 910.6 billion?

In view of the staggering military expenditure,it would be extremely naive to say that US does not have hagemonic intentions

Maybe not, when you consider that the US military has been known to pay $600 for a $10 hammer.

I'm being facetious, of course, but my point is that it's not logical to infer US hegemonic intentions merely from the size of its military budget.

Let me echo what Clavos just said. The vast majority of US military spending goes towards efforts to provide military support for allied nations and efforts, peacekeeping and pure maintenance of our military infrastructure. As a rule the US does not invade and occupy foriegn countries on an indefinite basis as would be required for building an empire. We may have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, but if anyone in America thought we had long-term imperial ambitions in either country the public would turn against those invasions even faster and more universally than has already been the case.

Dave

Dear Clavos,
According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the USA responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world total. Further,World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1,001 billion at constant (2003) prices and exchange rates, or $1,118 billion in current dollars;

Moreover,the figure of US$ 532.8 Billion for 2007 is understated as it does not take into account other military related expenditure such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, e.g. $120Billion in 2007).

All in all a fairly impressive expenditure when you add additional $23.4 Bil to be spend by the Department of Energy during FY'07 for the development, maintenance and production of nuclear warheads.

I note with interest your comment' Maybe not, when you consider that the US military has been known to pay $600 for a $10 hammer.'
I am glad that you are facetious for it would not amuse your taxpayers to know that the US army is fighting the war in Iraq with hammers priced at $600 per hammer.

Anyway thank you for providing the decimal point to the figure $9106 billion(910.6).

dear Dave,
In view of the clarifications provided by Clavos that the US military has been known to pay $600 for a $10 hammer,I see the error of my ways.

Now I am inclined to believe that all US military expenditure is spent on hammers priced@$600 per piece leaving very little expenditure for the purchase of WMD.Now we know why the war in Iraq was botched up.

Don't forget the $2500 toilet seats, Socrates.

US purchases of WMDs are another issue entirely. We spend more money today disposing of old and volatile WMDs than we ever spent making them.

Dave

Dear Dave,
With toilet seats priced at $2,500 and hammer at $600, it may not be a bad idea to outsource the supply to China or India.

I dare say this would release the military budget for the purchase of Weapons of Hostile Intent(WHI)to wage the war against terror.

Socrates

Very sober article.

It is confounding that the most glaring thing to some in your article is the use of the WORD "imperial" and not the affects of our actions.

It is our obsession with categories that actually gets us into trouble. Our need to have good guys vs bad guys prevents us from dealing with the complexities of international interplay.

We see ourselves as the good guys and so justified in fulfilling our needs which are supported by capitalism, which is good always.

Politicians understand our simple categories hence the axis of evil speech. In order to proceed with the plan ahead, we had to cause a stir. Whereby there was a threat from evil forces (bad guys). After that we had to giddy up and fight the good cause.

Imperialism is a bad guy word so it can not possibly be attached to us. Even though we colonized this country rather agressively I would say (or is it just me?)

Rather than comparing flat amounts spent on military purchases, a more relevant comparison is what percentage of a nation's GDP is spent on their military, since the two ought to be somewhat proportional. Such a comparison is a much better measure of whether a country is disproportionately warlike. It's not easy to apply this kind of analysis to a country like China where the economy is directly controlled by the government and groups like the Red Army are essentially self-funding and non-accountable, but here are comparisons of some nations where military spending is relatively transparent:

Saudi Arabia 5.9%
Israel 5.8%
Russia 3.6%
US 3.2%
UK 2.7%
France 2.2%
Australia 2.1%
Worldwide Average 1.7%

So as you can see, the US isn't even in the top 3 as far as percentage of GDP spent on their military, though it like all of these countries is above the worldwide average.

Considering that the US essentially pays the defense cost for much of western europe and many other areas of the world, our spending per GDP is actually pretty low.

Dave

Imperialism is a bad guy word so it can not possibly be attached to us. Even though we colonized this country rather agressively I would say (or is it just me?)

Britain, Spain, France, Sweden and the Netherlands colonized this country. We didn't colonize ourselves. Plus it was 400 years ago.

Dave

Dear Dave,
Consider this fact: Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, according to the Center for Defense Information, the US outlays for defense as a percentage of federal discretionary spending, has from Fiscal Year 2003 consumed more than half (50.5%) of all such funding and has risen steadily. Discretionary spending accounts for approximately 1/3 of all federal outlays.

The military expenditure of US is placed at $522(2007) billion dollars.This expenditure dwarfs the military expenditures of other countries. For example- China 62.5,Russia 61.9, UK 51.1, Japan 44.7,France 41.6, Germany 30.2, Saudi 21.3 and so on.

The point is if one were to list the global interventions by US from 1945 to present it would be very impressive indeed.As the interventions have been exceptionally bloody one can surmise that more than hammers were used by US to wage conflicts/war on other countries.

Well duh, military expenditures can go up over time as GDP goes up. That's true of any country which doesn't encounter some sort of economic disaster. It's not unique to the US.

And as I said before, the US spending does not dwarf that of other countries on a basis of percentage of GDP which is a more reasonable comparison.

It's even less excessive when you consider the military actions you mention. The US has taken on the military responsibilities of much of the rest of the world to keep peace and counter oppression and given all of that activity the level of expense is surprisingly low.

Your suggestion that our interventions have been 'exceptionally bloody' is a complete crock. In addition to the fact that we have not taken and occupied territory in the long-term as an empire would do, almost all of our interventions have been primarily characterized by the relatively low level of civilian casualties compared to other military conflicts. Yes, there are a couple of exceptions like Vietnam and Iraq, but in both cases the high level of civilian casualties was largely caused by the tactics of the enemy, not as a result of US policy.

Dave

Dave - the Phillipines, Hawaii, Texas, California, the Cuban proxy state pre-1962 - long term occupation?

Cuban proxy state pre-1962 - long term occupation?

Hold on a second -- what "occupation," long term or otherwise, of Cuba pre 1962?

What do you mean by "Cuban proxy state"?

And what's the significance of 1962?

That should've been 1959 - and surely you not denying the client status of Cuba post the Platt Amendment - "Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual happiness". This remained in force until Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy in 1934.

It later became a more typical American economic hegemony - In 1946,half the billion-dollar Cuban sugar industry was American-owned, and more than 25% of the cultivated land was American owned.(Foreign Policy magazine and The Dust of Empire) Indirect rule is more pernicious, in many ways, than direct rule.

I'm glad you don't dispute the rest of American local aggrandizement and annexation. Grover Cleveland's secretary of state Richard Olney is another case that comes to mind, and his extended interpretation of the Monroe doctrine.

In 1946,half the billion-dollar Cuban sugar industry was American-owned, and more than 25% of the cultivated land was American owned.

By the 1950s, the Cuban sugar industry was Cuban owned, top to bottom,; and in fact, today's American sugar industry is Cuban owned and controlled. Are you familiar with the name Fanjul?

Also, Cuba was not "occupied" by the US after 1934, when the Platt Amendment was repealed (repealed, except for the lease on Guantanamo).

Had it been, Fidel would not have won his "revolution". As it was, his pitiful little ragtag band of "revolutionaries" barely beat Batista's army, and only because they were even more inept than Fidel's barefoot guajiros.

In fact, Batista blew it. Shortly after the attack on Moncada barracks, he had Fidel in custody, but at the urging of Catholic Jesuit priests, didn't execute him. Batista's humane gesture was Cuba's (and the world's) loss.

I lived in Cuba in the late fifties; I even met Huber Matos once, briefly, in Baracoa, Oriente province, in July or August, 1958. I saw what went on. So did the Cuban people, and they've been voting with their feet ever since.

I'm glad you don't dispute the rest of American local aggrandizement and annexation.

Kindly don't infer anything about me simply because I chose not to respond.

The real issue is what's happened since Castro took power. It must have looked great at the beginning, and even through to the collapse of the Soviet Union there must have been hope that things would steadily improve. But I wonder how the Cuban people REALLY feel now, though. 20-20 hindsight is a marvellous thing. I wonder if they'd have preferred Castro had never come out of the woodwork, knowing what they know now.

And not being communist these days doesn't necessarily mean bowing down to America and doing everything it wants. The road taken by Cuba was consigned to the dustbin of history by Gorbachev, who was smart enough to see the writing on the wall (literally, in that case).

dear Dave,

Your comment'Your suggestion that our interventions have been 'exceptionally bloody' is a complete crock.' could be true if the entire US military budget was spent on expensive toilet seats and hammers. Sadly, the US army did acquire Tomahawk missiles, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells which were used with deadly effect in Iraq.In Vietnam napalm bomb, cluster bombs and agent orange were used to poison the earth, the water and the gene pool.The figures of dead in Vietnam alone comes to one million.

But there is a bright side to our discussion:not all the US taxpayers money was wasted on hammers and toilet seats as suggested by you and Clavos. The 'puny' military budget of about half a trillion did produce an impressive number of body bags.

dear Clavos,
Did you know Batista personally? I mean you seem to be vouching for his good character(Batista's humane gesture).I presume you left Cuba before Castro came to power.

Too bad Batista blew his chances!

The Wikepedia encyclopedia says"...Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations, countries, or colonies. This is realized either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the politics and/or economy. The rule of authority of a country is based on territory, economic establishment and political influence. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire. It is also considered the action by which one country controls another country or territory accomplished by military means to gain certain advantages. Imperialism helps one country gain power and domain over other areas. ..."

Lets face it by this simple definition the U.S is an imperial power although some people on this blog can't see the wood for the trees....perhaps they should read William Blums's seminal work "Killing Hope"...should give you a broad idea ....and also ...ask all those people living in all those countries where the U.S has interfered in the past 100 years whether there was anything remotely "benovelent " about their handiwork....by any stretch of the English language....

The chickens are coming home to roost.All those adventures abroad come at a cost.During the time Bush and co. have been in power the dollar has depreciated by 40%....and it is sliding further ...towards the shit creek....watch the trillion dollar housing bubble burst...deflating consumer spending.....watch the subsequent effect on the stock market balloon ...which is otherwise enjoying the last wisps of Greenspan's low interest helium swirling into the largest credit bubble in history.....watch the consequences of Empire....watch it Mr.Nalle .....and weep.

Dave - the Phillipines, Hawaii, Texas, California, the Cuban proxy state pre-1962 - long term occupation?

Clavos has already addressed the issue of Cuba. The others are even more ridiculous. Texas and California both came into the union willingly. They had to virtually force the US to annex them at a time when many American politicians were politically opposed to annexation. They also held popular votes whcih overwhelmingly favored annexation, even among the non-English speaking populations. Plus that was 150-some years ago. Why not add Louisiana and Vermont to your list while you're at it? Silly.

As for Hawaii, the story there is certainly a lot muddier, but its entry into the union was not terribly bloody or oppressive compared to other territorial acquisitions of the period. In the long run, coming under the protection of the US government was better for everyone concerned including the native population. You don't hear a lot of Hawaiians complaining these days, do you?

And I'm not at all sure where you're going with the Philippines. There are a hell of a lot of people there who WISH the US was more heavily involved, that's for sure. Since we reduced our interest the place has gone to hell in a handbasket. And our presence there was always a moderating and protecting one. I can only imagine how much worse things would have been without US involvement.

Finally, one comment for Anand. The dollar has been deliberately deflated as part of an economic strategy which thus far seems to have been pretty successful. As for the 'housing bubble', it's not bursting. Every expert seems to agree that the adjustments are short-term, and the impact of artifically low interest rates wore off quite a while ago. You can bleat about economic doom and gloom all you want, but the evidence just isn't there to support it, so long as the deficits continue to go down at an accelerated rate and the value of the dollar starts to rebound correspondingly as we ought to see in the next few months.

Dave

To take the discussion a bit further afield, consider the case of indirect, almost 'remote control' rule in Africa, specifically in places like the DRC (Congo), the assassination of Lumumba because he threatened to go over to the Russians, and the subsequent threat of loss of control over the natural resources, and the British control of other African nations.

The sad part is that for the most part, the American empire is being built on the ashes of other empires - the Belgian, the French, and the British, and most of these ended in an undefined political state - furthermore, they brought in social and economic progress during their imperial rule, but not correlated with political growth and maturity, and so we have all the not-quite-nations that the United States is struggling to keep at peace, or variously, at war.

Pax Romana != Pax Americana, although the Roman corollary is an apt one.

would love to watch Nalle eat crow.....watch this space

During the time Bush and co. have been in power the dollar has depreciated by 40%....and it is sliding further ...towards the shit creek....watch the trillion dollar housing bubble burst...deflating consumer spending.....watch the subsequent effect on the stock market balloon ...which is otherwise enjoying the last wisps of Greenspan's low interest helium swirling into the largest credit bubble in history.....watch the consequences of Empire....watch it Mr.Nalle .....and weep.

When I first read this, I thought the tone sounded gloating, as if this commenter hoped for all these things to happen, then I saw this:

would love to watch Nalle eat crow.....watch this space

And I realized that's exactly what he wants.

Don't hold your breath.

Oh, and BTW, expect more interest rate cuts later this year...

The Housing collapse has been documented by people in the know... Prof michael Hudson anticipated this a long time ago ...nobody listened then they will be forced to listen now...

Prof Hudson also anticipated the present state of affairs vis a vis the dollar

Mr.Nalle...."dollars starts to rebound.."....rebound did you say??..REBOUND???....why is Dick Cheney then betting AGAINST the dollar?....He should be betting FOR the dollar.....what do you think we are?.... a bunch of idiots? here's the link

As for the rest of you who read unsubstantiated Nallish nonsense..... here is some real news for a change Bankers Fear World Economic Meltdown Declining Superpower Act A Stock Market Post-Mortem

Anand,

Normally, I woulds laugh at the stuff Counterpunch.org, particularly when it writes about Israel. Most of their stuff about Israel is knee-jerk pro-Arab bullshit.

But when I read analyses of the economy, I sit up and listen, and pay attention. The bankers and oilmen have been lying to us through their teeth and sniggering at us as we try to figure out ways to do energy conservation and to hold on to a standard of living they are determined to destroy.

Some of our colleagues like to look at things through rose colored glasses.

Ruvy,

I find it interesting that you don't believe counterpunch's opinions on Israel, because you know more than they do, and find them to be wrong on those issues, yet you believe them on US economic issues. Why do you think they're so wrong on one topic and so right on the other? It doesn't make sense.

One more point: why would the bankers and oilmen want to screw things up for the little guys? We are their customers; we are where they get their money from; if they render us incapable of buying their oil or renting their money, how will they continue to buid their wealth?

That, too, doesn't make sense, my friend.

In the USA the middle class IS the economy. Henry Ford understood this perfectly, so does any modern captain of industry. WE ARE THE CONSUMERS, Ruvy, without us there is no economy.

Clavos,

One more point: why would the bankers and oilmen want to screw things up for the little guys? We are their customers; we are where they get their money from; if they render us incapable of buying their oil or renting their money, how will they continue to build their wealth?

Clavos,

I realize that you sell boats to rich people. I also realize from the tenor of your comments that a weak dollar has some very good effects on certain parts of your economy.

But I know, from personal acquaintances telling me this, that the World Bank wanted a report in the spring of 1973 telling everybody how a tripling of oil prices would benefit the world's economy. The analyst asked to write the report couldn't and quit, but not before letting friends at the Wall Street Journal know what was up.

Some people get rich by watching out for the best interests of the society around them. The owner of a clothing mill in New England comes to mind. But many get rich by practicing sheer unadulterated greed. There was a tripling of oil prices in 1973, done under the cover of war and an "oil boycott" by OPEC.

The price of oil today is at least three times what it was in 1973. In the seventies, it became a necessity for both parents to work to support a family in the United States, something that had not been true in the generation or two previous. The drying up of credit in the 1970's made the movement of labor to cheaper countries in the American industrial Midwest, something that was likely to happen, a much more painful adjustment than it needed to have been.

It used to was that banks made money off of investments. Today they make money off of fees charged their customers. You can't fart in a bank anymore without getting hit up with a fee. Why is this, Clavos? Could it be that there are no more decent investments to be had? Is it a necessity that oil should cost $60/bbl when it costs $5/bbl or less at the wellhead? Why has every alternative technology to the gasoline engine been bought up and made virtually unavailable to the consumer? Who has been buying up these alternative technologies? Why?

I didn't need Counterpunch.org to ask those questions. But in the piece on why the market is likely to fall, a lot of interesting points are made. And the article made sense. Which is why I sent it out to my "A" list on the internet, along with the following comments.

"You won't normally find me reading Counterpunch.org. - particularly when they report on Israel. A greater pack of fools there has never been.

But this piece on the stock market is a lot more persuasive - particularly because the author is not aiming his fire at Jews at all, but warning of what may happen on the market, and analyzing why the Fed no longer releases M3 data, which would give an accurate picture of the U.S economy. I have started to pay closer attention to the U.S. economy because a joke of a currency, the
New Israeli Shekel, has been rising against the dollar and has recovered all the value it had lost in seven years, since March 2000. This is unprecedented in the history of this country's currencies since the independence of the State, when the Palestine Pound became the Israeli Lira at $4.00 par value in 1948.

I will make my own observations. If the dollar gets flushed down the toilet, do not assume that the euro will not follow.

This Sukkot will be a decisive period of time. Look for a terrible Fall and a miserable Christmas. If you can, buy gold and a troy scale. and if you are Jewish, either come to Israel, or if you are here, do not leave."

I've also recently read Johnson's book. Socrates did an excellent job summarizing it.

One point that he might have emphasized more is that the CIA term "blowback" refers not just to the unintended consequences of policies, but to consequences of policies of which the American people were kept uninformed. It is this denial of any context by which to understand what is happening that makes finding remedies so difficult.

This is what makes Johnson's analysis, written a year before 9-11, so chilling to read today. It's why today today we still have Americans told to believe that the highjackers did it because "they hate our freedoms," and any real discussion of the attack's origins is forbidden because it would shine light on Israel and U.S. policies in the region.

I don't have time for any lengthy responses even to those who deserve one - got to go exploit some workers and pay them in devalued dollars.

But a couple of quickies.

Ruvy said:
The price of oil today is at least three times what it was in 1973

Incorrect. If you adjust for inflation oil today, even at $3 a gallon is slightly less expensive than it was in 1973. But I agree with those who say the price of oil needs to be higher. It needs to hit $5 a gallon in the US to force necessary changes.

It's why today today we still have Americans told to believe that the highjackers did it because "they hate our freedoms,"

A comment you only see coming from the left as part of a strawman argument designed to paint those on the right or in the administration as simpleminded. But like any canard there IS a nugget of truth, as the relative freedom to behave imorally is certainly something that many Muslims hate. It's not their primary motivation, but it makes it easier to portray westerners as evil and corrupt.

Dave

"I don't have time for any lengthy responses..."

Looks like David G. stopped Nalle in his tracks...

Dave Nalle:

"The dollar has been deliberately deflated as part of an economic strategy which thus far seems to have been pretty successful."

That's funny, since Dave vigorously maintained there was NO devaluation until I pointed out the facts and figures. That was when I thought it useful to pursue refutation of his claims, but soon it was apparent that Dave just invents 'facts' to support his unerringly partisan assertions.

"...deliberatively..."? When did we deliberate that policy, Dave? When did we hear arguments pro and con in the congress? In the newspapers? On TV? In the Blogosphere? When did YOU vote on that issue?

"...successful..."? So who can point to some way that devaluation has helped them?

Well, my friend O can! Back in 2000, flush with Clinton dollars from being booked up at $150/hr. during the 90s, he bought a little villa for 70k Euros in the Loire valley, but only paid $50k US because of the favorable exchange rate. If you wanted to buy a 70k Euro villa today you'd have to pay $100k US Bush dollars. Anyhow, you couldn't buy O's villa because it's gone up a lot in Euro value, too, which is a rather new phenomena in French real estate, abetted in his area by the huge influx of Brits who've discovered that everyone loves workers who show up on time everyday, keep their promises, and assimilate enthusiastically. Loire Valley is quickly becoming known as The Garden Of Britain.

But that opportunity is foreclosed for most people. Even O says he couldn't do it now as consulting fees have dropped to $70/hr with the influx of cheap and submissive engineers living 3 to an apartment.

Anyone else have experience of dollar devaluation helping them?

Hey Dave
Do we wage war on terrorism or on bloated military expenditure?
If a toilet seat is procured for$2500 and hammer for$600 for the military the answer is quite obvious.

Aaman,
Good points made by you in your comment #26.Pax Americana? i would think Pox Americana would be more apt!

biffle,
one of the ugly side of globalization is low wages for white collar workers. The corporations would out source the work to low wage countries and kill jobs at home.And force the workers in Wealthy economies to accept low wages. Good old Marx got it right when he said the capitalist uses the reserve surplus labor to drive wages south.

your story of O is heart rending.

@#39:

"...deliberatively..."? When did we deliberate that policy, Dave?

You've misquoted Nalle, Bliffthuselah. Look at your own top line, where you quoted him accurately: "The dollar has been deliberately deflated as part of an economic strategy which thus far seems to have been pretty successful." (emphasis added)

"...successful..."? So who can point to some way that devaluation has helped them?

Any exporter. As the dollar weakens, American exports sell better abroad; this in turn helps the balance of payments.

Workers. As the dollar weakens foreign labor becomes less competitive; job outsourcing decreases.

One area I have direct, personal knowledge in:

American built boats (Hatteras, Sea Ray, e.g., there are dozens of others as well) are selling like hot cakes in Europe and elsewhere; they're built in North Carolina (Hatteras) and Florida and Tennessee (Sea Ray). Sea Ray, incidentally, is the world's (not just the USA's) largest boat builder; when its export sales go up, they are more than just a blip on the radar.

US military intervention is not based on benevolence but protecting US corporate interests.

Have we forgotten the words of Major General Smedley Butler who said,"War is just a racket. A racket best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the very few at the expense of the masses". When General Butler retired from the army he went on record saying that while a serviceman should defend his country honorably he should never become a 'rackeeter for capitalism.'

And Major General Smedley Butler was not a 'commie nutter'as Clovos and Nalle would put down but a respected member of the US Marine Core.

Who do you expect me to believe -- a Major General in the US Marine Corps or Clavos and Nalle?

Clavos: if you're around, according to the tracker, delvery of your item has been attempted. Cheers bro

Despite Dave's view that the US isn't an empire, I beg to disagree. It's an empire all right. As another commentator says, it looks, walks and quiacks like a duck. It's undoubtedly about corporate imperialism. Because the US doesn't go planting the Stars and Stripes everywhere it goes is irrelevent. It builds corporate HQs instead, and the profits largely go back to US shareholders.

The flip side of the coin is that in my view, the US empire is stage II of the anglo-empire, and that means the US is largely a benevolent corporate coloniser.

US companies in Australia, for instance, provide millions of jobs. The good they do around the world outweighs the bad.

As usual, we have immediately fallen back to the default position of the loony left here: the US and its allies are bad, and everyone else - including mass murderers - must be right.

I prefer to see it the way it really is: without the US, the world would be in real crisis.

Yes, we know it's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than some of the alternatives that have been thrown up over the past half century or so.

Dave

sed: "They came into the union willingly."

You forget that this land was occupied by Native American nations. They did not come into the union willingly.

Why do you forget this very significant aspect of our very short history.

STM

I prefer to see it the way it really is: without the US, the world would be in real crisis.

Without the US someone else would be in its place.

Yes, Zedd, and I'd really hate to think about who that might be ... better the devil you know, especially when, for all its faults, it's not as bad as many others could be.

You forget that this land was occupied by Native American nations. They did not come into the union willingly.

Actually, in the areas under discussion the native population had already been previously suppressed by colonists from Spain, so their presence was irrelevant. And as a general rule, unfair though it may seem to some, conquered peoples are not given a fair shake by conquerors. That's the way it goes. I'm still waiting for my reparations from the Sassenach for the suffering of my ancestors back in bonny Scotland.

Why do you forget this very significant aspect of our very short history.

Because it's irrelevant to anyone but those who want to make a bogus issue of it.

I prefer to see it the way it really is: without the US, the world would be in real crisis.

Without the US someone else would be in its place.

And the crisis would be that whoever was in place of the US would likely be a hundred times worse.

Dave

And the crisis would be that whoever was in place of the US would likely be a hundred times worse.

Strangely, similar arguments have been used by every totalitarian regime and dictator in history.

Stan, me 'at's 'ere; check yer email.

"Who do you expect me to believe -- a Major General in the US Marine Corps or Clavos and Nalle?"

But MBD...surely Nalle's hundreds-of-thousands of typewritten words should count for something...?

Strangely, similar arguments have been used by every totalitarian regime and dictator in history.

That's US alright: "totalitarian and dictatorial."

Life here is so horrible, I can't understand why Americans aren't jumping onto rafts and wending their way to cuba or haiti.

I'm going to Cuba for the free healthcare right after I stop in to Haiti for the free burning tire 'necklace'.

It's always good to bring up the good things the US has done in the world, because the outraged response immediately identifies the rabid, irrational America-haters whose minds are completely closed off from reality.

Dave

Dave's mantra: If you haven't got a reasonable or rational response, diddle with the issue, twist it until it changes shape, call it by a different name, throw in some pejoratives and epithets and try to make an attempt at being humorous.

___

Dave says he "identifies the rabid, irrational America-haters whose minds are completely closed off from reality."

Perhaps many of those Nalle calls the "rabid, irrational America-haters whose minds are completely closed off from reality" are really normal rational folk totally connected with reality who see the US government (i.e., the Washington pols on the take and feathering their own nests) as the problem that keeps the country from being all that it could be.

There's nothing wrong with the country. The problem lies with the bastards in government who keep the country from being what it should and could be.

"Be all that you can be"... not bad advice. If it was good enough for the Army, why not the pols?

So who is rabid and irrational with a closed mind?

Clavos #53
'Life here is so horrible, I can't understand why Americans aren't jumping onto rafts and wending their way to cuba or haiti.'

I heard the US corporations are destroying jobs in the land of milk and honey and endless opportunities.Cuba may not be a bad idea. May be you could try your hand at ousting Castro.

stm #45

'The flip side of the coin is that in my view, the US empire is stage II of the anglo-empire, and that means the US is largely a benevolent corporate coloniser.It builds corporate HQs instead, and the profits largely go back to US shareholders.'

With profits going to US shareholders and the colonised exploited gee it is business as usual for you guys.

dear Dave,#54
I'm going to Cuba for the free healthcare right after I stop in to Haiti for the free burning tire 'necklace'.

Going to Cuba may not be a bad idea. Health care is quite good there.How is health care in US? Are you truly screwed if you don't have health insurance? What about drug prices are they expensive? I understand that many elderly people cannot afford to take drugs.

will your govt allow elderly Americans to visit Cuba for health chec ups?

Going to Cuba may not be a bad idea. Health care is quite good there

Not good enough to keep the people there. On a daily basis, they choose to risk their lives to come HERE.

Wonder why, if it's so bad here?

Could it be.......................it's not???

I'd like to backtrack a bit, to Dave's comment #25:

Since we reduced our interest the place has gone to hell in a handbasket. And our presence there was always a moderating and protecting one.

That's exactly the kind of thing we British kept saying to ourselves about India and Africa... right up until we slunk back into Southampton with our tails between our legs.

And what was that entity called again? Ah, yes - the British Empire.

Quack. Quack.

Joe what you miss in your little marxgasm about corporate exploiters is that where US businesses go they inevitably bring prosperity, typically paying double the prevailing wage and creating opportunities to create lots of new local businesses.

"Be all that you can be"...

Ah yes, Quantum Potes Tantum Aude.

Lumpy wrote: "Joe what you miss in your little marxgasm".

Yes, Joe, consider yourself smacked on the wrist for being a naughty boy. Marxist-style socialism has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Better to fight for the rights of workers and the lower paid within a capitalist system reined in by legislation that takes these things away from the whims of employers and works at accord. I'm all for that, particularly if it means raising living standards all round. In fact, that's ALL I'm for.

And you miss the point of my argument: I'm arguing that the US is an empire, albeit a reasonably benevolent one compared to what you could have (Nazism, Stalinism, Sharia law and Castro's Cuba are great examples).

I'm actually open to the idea that the US is a sort of empire - though not like those which have gone before. Our expanded economic sphere of influence, where we colonize by sending businesses to other countries and growing capitalism there, has many characteristics of an empire, but mostly it's much more positive and has few of the negatives. The Iraq War, of course, does not fit in at all with this model of economic empire.

Dave

#47... "Without the US someone else would be in its place."

Trade, yes. Aggression, no. Subjugation, no.

When has any people accepted subjugation?

Dave, there's really no difference at all. It's a bit more than just expanding a sphere of influence. It's the new imperialism, is all. But living in a country that was once under the British sphere of influence and is now under the American, I don't have a problem with it at all.

I could think of worse things, seriously, and you know my politics on most things is way to the left of yours and even of most "liberals" in the US. But prosperity seems a better alternative to me than some of the other alternatives.

Just the like they are in the US, people are also knocking down the door to get in here, so there must be something in it. I don't hold with the views ofthe unthinking, loony left who just take the default position that it's all bad.

It ain't, even though it could be better.

Well said, Surfer Dude.

Except I don't buy your proclamations of how lefty you are, mate. Your comments and posts on BC don't read all that extreme.

Sorry!

Ah, because I support systems of government that stand up to bullies and murderers and allow people freedom of choice - even when they're quite to the right, like the US - doesn't mean I ain't left.

I am old-style left though: a believer in unions and workers' rights, and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. And there's a big difference between that and idiots mouthing socialist platitudes they've read about in books.

What's left in Australia may not seem so left here in the US.

I know I believe in unions and workers rights and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work (as determined by the open labor marketplace) and even collectives and coops and all that good socialist stuff.

I just don't believe unions should be able to operate autonomously against the best interests of their members without any member oversight, and I don't believe unions ought to be able to shut non-unionized workers out of jobs.

I've got a feeling that in Australia the unions have not been allowed to become the abusive and power-grabbing monsters they are here in the US.

Dave

"I've got a feeling that in Australia the unions have not been allowed to become the abusive and power-grabbing monsters they are here in the US."

I think they have more power in some ways, but governments have set up mandatory abritration processes so that due process must be followed.

What's resulted has been a set of workplace laws thrashed out in the courts over a period of 100 years or so that have given workers the best set of workplace rights and conditions in the world, and the overall highest standard of living among blue-collar workers anywhere - across the board.

However, it has been offset with increased productivity guarntees in many industries, which is really where it should.

I know many American workers who come here are quite shocked at the rights they have in the workplace because of all the above, so I would say the two systems are very, very different.

Howard is doing his best to dismantle them in one fell swoop, but now faces the wrath of the people for doing so. Bad misjudgement on his part, most of us think.

Stan, are you familiar with how unions work in America?

The idea of unions is a great one, but the way they are implemented here is a disgrace - worse than any failing from our government.

They take enormous dues from members and then give the members virtually no say in how the union is run, leaving that in the hands of a small elite group which is essentially hereditary.

They'll sell out their members at every opportunity and don't give a damn about forcing employers out of business if it helps consolidate their power. They even discourage government from regulating industry because they want the opportunity to use issues like workplace safety as a bargaining tool.

Dave

Not to mention gouging the hell out of consumers by inflating labor prices unreasonably.

I think there are only about 10 million union members in the US, and it's been a long time since they did anything that demonstrated power. Back in the 40s, 50s and 60s there used to be regular strikes and demands. Remember John L. Lewis? All over the news demanding more pay for miners.

When is the last time anyone had a big strike?

I think the unions exert very little influence in the US economy.

#45 -- May 7, 2007 @ 22:03PM -- STM
...
"The flip side of the coin is that in my view, the US empire is stage II of the anglo-empire, and that means the US is largely a benevolent corporate coloniser."

"... without the US, the world would be in real crisis."

True. Which makes it all the sadder that Bush is throwing away longterm USA world leadership over these stupid projects of his, which will fail anyhow.

Dear Lumpy,#61
Ah yes...the old refrain making the world safe for Standard oil..Have you heard of sweat shops in Mexico where workers are exploited by bloated US Corporations? or Bangaladesh, Vietnam?

If you guys are not careful your empire may be consigned the dustbin of irrevelence.

Your corpogasm was most amusing...And guess why Marx is still popular in Wall Street? He understood the shitheads perfectly

Bliffle, you're just dead wrong about unions. They may look weak from where you are, but try building anything in Chicago and see how far you get without hiring a bunch of union layabouts just to be able to sign a contract.

For that matter, the NEA is the most powerful union in America and it's insanely powerful and influences national policy constantly and in very negative ways.

Dave

#75
And guess why Marx is still popular in understanding Wall Street? He understood the shitheads perfectly.

Dave#76

Have you tried your hand at fiction writing?

#63-Stm
'I'm arguing that the US is an empire, albeit a reasonably benevolent one compared to what you could have (Nazism, Stalinism, Sharia law and Castro's Cuba are great examples).'

'Throughout the world, on any given day,a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced,tortured, killed, or disappeared,at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame.'Guess who said that? Not a 'commie' but Amnesty International in its 1996 report.

one can't help recalling the immortal lines of Vice President Agnew " The United States,for all its faults, is still the greatest nation in the country.'

Clavos#59
In public health Cuba offers interesting statistics:
Infant mortality-cuba-19 per 1000 births, Great Britain-11,Mexico-47,Guatemala-51, Argentina-32, El Salvador-60, Chile-36 (source WHO).For a population of almost 10 million there are 260 hospitals. malaria ,polio,diphtheria.This in spite of the illegal sanctions imposed against Cuba.

Say clavos how was cuba during your pal Batista?

#80
malaria ,polio,diphtheria eradicated from Cuba.

#68 stm
'idiots mouthing socialist platitudes they've read about in books.'
still a shade better than sticking big mac in our mouths, roll our eyes and watch CNN spin yarns aboutWMD.

Have you tried your hand at fiction writing?

Why yes, Joe. Take a look at this snippet.

Dave

Joe,

In public health Cuba offers interesting statistics:
Infant mortality-cuba-19 per 1000 births, Great Britain-11,Mexico-47,Guatemala-51, Argentina-32, El Salvador-60, Chile-36 (source WHO).For a population of almost 10 million there are 260 hospitals. malaria ,polio,diphtheria.This in spite of the illegal sanctions imposed against Cuba.

Medically, it's paradise, probably every other way, too, but don't take my word for it, ask Ricardo Alarcón.

And yet, all the traffic between the US and Cuba is one way; they're coming here.

So why is everyone leaving every chance they get?

You can bray 24/7 about how wonderful Fidel's socialist paradise is, but the rest of the world notes the fact that the Cuban people are taking enormous risks to leave, on a daily basis.

Joe wrote: "still a shade better than sticking big mac in our mouths, roll our eyes and watch CNN spin yarns aboutWMD."

Forget about the Big Macs mate, I'm an Aussie. I prefer a meat pie with sauce (ketchup) and a cold beer.

I never bought the line about WMD either, but having lived in Iraq as a kid and being forced to leave the place as the Baathists were coming to power probably gives me a skewed view to a certain extent, but I am glad that Saddam and his stalinist cronies were removed from power. And mate, I almost never watch CNN. It's the BBC or ABC (the Aussie one) or nothing.

I'm quite capable of forming my own opinions uninfluenced by American propaganda. I'd ask you too Joe, have you ever been to a communist country for any length of time? I was in the Soviet Union in the early 80s, and it wasn't that much fun, even from the leftie point of view of my 20s. Shortages of everything, and people really struggling on a daily basis.

Just finding toilet paper was a drama, although Pravda did come in handy. I'd rather have been struggling in America than struggling in the Soviet Union. There's no comparison.

I am glad that Saddam and his stalinist cronies were removed from power.

I'd ask you too Joe, have you ever been to a communist country for any length of time?

Let me second that one. And I've got a guess at the answer.

I was in the Soviet Union in the early 80s, and it wasn't that much fun, even from the leftie point of view of my 20s. Shortages of everything, and people really struggling on a daily basis.

I was there in the mid-70s. It wasn't much fun then either. I was never gladder not to be a native than when I walked by the lines of 100 people waiting with their ration cards at a bakery which would likely produce only 20 loaves of bread. At least by the 80s things were falling apart so the bakery was probably actually baking 100 loaves and selling them out the back door. If that's an improvement.

I've got a Russian joke for you from the 70s.

Nixon has just arrived in hell and runs into Brezhnev during a brief break on his first day of endless roasting.

Nixon says, "Damn, Leonid. It's unbearable over in the American hell. The furnaces run full blast all day long."

Brezhnev laughs and says "Well, come on over to the Russian hell. The furnaces are broken and the spare parts factory retooled to make freezer coils to meet the 5 year plan."

Dave

Yeah, Dave .. and how about how every bastard used to carry one of those brown, polished cardboard schoolcases or a big shopping bag just in case there was a queue at GUM a bakery or butcher's. The funniest: the queue outside the big whitegoods/electric lights/appliances shop near the space park just off Prospekt Mira that almost never had any whitegoods/electric lights/appliances except the display ones in the window. You had to be quick, or know someone.

Sometimes people told me they just joined a queue when they saw one, and didn't know what they were queuing for. But they did it just in case it was something good. Even the Russian smokes were shockers. Nice beer, though ... and dirt cheap at the railway station bar.

You ever try the fermented bread drink, Stan? Nasty, nasty stuff.

Because we were diplos we got to shop at the special stores reserved for party members. They were amusing in their own way. For example, you couldn't buy a rib-eye or a t-bone or any other steak or cut of beef for roasting. You could only buy filet mignon. I think it says a great deal that the embassy brought in certain staple goods from Finland by diplomatic pouch. That's when I learned that eggs and milk could be frozen.

Dave

Nah, drank plenty of vodka but never tried the bread drink but someone did try to foist something like it on me and I resisted whilst continuing to drink vast quantities of beer at the Leningrad railway station (in Moscow!). Only people who've been there know why you do this - because if you're just Joe average (99.99 per cent of the population), it's the only accessible 24-hour bar in Moscow.

On the meat thing, I did accidentally order the horse one time at a restaurant because I saw it going past and it looked like a steak.

I said: "I'll have what he's having". Waitress: "Are you sure, Sir?"
Me: "Course I'm bloody sure. Medium rare thanks".

When I complained about the gamey taste, the waitress said: "I thought you liked to eat horse".

Dave,
'Poverty in America? One of the richest countries in the world?

Yes, poverty is a reality in America, just as it is for millions of other human beings on the planet. According to the US Census Bureau, 35.9 million people live below the poverty line in America, including 12.9 million children.'

gee dave you must be one of the well heeled ones.

stm,
you are lucky chum to live in Australia. With job losses in USA there may be slow boat from US to China.

Wow, STM. You were in a restaurant which was both open and had an actual waitress who then actually spoke to you? Did the moon turn blue while you were there?

dave

[Edited]

The artificially set 'poverty level' in the US is higher than the median income of 90% of the other countries in the world, and jobs earning above that level go begging every day throughout most of the country.

As for 'job loss', I guess you mean jobs that lose their workers to higher paying jobs, right? Because even with the illegals we're hovering on the brink of a critical labor shortage.

Dave

Dave #86: LOL. One of my favorites is that other classic Russian joke:

Two Muscovites are waiting in the bread line. After several hours, one of them says, "I'm sick of this. I'm going to the Kremlin to shoot Brezhnev."

So he stomps off, but an hour or so later he reappears and sullenly takes his place at the back of the line. His friend turns to him and says, "So what happened? Did you shoot Brezhnev?"

The first guy shakes his head and says, "No. The line was longer there."

"#40 -- May 7, 2007 @ 21:11PM -- joe

biffle,
...
your story of O is heart rending."

Yes, poor fellow. He may be forced to live in a province with mild weather, a lazy wide river wandering thru it, in a village of vignerons surrounded by the most glamorous chateaux in the world just a bike ride away. *Sigh*.

"#76 -- May 11, 2007 @ 00:48AM -- Dave Nalle [URL]

Bliffle, you're just dead wrong about unions. They may look weak from where you are, but try building anything in Chicago and see how far you get without hiring a bunch of union layabouts just to be able to sign a contract."

Chicago? Why would I do that? I'm nowhere near Chicago, never hire anyone, and don't sign contracts, except buy or sell.

Dave wrote: "Wow, STM. You were in a restaurant which was both open and had an actual waitress who then actually spoke to you? Did the moon turn blue while you were there?"

Lol. I was a good-lookin' fella when I was young, and even got a date with an Aeroflot hostie who gave me all the Heiniken on the flight, then wine when it ran out, and took my suit to be dry cleaned after she'd spilled a pot of coffee over it. It was a given she was telling the KGB, but who cares?

It was a hotel where I was staying - as a (recalcitrant) guest of the Soviet government.

They had a disco too, where a really nasty young drunken Arab bloke speaking perfect English and obviously studying the nefarious activities for which the USSR was famous got really stuck into me one night because he thought I was British.

I just let him rant for 10 minutes, then told him I was Australian and I didn't understand anything he was talking about.

Ah yes. The Hotel Cosmos (probably a bit after your time?), what a wonderful place. Lots of nice beetroot soup (actually, apart from the aforementioned horse, the food wasn't too bad and believe it or not, the service was (just) OK) - a shortage of bog rolls though ...

Those were the days.

Bliff asked: "Anyone else have experience of dollar devaluation helping them?"

Yes, with our dollar now regularly getting towards 85 cents of your dollar (that 10 cents makes all the difference), American car companies are once again starting to export US-made vehicles into Australia, and at really affordable prices. While we have GM (Holden) and Ford Australia here, their products, although quality, are locally designed and built and just staple fare.

So it's nice to see a few quality American cars (notable from Chrysler) added to the mix from around the world after a very long hiatus. That's one benefit of a falling US dollar - it's good for American exports, and as we all know, value-adding is the way to go. I don't see the US economy going west just yet.

I don't plan to get one just yet as I've just bought a Froggie turbo-diesel that's saving me a zillion in fuel costs, but my wife has been eyeing off a few and my mate has just bought a V8 Chrysler 300C wagon, which is a pretty nice car and for a big mutha, not too bad on the juice.

Lol. I was a good-lookin' fella when I was young, and even got a date with an Aeroflot hostie who gave me all the Heiniken on the flight, then wine when it ran out, and took my suit to be dry cleaned after she'd spilled a pot of coffee over it. It was a given she was telling the KGB, but who cares?

She was probably just happy to see someone who didn't drink themselves into unconsciousness during the course of the flight.

It was a hotel where I was staying - as a (recalcitrant) guest of the Soviet government.

I hate to even imagine how you ended up in that unenviable position.

Ah yes. The Hotel Cosmos (probably a bit after your time?),

When I was there the top hotel in Moscow was the Ukraina, though I believe they had just finished a new hotel. It might have been the Cosmos. The Ukraina was built under Stalin. It had a great lobby, but the rooms were small and a lot of them were unusable.

Dave

Speaking of US cars in Australia, I don't suppose Dodge/Chrysler is selling their Deisel/Electric Hybrid pickup truck over there?

Dave

No, not at this stage. However, the imports are Dodge and Chrysler at this stage. Hybrids aren't that popular here. They sell a few of the Prius and the cheaper Honda hybrid, but most people who are interested in that stuff have just jerried to the fact that turbo-diesels with good emission and particulate controls are a) really clean, and b) really cheap to run (my Peugeot costs me about $25 a week in fuel, and I drive every day but Sunday from the outer suburbs to the city). Amazing - 5L/100km. I don't know the US conversion, but it's the equivalent of a hybrid, perhaps better.

STM sez:

Amazing - 5L/100km. I don't know the US conversion, but it's the equivalent of a hybrid, perhaps better.

It is indeed: a hair over 48 mpg...

The military budget of US is mind boggling.

For fiscal year 2006, Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute calculated national security outlays at almost a trillion dollars -- $934.9 billion to be exact -- broken down as follows (in billions of dollars):

Department of Defense: $499.4
Department of Energy (atomic weapons): $16.6
Department of State (foreign military aid): $25.3
Department of Veterans Affairs (treatment of wounded soldiers): $69.8
Department of Homeland Security (actual defense): $69.1
Department of Justice (1/3rd for the FBI): $1.9
Department of the Treasury (military retirements): $38.5
NASA (satellite launches): $7.6
Interest on war debts, 1916-present: $206.7

Totaled, the sum is larger than the combined sum spent by all other nations on military security.(Evil Empire: Is Imperial Liquidation Possible for America? By Chalmers Johnson)

Dave Nalle..you said "Finally, one comment for Anand. The dollar has been deliberately deflated as part of an economic strategy which thus far seems to have been pretty successful. As for the 'housing bubble', it's not bursting. Every expert seems to agree that the adjustments are short-term, and the impact of artifically low interest rates wore off quite a while ago. You can bleat about economic doom and gloom all you want, but the evidence just isn't there to support it, so long as the deficits continue to go down at an accelerated rate and the value of the dollar starts to rebound correspondingly as we ought to see in the next few months..."

this was posted in in May Nalle..well we've all waited....a few months...NO SIGN OF A REBOUND ...YET...in fact the dollar has only plumbed new depths....now we are approaching August....and see what lies in store for the dollar..

US Dollar Threatens to Break Key Support Level

As for Clavos #11...you said something about selling boats didn't you?

hers's some news for you if you didn't know about it already... More Evidence of Spillover from US Housing Market to Consumer Sector

GUYS.... PLEASE TELL ALL OF US WHAT WERE THE GROUNDS FOR YOUR OPTIMISM??

Anand, have you looked at the stock market, unemployment, household income, consumer spending, or anything except for the two of dozens of economic indicators which happen to be negative while all the rest are positive?

Dave

they are all going one way Nalle baby.....DOWN;)

we will see today...yer gonzo predicts bigtime drop ion all markets due to HUGE losses in housing market being reported today

how bad? dunno...but time fer one of those "corrections" it appears...i'm no market expert, so i won't even venture a guess, but i would advise putting yer $$ in canned goods and shotguns

Excelsior?

Or, take the opportunity to BUY.

It has been dropping most of the past two weeks, and I'm picking up some real bargains.

hey Clavos, if you can pick up real estate in this market (especially foreclosures) then you will be ahead of the game

wait for the bottom and pick up some lender stocks really cheap (Countrywide, GM financing(read ditech), some others)

Apple will run strong with their numbers coming out on the iPhone, but i bought shares in the 90's at $12, so i'm pretty happy there (only stock i own)

but the foreclosure numbers, downslide in new home sales...other factors...i don't think folks will be jumping out of windows, but is too early to tell

it has long been a theory for some economists that we have been driven by the housing market for the last 6-8 years...low interest rates doing most of the work...but now it appears to be catching up, the pricing bubble bursting and those cheap money adjustable rates slamming down on folks who bought too much house for their budget

i'm hoping things sort themselves out well, but i ain't counting on it

Excelsior?

"it has long been a theory for some economists that we have been driven by the housing market for the last 6-8 years...low interest rates doing most of the work...but now it appears to be catching up, the pricing bubble bursting and those cheap money adjustable rates slamming down on folks who bought too much house for their budget"

Quoted for Truth, gonzo, quoted for Truth.

BTW, when I spoke of bargains, I was talking about stocks, not real estate.

Oddly enough, sellers in real estate haven't panicked yet (at least not in this market) and prices are holding fairly well still (though sales ARE way down), so there aren't that many bargains out there yet.

The stock market is another matter.

well Clavos, the bursting of Housing added to weak dollar market value and the upcoming crises for those mortgage lenders should send housing prices WAY down soon...and stay there until interest rates get cheap again, and all those foreclosed folks get their credit right again

add all this to gasoline prices and the ripple effect of that (check yer grocery bill lately?)

not sure how bad it's going to get, other Indicators look good...but a DOW over 10,000 and a NASDAQ over 2000 (mebbe 2500 cap) tells me there's gonna be hell to pay in the next few months as things ripple out into the larger economy

hope i'm wrong, and everything gets stable with little Pain

but i wouldn't bet that way

Excelsior?

Dave: "The dollar has been deliberately deflated ..."

Is that the same dollar deflation you insisted was non-existent a couple months ago?

As I said, gonzo, lots of opportunity out there...

well Clavos, only if you are sitting on some liquidity

wish i could take advantage of it, but medical bills and the last year on disability left me rolling pennies for a pack of smokes to help me make it through this current bout of standing in pain for the next day or so

but i digress...

Excelsior?

As you know, gonzo, plenty of medical bills and pain, etc. here, too, so much empathy goes out to you.

That said, QUIT SMOKING, my friend.

I smoked for 26 years; quit in 1985, after my father and father-in-law both died within a year of each other (both too young), from smoking related problems.

Nobody preaches more than a reformed --------, I know. But it's literally life and death, gonzo.

much Appreciation for the kind thoughts there Clavos

but compared to some of my old habits (long since quit)...my friend Smoke is all i got left, and about the only thing that helps sometimes when 1500 milligrams of Vicodin doesn't dent the pain...the Zen of a Smoke can help get through difficult moments

have quite before, sometimes for years at a clip, and didn't start until i was in the service

we will see, if this gut problem ever gets resolved, i'll quit again..but right now moderation and thoughtful care about dosage appears to work for me so far

well, as best as can be expected

Excelsior?

The bloodbath that is to be unleashed on the stock markets and financial world is a result of the consequences of empire.The present situation is anticipated brilliantly in Frank Partnoys book "Infectious Greed".I for one am not a great fan of gloom and doom books,but this one had me hooked.If any reads it and then surveys the present situation in the global stock/ financial markets he/she would quickly understand what is meant when references are euphemistically made as to the present "credit crunch".....which is another way of saying Greed has taken its toll.

This really is the beginning of the end of the American Empire...the way things are going pretty soon you can take those dollars and make paper boats to float in your bathtub...thats what they are going to be worth.

Gonzo, ol' buddy, I 2nd Clavos about the smokes - unless it's some good Acupulco Gold you've got. But tobacco isn't worth squat. I'd send you some of my oxyc. but I don't think BushCo allows it thru the mail. Failing that, best thoughts for your relief. I'll pray to Juju ... or whomever.

Anand, I think you're right. Alas.

"unless it's some good Acupulco Gold"

HA HA. Let me guess, you are still buying lids and listening to Cheech & Chong records. Please keep up with the lingo.

America as the land of opportunity has passed into history.

This is a strong economy?

Heyy... where's Nalle?... where's the dollar?... where's the quick rebound?... where's the effing stock market?

MR.NALLE..STILL BELEIVE THE DOLLAR IS REBOUNDING??

China has got the U.S by the short hair

Anand, do you seriously think a dollar turnaround and rebound is going to happen in a matter of 3 months?

And please don't waste peoples time linking to Paul Craig Roberts or any of the other Dobbsians with thier ridiculous theory about China dumping US dollar investments. A 6th grader could think that theory through and see how illogical it is.

I posted this on another thread recently, but let me post it for you too. I tried to keep the words simple.

When I edited this last night I was going to have some fun responding, but I was too tired, and now Clavos has beat me to it. This is a classic, Joel - the perfect mix of paranoia, hyperbole and sheer craziness. It's like you're channeling Lou Dobbs or something.

Oh, what the hell, I'll hit a couple of the highpoints.

Ok, how does China 'dump' US investments? Does it discount the price and then sell them to other people? Ok, that sounds believable. Plenty of people out there to buy them. Now, whose economy does this destroy? Well, the Chinese would take a huge hit if the sold them at a discount, so they'd be damaged economically. Then other countries or banks would buy them and expect them to be redeemed at face value. They make a nice profit. Sounds good for them. But what's the impact for the US. How does this 'nuclear' economic bomb impact us. The debts still have the same face value, the same interest rate and the same term of the maturity. When the new owners redeem them we get exactly the same amount for them the Chinese would have. So how, exactly, does this make the deal any worse for the US? All I see is the Chinese losing money and the buyers making money. At worst it might result in market saturation of US debt instruments making it harder for us to get credit, a temporary and likely very limited problem.


Dave

Faling Stocks Characterized as "Mini-Panic"

While Dave Nalle is busy dispensing the Prozac, little problems with the American sub-prime market appear to be causing some distress among investors.

Then there is the threat of China unloading its dollars. While some will choose to inbibe Kool-ade with the Prozac Mr. Nalle dispenses, others are viewing the American dollar with a bit of alarm. Given that I have merely a few rolls of wheat pennies and about $3.50 in other American tokens (money changers in Israel will not exchange tokens of other currencies, only banknotes), I don't really have a problem. But you Yanks might find you have one soon, depending on whether China actually decides to dump its dollars or not.

You know, Dave, you may be technically correct in that the value of the American debt will not shrink merely because it changes hands. But in finance, as in politics and so many other things, it is perception that counts, not reality.

There are occasionally certain advantages to being poor...

shavua tov - have a good week,
Reuven

PS - By the way, the shekel seems to have dropped back in value - but the euro has risen to nearly six shekels in value - so a can of Coke costing 9½ euros in Europe, the equivalent of nearly sixty shekels - costs ten times what it does in a shwarma shop in Jerusalem. Ahh! The joys of international finance...

I may have misunderstood your meaning, Ruvy, but there is no way a can of Coke costs 9 Euros in Europe, but rather less than one tenth of that...

Are you talking about buying a can of Coke in a mini-market or in a restaurant? What I was citing was an article about American tourists discovering just how much a can of Coke cost in a European restaurant...

And I quoted an Israeli restaurant for my price here.

By the way, Chris, that was a Parisian restaurant, not one on the coast of Spain...

Mr.Nalle since you think three months is too short a time for such a robust currency and since you know so much mind telling all of us when you think the dollar is going to rebound???

I haven't been in every restaurant in Europe, Ruvy, but if there are any selling a Coke at way over ten times the price it is in the shops, they are surely few and far between and have mindless muppets for customers. Most restauarants in Spain, and I've been to a lot of them, sell a Coke for up to twice the retail price.

Perhaps you should try and be a little more open in your explanations, for writing what you did surely gave the impression that you were talking about the general price rather than one, possibly apocryphal, exception...

Why on earth would anyone want to drink a coke in a restaurant? Or anywhere else, for that matter. Disgusting sugary treacle made from industrial waste. If I owned a restaurant I'd charge 10 bucks too, to discourage use and mitigate the insult to my establishment.

Grow up. stop sucking at the sugar teat.

"Why on earth would anyone want to drink a coke in a restaurant? Or anywhere else, for that matter. Disgusting sugary treacle made from industrial waste. If I owned a restaurant I'd charge 10 bucks too, to discourage use and mitigate the insult to my establishment.

Grow up. stop sucking at the sugar teat."

Grow up yourself and stop trying to impose your tastes(?) and values(?) on others.

Typical gringo.