No end in sight

Special K

did anyone see "No End in Sight" last night? documentary film about post-invasion Iraq and how some of the decisions immediately after the initial invasion panned out for the occupation.

http://geo.channel4.com/more4/documentaries/doc-feature.jsp?id=121

Am posting here as I think that this community usually has an interesting angle on things....

if you saw it, what did you think?

stevechambers34

didn't see it hope it's repeated, if 'they' think we'll (me anyway) believe they 'won' and it was/is safe to pull out then I ain't convinced , ny guess it's to provide more troops for Afghanistan.

bagpusscp

One word :!: Oil. Forget everything else . Without it the west will fall . The rest is down to very brave young men and women. Never never forget them next time you fill your car . As for poor Iraq . Dived and RULE. There was no plan to do anything else. :x

richardjallen

bagpusscp wrote:

One word :!: Oil. Forget everything else . Without it the west will fall . The rest is down to very brave young men and women. Never never forget them next time you fill your car . As for poor Iraq . Dived and RULE. There was no plan to do anything else. :x

That might be true. I think however, the West is somewhat doomed anyway with or without Oil and now we are pulling out who is going to defend those wells?

If the Fed did not cut their interest rates yesterday a lot of people (I mean market traders who are facing it everyday) believe it would have been 1929 style disaster but bigger. The problem was created by too much lending and defaults and now the only solution that avoid recession is inflate the currency so that the debt is becomes worth less. But that just means more borrowing and more debt.

All these banks in the US that are in trouble are now being bought by Chinese sovereign wealth funds and Arab states. You can't vote out a foreign government and now they own the banks they control the money supply.

meagain

It is, I believe, called capitalism. Or to be more up to date, global capitalism (although that adjective of course was and is always the ultimate logic and aim of the philosophy).

IF inflation is too much money chasing too few goods (although I have long thought that that has become too simplistic a definition), then I don't think that more borrowing (and by definition more debt) is a given. It is rather a choice - taken in order to avoid recession.

I must I think re-visit my theory text books!

richardjallen

meagain wrote:

I don't think that more borrowing (and by definition more debt) is a given. It is rather a choice - taken in order to avoid recession.

I must I think re-visit my theory text books!

Are you saying that it is a choice to borrow more or take advantage of lower intrest rates and higher salaries to pay off the existing debt? I agree with that. It is also a choice to allow inflation rather that recession. A choice they are making, as our lot appear to want to do as well. But the word is that the scale of recession is so big that its not much of an option.

Sorry this is OT anyway.

OffTheBackAdam

bagpusscp wrote:

One word :!: Oil. Forget everything else . Without it the west will fall . The rest is down to very brave young men and women. Never never forget them next time you fill your car . As for poor Iraq . Dived and RULE. There was no plan to do anything else. :x

Never mind The West falling, I think you may find that a large chunk of the rest of the world would come down too, short of the odd Amazonian Indian tribe.
You might remember that there was a chap called Saddam Hussein leading Iraq, I have a vague memory of him invading Kuwait, carrying out chemical warfare upon Kurdish villagers, murdering those who opposed his rule internally and threatening Israel (This is, of course, always a popular choice with Arab Dictators)
Divide and rule? What ruling is going on pray? Certainly divisions are now very prominent, divisions that were already there, but suppressed brutally should they surface to threaten the ruling minority sect. Those divisions are present across the entirity of the region and probably globally too, Sunni v Shia, Muslim v Christian, any other Muslim sect v each other (Can't remember exactly how many, I think there are some 7 major sects, think "Life of Brian" and the various JPF, PFLJ etc, etc) When the second Gulf War kicked off, there was an interview shown on TV with a group of Muslim youths, who were demonstrating against it. When asked about the Iran/Iraq conflict, the response was "But they weren't our type of Islam"
If it was about oil, then leaving Saddam rattling his sabre and continuing to buy his oil would do nicely.
Ultimately it boiled down to the sectarian divisions, America's ear had the dispossessed Shia whispering in it, whilst the minority Sunni held the reins of power. What better way to chuck them out than let Uncle Sam do it.
What better way for the Islamic Terrorists to try and raise popular support by keeping the Iraqi people of all sects without reliable electricity, food & water, by disrupting attempts to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure. It's also not in the interests of the rulers of surrounding Arab nations to see democracy arise, given a popular vote, they'd be out too.
Much more to this than simply "Oil".

bagpusscp

This has only ever been about Western self interest .Sadam made one Mistake.He invaded Kuwait. But for that he would still be alive and in power. The one thing the west fears is a united Arab middle east. We still supply Millions of £$ of wepons to the region.One day they will be used against us. What is happening now and what is going to happen is all a lesson from the pages of history.

meagain

richardjallen wrote:

meagain wrote:

I don't think that more borrowing (and by definition more debt) is a given. It is rather a choice - taken in order to avoid recession.

I must I think re-visit my theory text books!

Are you saying that it is a choice to borrow more or take advantage of lower intrest rates and higher salaries to pay off the existing debt? I agree with that. It is also a choice to allow inflation rather that recession. A choice they are making, as our lot appear to want to do as well. But the word is that the scale of recession is so big that its not much of an option.

Sorry this is OT anyway.

I was thinking more at macro/state level, rather than at micro/individual. At national level, the state can, in theory and in practice, within limits set by its credit rating at home and abroard, borrow its way out of recession, spending whether on infrastructure (think New Deal in '30s USA) or on job preservation or even transfer payments (think benefits!) in order to sustain domestic demand. The borrowing can of course be allied with selective fiscal policies (think higher rate income tax).

Unfortunately, domestic spend in these days of free trade can no longer be assumed to translate into demand for domestic product (indeed in UK the manufacturing base has been so eroded that any increase in demand which it COULD supply would result in increased prices....and thus be inflationary!).

The whole prices/earnings, balance of payments, currency valuation thing was last tackled in UK in early '70s. It was not an enormous political success, BUT inflation did drop from high 20%s to single figures within 2 years or so.

Any short term fixes would be painful. The longer term ones WILL be eventually - as USA will come to realise when one day it will no longer be able to borrow from the Chinas of the world in order to finance NOT capital assets but rather cuurent daily expenditure.

My brain now hurts and I expect that some of this is wrong!

richardjallen

meagain wrote:

I was thinking more at macro/state level, rather than at micro/individual. At national level, the state can, in theory and in practice, within limits set by its credit rating at home and abroard, borrow its way out of recession, spending whether on infrastructure (think New Deal in '30s USA) or on job preservation or even transfer payments (think benefits!) in order to sustain domestic demand. The borrowing can of course be allied with selective fiscal policies (think higher rate income tax).

Unfortunately, domestic spend in these days of free trade can no longer be assumed to translate into demand for domestic product (indeed in UK the manufacturing base has been so eroded that any increase in demand which it COULD supply would result in increased prices....and thus be inflationary!).

The whole prices/earnings, balance of payments, currency valuation thing was last tackled in UK in early '70s. It was not an enormous political success, BUT inflation did drop from high 20%s to single figures within 2 years or so.

Any short term fixes would be painful. The longer term ones WILL be eventually - as USA will come to realise when one day it will no longer be able to borrow from the Chinas of the world in order to finance NOT capital assets but rather cuurent daily expenditure.

My brain now hurts and I expect that some of this is wrong!

I understand, I think this is my belief as well. I keep sounding off but I'm a bit perturbed. Once we have borrowed our way out of trouble where does that leave us? It looks like we keep messing things up and pulling the same trick. Is there any detriment?

meagain

At the risk of sounding old fashioned, apply the Micawber-principle at national AND individual level. Annual income £x, annual expenditure £x-1 equals happiness. Annual income £x, annual expenditure £x+1 equals misery (imprecise quote, but you'll get the drift!).

Current UK policy seems to rely on a multi annual ("the current economic cycle" is I believe the term!) approach to the same "happy" solution. The problem is that it is very easy to re-define the length of the cycle according to outcomes in each year and to political expediency. And artificially to exclude capital spend from the balance - particularly if it can be shunted off-balance sheet by way of Private Finance Initiative etc!

bagpusscp

One Trillion plus .Personel debet :!: :shock: = Economic madness :roll: Any big drop in new jobs and or cut backs will make the last slump look like a walk in the park .Mind you 10 years of large public borrowing :? +50 billion to bale out a bank How much more can Labour fcuk things up :evil:

richardjallen

meagain wrote:

Current UK policy seems to rely on a multi annual ("the current economic cycle" is I believe the term!) approach to the same "happy" solution. The problem is that it is very easy to re-define the length of the cycle according to outcomes in each year and to political expediency.

'This year we went a bit over budget, no problem we will be more careful next year..' 'Oops spent a bit too much again, no problem the cycle is going to be a bit longer this time around so we will promise to do doubly better next year..'

But those US banks are being bought up by Asia and the Middle East now and as I said you can't vote out a foreign government. The banks have more power than a nations government anyway. Governments can't solve problems they just move them around.

I really think they are wealthier nations now. We don't do anything anymore. They only have to dig a hole and money shoots out. They have the thing we live on.

As for Iraq, the wells will be taken back. We've been here before after WWI.

richardjallen

bagpusscp wrote:

One Trillion plus .Personel debet :!: :shock: = Economic madness :roll: Any big drop in new jobs and or cut backs will make the last slump look like a walk in the park .Mind you 10 years of large public borrowing :? +50 billion to bale out a bank How much more can Labour fcuk things up :evil:

So the option of recession is not really viable. And that leaves? Borrow more to get out of trouble. But we are borrowing from the same people we are spending the money with. That sounds nuts to me. And what do we have to offer them? Some dodgy financial products backed by houses with prices inflated by borrowing money from the same people we must surely be trying to sell them to? I think we have been handing our souls out on a plate.

meagain

"So the option of recession is not really viable"

Viable, yes. Politically (as in" WE want to be in power (transient and illusory though it is) as a means to short term personal gain...") sensible, no.


"Borrow more to get out of trouble. But we are borrowing from the same people we are spending the money with. That sounds nuts to me. "

Neatly put, I think. It's just about OK for USA : in the last resort can simply repudiate its debt, backed of course by the ultimate deterremt of irresistible force. More difficult for the UK to take the same line. Probably why when it comes to the crunch we allign with the US and NOT the EU.

richardjallen

meagain wrote:

"So the option of recession is not really viable"

Viable, yes. Politically (as in" WE want to be in power (transient and illusory though it is) as a means to short term personal gain...") sensible, no.


"Borrow more to get out of trouble. But we are borrowing from the same people we are spending the money with. That sounds nuts to me. "

Neatly put, I think. It's just about OK for USA : in the last resort can simply repudiate its debt, backed of course by the ultimate deterremt of irresistible force. More difficult for the UK to take the same line. Probably why when it comes to the crunch we allign with the US and NOT the EU.

Given that if we go into recession the current government will most likely be voted out, isn't it alarming that Gordon has lead us into this in the first place? He is now faced with guiding us through the problem he appears to have lead us into the first place. On the one hand if you need to solve problems it might be easier if they are ones of your own making - IME this is a typical management technique that makes it appear people are doing things for their salaries when really they are not. But was it really possible for us to steer clear of this from the outset?

The US are the strongest power so naturally we align with them and as you say they have the force to win. In a head to head war they are unstoppable.

Something that occurred to me though is that Osama knew that he could not win in a physical fight so he went the economic route. After attacking the twin towers the US, followed by ourselves , have attempted to create growth from housing. IMO this is not possible. A house does not generate money, only businesses who borrow to invest and export can bring more to a nation. House prices rise with overall inflation. The main way to make money from a house is rent. But rent comes from salaries and salaries rise with inflation. Another way to put it is that we have borrowed money to buy our own houses from ourselves at prices inflated by the amount we borrowed. So its easy to see how there is no growth. Now move 7 years forward from 9/11 and see how Osama has victory. The US in on the brink. We all work to pay bank interest that can never be paid off because although they create the money we borrow, they do not create the money to pay the interest. So there is not enough money in existence to pay the interest. We have to borrow to pay of yesteryears debt. Thus we work forever for the bank. The spoils of this economic war are the banks. Once they are owned by other countries we are working to pay interest to those other nations. The harder we work the more they get.

But then will it ever be as bad as that? I don't feel like it will, just too unreal.