SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/18/2006 6:57:44 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Omissions In the Iraq Study Group Report

zmag.org

<<...If the US occupation of Iraq ever ends without a reliable client state government in place, it will create the possibility of Washington's worst nightmare - a majority Shiite ruled Iraq allied with Shiite Iran that might link with the Saudi Shias located in the bordering oil-rich part of the kingdom. If that Tripartite Shia Middle East alliance forms, it will control most of the world's oil supply. It might then choose to align with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) formed to compete with the US for control of Central Asia's huge energy reserves and whose core members are China and Russia giving those countries a chance for a leg up on the US at least for access to Middle East oil. The ISG and Bush administration will do all in its power to prevent this from happening, but the US has lost so much credibility in the region, they face a daunting task and long odds for success.

The ISG report mentions none of this, but does stress the importance of Iraq's oil by mentioning it 63 times and calling for the US to help Iraq privatize its state-owned oil industry, opening it up to Big Oil foreign exploitive investment and the profits from it. If or when the US ends its occupation without leaving a reliable client state in place, it would be hard to imagine Iraq will quickly forgive and forget and be willing to conduct business as usual with oil or other corporations from the country that laid waste to it and only left in humiliation and defeat.

It shows how hard it will be for the US to get out of this mess, and it's likely to prove more than Jim Baker, his high-powered team, and "all the king's horses and men" are up to. They stand virtually no chance to implement a coherent, workable plan for success short of the only operable one they'll never agree to until they no longer have a choice - a full and unconditional withdrawal. It only remains to be seen how long it will take for them and whatever administration is in power in Washington to draw that conclusion and how much time the public's willing to give them, the Bush administration and the majority Democrats in the Congress elected to chart a new course they've so far indicated no intention of doing.

It all adds up to an exercise in deception and futility, but in the end things will end up where they all began in 1990 before the long US assault against Iraq started. When it does, that country will again be free from a foreign occupier but will face a long, expensive and painful struggle to mend and rebuild. As happened when the US left Vietnam, this country will leave it to the Iraqis to recover and regenerate from the carnage and misery on their own that may take a generation or more to achieve and that for most now alive may never be possible.

This will be the legacy of the US invasion and occupation and tainted presidency of George Bush and his corrupted notion of moral superiority, claiming to have brought democracy, liberation and the benefits of western civilization to this blighted country but having to do it through the barrel of a gun. This time things unraveled faster than usual, but it only showed the people of Iraq reject what too many at home still believe - that the US is a benevolent democratic republic serving the will and needs of its people and supporting the rights and sovereignty of free people everywhere to live in peace and security. It's an illusion understood by most others around the world and gaining recognition at home as being just as hollow here as on the streets of Baghdad and Kabul.

It remains to be seen how long it will take for a mass awakening to occur to arouse the public at home, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, making them no longer willing to put up with the kind of abuse and neglect they've so far failed to resist. If history is a guide, it will happen, and when it does it may signal the denouement of another repressive imperial state succumbing to the arrogance of its own overreach, excess, hubris and disregard for the needs of its own people demanding redress. It can't come soon enough for the many around the world oppressed by it crying out "freedom now" and beginning to do something about getting it...>>



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/18/2006 9:55:54 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Iraq is Vietnam-and You'd Better Believe It
____________________________________________________________

by John Graham

Published on Monday, December 18, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

I was a civilian advisor/trainer in Vietnam, arriving just as US troops were going home. I wasn't there to fight, but I hadn't been in country a week when I learned that the word "noncombatant" didn't mean much where I was posted, fifty miles south of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that then divided South Vietnam from North. I got the message when a sniper's bullet whistled past my ear on the main highway twenty miles south of Hué. Joe Jackson, the burly major who was driving, yelled at me to hold on and duck as he gunned the jeep out of range, zigzagging to spoil the sniper's aim.

Snipers or not, in 1971 it was the U.S. Government's policy not to issue weapons to civilian advisors in Vietnam, even to those of us in distant and dangerous outposts. The reason was not principle, but PR-and here begin the lessons for Iraq.

Sometime in 1969, the White House, faced with unrelenting facts on the ground and under siege from the public, had quietly made the decision that America couldn't win its war in Vietnam.

Nixon and Kissinger didn't put it that way, of course. America was a superpower, and it was inconceivable that it could lose a war to a third rate nation whose soldiers lived on rice and hid in holes in the ground. So the White House conceived an elaborate strategy that would mask the fact of an American defeat. The US would slowly withdraw its combat troops over a period of several years, while the mission of those who remained would change from fighting the North Vietnamese and Vietcong to training the South Vietnamese to carry on the fight on their own. At the same time, we would give the South Vietnamese a series of performance ultimatums which, if unmet, would trigger a total withdrawal and let us blame the South Vietnamese for the debacle that would follow. This strategy was called "Vietnamization." Implementing it cost at least 10,000 additional American and countless more Vietnamese lives, plus billions of dollars.

It was a rigged game from the start. All but the wildest zealots in Washington knew that the South Vietnamese would not and could not meet our ultimatums: an end to corrupt, revolving-door governments, an officer corps based on merit not cronyism, and the creation of a national state that enjoyed popular allegiance strong and broad enough to control the political and cultural rivalries that had ripped the country's fabric for a thousand years.

During the eighteen months I was in Vietnam, I met almost no Americans in the field who regarded Vietnamization as a serious military strategy with any chance of success. More years of American training could not possibly make a difference in the outcome of the war because what was lacking in the South Vietnamese Army was not just combat skills but belief in a cause worth fighting for.

But none of that was the point. Vietnamization was not a military strategy. It was a public relations campaign.

The White House hoped that Vietnamization would keep the house of cards upright for at least a couple of years, providing what CIA veteran Frank Snepp famously called a "decent interval" that could mask the American defeat by declaring that the fate of South Vietnam now was the responsibility of the South Vietnamese. If they didn't want freedom badly enough to win, well, we had done our best.

To make this deceitful drama work, however, the pullout had to be gradual. The plan (Vietnamization) had to be easily explained to the American people. And the US training force left behind had to be large enough and exposed enough to provide visual signs of our commitment on the 6:00 news. Pictures of unarmed American advisors like me shaking hands with happy peasants would support the lie that Vietnamization was succeeding.

Living in the bulls-eye, we understood the reality very well, especially when, as public pressures for total withdrawal increased in 1971-72, most of the "force protection" troops went home too. That left scattered handfuls of American trainers left to protect themselves. As the very visible US advisor to the city of Hué, I was an easy target for assassination or abduction, anytime the Viet Cong chose to take me out. I kept a case of grenades under my bed, I slept with an M-16 propped against the bedstead, and I had my own dubious army of four Vietnamese house guards whom I hoped would at least fire a warning shot before they ran away.

In April 1972. North Vietnamese forces swept south across the DMZ, scattering the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) defenders and driving to within six miles of Hué. I and a handful of other American trainers and advisors could only watch as a quarter-million panicked people gridlocked the road south to Danang, in a terrifying night reverberating with screams and explosions. We knew that any choppers sent to save us would be mobbed by Vietnamese eager to escape. I'm alive because American carrier jets caught the advancing North Vietnamese just short of the city walls and all but obliterated them.

Now we have the Iraq Study Group Report, advising that the mission of US forces shift from fighting a war to training Iraqi troops and police. The Report calls for the US to lay down a series of performance conditions for the Iraqis, including that the Iraqis end their civil war and create a viable national state.

I've lived through this one before.

Deteriorating conditions on the ground soon will force President Bush to accept this shift in mission strategy. It is Vietnamization in all but name. Its core purpose is not to win an unwinnable war, but to provide political cover for a retreat, and to lay the grounds for blaming the loss on the Iraqis. Based on what I saw in Vietnam, here's what I think will happen next:

The increased training will make no difference. It could even make things worse since we will be making better fighters of many people who will end up in partisan militias. What the Iraqi military and police need is not just technical skill but unit cohesion and loyalty to a viable central government. Neither can be taught or provided by outside trainers.

When US troops pull back from fighting the insurgents, most Iraqi units will lack both the military skills and the political will to replace them. More soldiers and police we've trained will join the militias. Violence and chaos will increase across the country.

As the situation continues to deteriorate in Iraq, anti-American feelings will increase. Cursed for staying, we will now be cursed for leaving. Iraq will become an ever more dangerous place for any American to be.

At home, political pressure to get out of Iraq completely will increase rapidly as the violence gets worse. The military force left behind to protect the US trainers will be drawn down to-or below-a bare minimum, further increasing the dangers for the Americans who remain. Military affairs commentator General Barry McCaffrey issued this sober warning in the December 18 Newsweek: "We're setting ourselves up for a potential national disaster in which some Iraqi divisions could flip and take 5,000 Americans hostage, or multiple advisory teams go missing in action."

Nothing destroys troop morale faster than being in a war you know is pointless. At this same stage in Vietnam, drug use among Americans became a serious problem.

Our ultimatums and conditions won't be met. As the situation gets worse, whatever remains of a central government in Baghdad will be even less able to make the compromises and form the coalitions necessary to control centuries of factional and tribal hatreds. The civil war will spiral out of control, giving us the justification we need to get out, blaming the Iraqis for the mess we've left behind. Then we will face the regional and global ramifications of a vicious civil war whose only winners will be Iran and al-Queda.

US leaders may decide, as they did 37 years ago, that we must again create a "decent interval" to mask defeat and that the PR benefits of that interval are worth the cost in lives and money. If they do, however, they should-unlike the Iraq Study Group-not lie to us that such a strategy has any military chance whatsoever of success.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/19/2006 12:02:08 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Six brutal truths about Iraq

niemanwatchdog.org

COMMENTARY
By William E. Odom*
December 11, 2006

General William Odom, one of the earliest advocates of an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, attacks some of the mythologies that are interfering with an honest debate about how to proceed in the Middle East and says the media have failed to recognize dramatic changes in the region.

Mythologies about the war in Iraq are endangering our republic, our rights, and our responsibilities before the world. The longer we fail to dispel them, the higher price we will pay. The following six truths, while perhaps not self-evident to the American public, are nevertheless conspicuously obvious to much the rest of the world.

Truth No. 1: No "deal" of any kind can be made among the warring parties in Iraq that will bring stability and order, even temporarily.

Ever since the war began to go badly in the summer of 2003, a mythology has arisen that a deal among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could bring peace and stability to Iraq. First, the parliamentary elections were expected to be such a breakthrough. When peace and stability did not follow, the referendum on a constitution was proclaimed the panacea. When that failed, it was asserted that we just had not yet found the proper prime minister. Even today, the Iraq Study Group is searching for this holy grail. It doesn’t exist.

Truth No. 2: There was no way to have "done it right" in Iraq so that U.S. war aims could have been achieved.

Virtually every new book published on the war, especially Cobra II, Fiasco, and State of Denial, reinforce the myth – the illusion – that we could have won the war; we just did not plan properly and fight the war the right way. The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and most other major newspapers have consistently filled their opinion pages with arguments and testimonials to support that myth. (Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University offers the most recent conspicuous reinforcement of this myth in the Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2006.)

The fragmentation of the country, civil war, and the rise of outside influence from Iran, Syria, and other countries – all of these things might have been postponed for a time by different war plans and occupation polices. But failure would have eventually raised its ugly head. Possibly, some of the variables would be a bit different. For example, if the Iraqi military had not been dissolved and if most of the Baathist Party cadres not been disenfranchised, the Sunni factions, instead of the Shiites, probably would have owned the ministry of interior, the police, and several unofficial militias. The Shiites, in that event, would have been the insurgents, abundantly supplied by Iran, indiscriminately killing Sunni civilians, fighting the U.S. military forces, blowing up the power grid, and so on.

A different U.S. occupation plan might have changed the course Iraq has taken to civil war and fragmentation, but it could have not prevented that outcome.

Truth No. 3: The theory that "we broke it and therefore we own it," with all the moral baggage it implies, is simply untrue because it is not within U.S. power to "fix it."

The president’s cheerleaders in the run-up to the war now use this theory to rationalize our continued presence in Iraq, and in that way avoid admitting that they share the guilt for the crime of breaking Iraq in the first place.

Truth No. 4: The demand that the administration engage Iran and Syria directly, asking them to help stabilize Iraq, is patently naïve or cynically irresponsible until American forces begin withdrawing – and rapidly – so that there is no ambiguity about their complete and total departure.

Effective negotiations will be possible, even with Iran, but only after the U.S. withdraws. And such negotiations must be based on a candid recognition that Iran will come out of this war with a much enhanced position in the Middle East. Until these realities are acknowledged, the planning staffs in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department will not begin addressing the most important tasks awaiting them in confronting the post-Iraq War world.

First among them is how to help the Arab Gulf states cope with a stronger Iran, one that has territorial claims on the Arab side of the Gulf. Second is dealing with the increased threat to Israel that comes from the U.S. defeat in Iraq, its own recent misguided war against Hezbollah, looming instability in Lebanon, and the large number of experienced al Qaeda cadres produced by the war in Iraq. Moreover, as the Sunni-Shiite split in the Arab world spreads from Iraq into neighboring Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, not to mention Lebanon, the United States will be facing a dynamic it has little power to limit.

These new challenges will not be manageable by the United States alone. Europe will have to join with the United States in meeting them. American neocons who have sought to split the United States from Europe, as well as Europeans who tilt excessively in favor the Palestinians, will have to change their tunes if Israel is to survive the upheaval that the U.S. and the Israeli governments so eagerly perpetrated.

The media have not begun to recognize and explain the dramatic changes catalyzed in the Middle East by the war in Iraq. Most editors are not even willing to contemplate them, preferring to pretend they do not exist, probably because they bear some responsibility for creating them.

Truth No. 5: The United States cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The only sure way to stop Iran's program is to invade with ground troops and occupy the country indefinitely. Both Iran and North Korea learned from Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facilities and have hardened their own to make bombing only marginally effective at best. Having squandered ground force capabilities in Iraq, the U.S. does not have sufficient forces to invade Iran, even if that made sense. And bombing would produce all the undesirable consequences of that action but not the most desirable one. Yet the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other newspapers editorialize as if this is not so.

Truth No. 6: It is simply not possible to prevent more tragic Iraqi deaths in Iraq.

Many pundits and politicians – particularly those who howled for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003 -- posture about human rights abuses that will occur if U.S. troops are withdrawn rapidly. The way to have avoided moral responsibility for these abuses was not to invade in the first place. At present, U. S. military forces in Iraq merely facilitate arrests and executions by Shiite officials in the police and some army units. These, of course, are mainly in reaction to the Baathist-led insurgency. This struggle will continue, with or without U.S. forces present, although the forms and tactics of the struggle will change after U.S. forces withdraw. An earlier withdrawal, one or two years ago, would probably have allowed this struggle to be fought to a conclusion by now. Our well-meaning efforts to prevent blood baths are more likely causing them to be bigger, not smaller.

The Iraq Study Group’s recommendations could be used to dispel these myths and prompt a rapid withdrawal, but it remains to be seen if either the president and his aides or the Congress can or will use them for that purpose. The “one last big try” aspect of the recommendations, if pursued vigorously, will just make the final price the catastrophe higher. The media, by dispelling the foregoing list of myths, could make that less likely.

*Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/20/2006 6:25:49 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Memo to New York Times: How Come You Left Out The $100 Million Bonuses?

huffingtonpost.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/24/2006 6:27:40 PM
From: LTK007  Respond to of 89467
 
Martial Law is a real possibility if the "we got no guts" democrats in Congress can't muster up the nerve to Impeach both Bush and Cheney.
But america remains vastly asleep at the wheel the how bad this matter is: and, hard fact, people asleep at the wheel crash. Max



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/28/2006 1:38:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Dollar Slides; U.A.E. Says Selling U.S. Currency, Buying Euros

By Kabir Chibber

Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar dropped the most in a week against the euro as the United Arab Emirates said it will convert some of its reserves of U.S. assets into the European currency.

The dollar also had its biggest decline versus the yen this month before a U.S. report that may show consumer confidence fell for a third straight month, fueling bets the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates next year. The U.S. currency has slipped 9.9 percent versus the euro this year, its first slide since 2004.

``The U.A.E.'s decision to relocate its reserves is part of a theme that means that U.S. dollar holdings in global currency reserves are decreasing,'' said Hans Guenter Redeker, head of currency strategy in London at BNP Paribas SA. ``The dollar is going to lose support as we see Fed rate cuts next year.''

bloomberg.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/28/2006 2:29:28 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Ike Was Right
_____________________________________________________________

By Robert Scheer
TruthDig.com
Tuesday 26 December 2006

The public, seeing through the tissue of Bush administration lies told to justify an invasion that never had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 or weapons of mass destruction, now has begun a national questioning: Why are we still in Iraq? The answers posted most widely on the Internet by critics of the war suggest its continuation as a naked imperial grab for the world's second-largest petroleum source, but that is wrong.

It's not primarily about the oil; it's much more about the military-industrial complex, the label employed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower 45 years ago when he warned of the dangers of "a permanent arms industry of vast proportions."

The Cold War had provided the rationale for the first peacetime creation of a militarized economy. While the former general, Eisenhower, was well aware of the military threat posed by the Soviet Union, he chose in his farewell presidential address to the nation to warn that the war profiteers had an agenda of their own, one that was inimical to the survival of American democracy:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Ponder those words as you consider the predominant presence of former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney in the councils of this White House, and how his old company has profiteered more than any other from the disaster that is Iraq. Despite having been found to have overcharged some $60 million to the U.S. military for fuel deliveries, the formerly bankrupt Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in lucrative contracts.

There is more. Military spending has skyrocketed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, returning to Cold War levels. A devastating report by the Center for Defense Information, founded by former top-ranking admirals and generals, reveals that in the most recent federal budget overall defense spending will rise to more than $550 billion. Compare that to the $20 billion that the United Nations and all of its agencies and funds spend each year on all of its programs to make this a safer and more livable world.

That U.S. military budget exceeds what the rest of the world's nations combined spend on defense. Nor can it be justified as militarily necessary to counter terrorists, who used primitive $10 box cutters to commandeer civilian aircraft on 9/11. It only makes sense as a field of dreams for defense contractors and their allies in Washington who seized upon the 9/11 tragedy to invent a new Cold War. Imagine their panic at the end of the old one and their glee at this newfound opportunity.

Yes, some in those circles were also eager to exploit Iraq's oil wealth, which does explain the abysmal indifference to the deteriorating situation in resource-poor Afghanistan, birthplace of the Sept. 11 plot, while our nation's resources are squandered in occupying Iraq, which had nothing to do with it.

Yes, some, like Paul Wolfowitz, the genius who was the No. 2 in the U.S. Defense Department and has been rewarded for his leadership with appointment as head of the World Bank, did argue that Iraq's oil revenue would pay for our imperial adventure. A recent study by Nobel Prize-wining economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard University's Linda Bilmes marked that absurdity by estimating the true cost of the Iraq adventure to U.S taxpayers at a whopping $2.267 trillion, in excess of any cost borne by the Iraqis themselves.

The big prize here for Bush's foreign policy is not the acquisition of natural resources or the enhancement of U.S. security, but rather the lining of the pockets of the defense contractors, the merchants of death who mine our treasury. But because the arms industry is coddled by political parties and the mass media, their antics go largely unnoticed. Our politicians and pundits argue endlessly about a couple of billion dollars that may be spent on improving education or ending poverty, but they casually waste that amount in a few days in Iraq.

As Eisenhower warned: "We should take nothing for granted, only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.... We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Too bad we no longer have leading Republicans, or Democrats, warning of that danger.

truthout.org



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/29/2006 10:46:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Message 23139477



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/30/2006 5:45:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Anderson Forecast: 2007 Predictions

news.yahoo.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)12/30/2006 5:50:18 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Kent Paterson: Negative stats show Mexico is ripe for revolution

abqtrib.com

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Amid protests, Felipe Calderon took office Dec. 1 as Mexico's new president. Calderon inherits a country where class polarization, political conflict and escalating criminal violence define the landscape.

Six years after former Mexican President Vicente Fox pledged an immigration accord with the United States, millions of new jobs and a promised educational revolution, Mexico's social and political indicators are in the negatives.

Both the United Nations Development Program and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development chide Mexico for continued high poverty rates. Some reports compare sections of the Mexican countryside to Mali or the Sudan. Public high schools and universities are unable to serve all aspirants, who are frequently funneled into private schools of dubious quality and purpose.

With the minimum wage of less than $5 per day buying less than it did 30 years ago, it's no mystery why as many as 4 million Mexicans crossed into the United States during the Fox presidency.

As a parting gift from the Fox administration, Mexicans began paying more for gasoline, milk, tortillas and other goods beginning Dec. 1.

According to Mexico's National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics, many rural towns became ghost towns during the Fox years. Millions of Mexicans only get by because of remittances sent by relatives in the United States - a money flow which the Bank of Mexico estimates will reach a record $20 billion to $25 billion in 2006.

A different story prevails at the top. During the Fox years, modest billionaires such as Carlos Slim became super-tycoons, which, in Slim's case, meant achieving the status of the world's third-richest man, with a fortune of $30 billion, according to Forbes magazine. A handful of companies control the transportation, entertainment, media, beverage, food and communications sectors. Close to 90 percent of bank stock is controlled by foreign companies and investors.

To be fair, Fox might be credited with fulfilling one of his campaign goals of 2000: creating economic development. In the last six years, the illegal narcotics economy has boomed - transformed from a mainly export trade oriented to the United States to an industry with an important domestic market as well.

The drug cartels are in an all-out war for the spoils, tossing grenades and firing off bazookas in their battles, while leaving decapitated bodies on the streets as gruesome warnings to rivals. Executions and grenade attacks take place within the eyesight and earshot of tourists in resorts such as Acapulco and Zihuatanejo.

By the end of 2006, somewhere around 2,000 people - most of them young - will have been killed in this year's bout of narco-violence. Few suspects are detained for such crimes, and honest government officials admit they are overwhelmed by the power of organized crime.

As the Nov. 25 narco-tainted slaying of Mexican pop star Valentin Elizalde in Reynosa highlighted, Mexico now has on its hands a "lost generation" of youths who are sucked into a cycle of easy money, addiction and violence.

Driving this social disaster is the implosion of the free-market economic model formalized in the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact Washington refuses to renegotiate despite the growing clamor in Mexico to revisit the deal.

Scratch the surface of street protests - whether over the presidential election or misrule by the governor of Oaxaca - and economic and justice grievances stemming from a teetering political economy rise to the fore.

How will Calderon address Mexico's crisis? So far, all the evidence suggests that he will stay the course. Calderon's new Cabinet, whose members range from recycled Fox administration officials to U.S.- and British-educated technocrats, portends more of the same.

More than a few Mexican analysts see historical parallels between the current setup and the 30-year Porfiriato of the late 1800s and early 1900s, the era when dictator Porfirio Diaz kept wages low and the population in line for foreign corporations.

Some observers note the tendency for Mexico to explode in revolution every century. The 100th anniversary of the last upheaval, 1910, is just around the corner.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)1/2/2007 1:28:56 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Hold these grotesque executioners to account

informationclearinghouse.info



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)1/2/2007 8:26:32 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
New Year's bash
______________________________________________________________

All that BCS talk seems silly now after USC hammers U-M

BY MITCH ALBOM
DETROIT FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
January 2, 2007

PASADENA, Calif. -- Here came a linebacker. Here came a nose tackle. Here came a cornerback. Here came another linebacker. It's supposed to be the ocean that smacks against you in these parts, but on Monday it was the Southern California defense that crashed like waves against Michigan quarterback Chad Henne, over and over, chasing him, knocking him down, stuffing him into the turf, until you half-expected some "Baywatch" lifeguard to come flying out of the stands to save him.

As Kid Rock might say, where's Pamela Anderson when you need her?

Instead, the Wolverines lost the game. And they lost the argument. They can no longer claim they were robbed of a national championship bid. Not when they began 2007 looking nothing like the team of 2006. They were outpassed. Out-defensed. Out-attacked. With a little more than five minutes left, the Trojans' portion of the crowd (you know, the folks who looked happy) began to chant "OVER-RATED! OVER-RATED!"

And, sadly, that is the adjective that will haunt the end of U-M's season. Who were these guys who took the field for the 93rd Rose Bowl? Certainly not the once undefeated team ranked No. 2 in the nation. Until the fourth quarter, the things that defined the Wolverines this season were the very things that deserted them. Running the ball. Protecting the quarterback. Pressuring the other quarterback. Hey, if Michigan isn't going to play like Michigan, it can't expect to win like Michigan.

But it did lose like Michigan, 32-18, in yet another January debacle in the stunning shadows of the San Gabriel Mountains. No offense to the joys of Southern California, but when they say sunshine is bad for you, Lloyd Carr must nod his head endlessly. This was his fourth straight bowl loss, his third in four years in Pasadena, and his second in four years to a Trojans team coached by Pete Carroll that treated a Michigan quarterback like a beanbag chair.

In 2004, John Navarre was sacked nine times and U-M lost by two touchdowns.

Monday, Henne was sacked six times and U-M lost by two touchdowns.

"A lot of it had to do with their speed," Carr said afterward.

Not a lot of it. Almost all of it. You get the feeling Carroll doesn't lose much sleep over the big and meaty reputation of Michigan. Not when he's got big and fast -- on both sides of the ball. He sent so many different guys at Henne, I think they were passing a baton.

And by the time Henne finally got his feet underneath him, USC was picking apart Michigan's pass defense like a kid going through wrapping paper on his Christmas presents. John David Booty, the USC quarterback who has "Big Dreams" tattooed on his arm -- and remember, he is a first-year starter -- threw for nearly 400 yards and four touchdowns against what was supposed to be one of the nation's best defenses.

Uh-oh. That reputation is lost now. Ohio State scored 42. USC scored 32. Carr said his defense "eventually wore down." But this is more than fatigue. This is more than one game. When you combine the bad bowl defeats with the three straight years of season-ending losses to the Buckeyes, Michigan football now resembles a lit fuse to a stick of dynamite:

No one wants to be around when it ends.

You gotta block 'em

Of course, watching this game, not many wanted to be around when it started. The first half finished 3-3 and you were surprised there was that much scoring. It was like going to see Metallica and hearing the band play folk music. Like going to see the mighty Mississippi and finding Dawson's Creek. This is what happens when you insert a six-week dead period in between football games. Things dry up. Things ripen then rot. How can they not?

Michigan's last game was on Nov. 18. Nobody holds rhythm for a month and a half. It would be like holding your breath until Wednesday. Players get out of sync. Nobody is used to hard tackling. The listless, out-of-rhythm first half is an indictment of the lunacy that is the college football postseason. You have a good product and you stick it in the freezer until New Year's. As a result, every bowl -- including next week's national championship matchup -- faces the potential to appear unrecognizable. Who are these guys?

USC, it turned out, suffered amnesia for only two quarters. Then it actually started passing and scoring -- as it usually does. "We decided to go for it," Carroll said, "and John David and those guys went nuts."

Michigan, sadly, never came out of its fog. The Wolverines survived all season with tight defense, but they allowed 29 points in about 17 minutes Monday. Mike Hart was the backbone of the offense all season. But Hart got no traction Monday, finishing with just 47 yards. Henne had been smart and impervious all season. But Henne lost a fumble and threw a bad interception. His linemen had allowed only 18 sacks all season. But Henne was sacked five times in the first half alone -- and three times in five plays. I'm not making that up. He got sacked. Then he completed a pass. Then he got sacked. Then he handed off. Then he got sacked.

At halftime, a TV reporter asked Carr what the problem was.

"Well, we gotta block 'em," he said.

When a Michigan coach is saying that at the end of a season, you know something's wrong.

Another unhappy New Year

And, no doubt, people this morning will be asking what went wrong again -- with the team, with the coach, with the finish to what was, until mid-November, an undefeated season.

The simple answer is that Michigan ran up against the kind of team that can beat it -- twice. Ohio State and USC did many similar things. They spread their receivers to stretch the defense. They came after Henne hard. They made the strength of the Michigan program -- the big men on the line -- look slow and plodding when it counted.

And they made adjustments at halftime that outmaneuvered whatever Carr came up with.

And the Wolverines went down.

That's the simple answer. The complicated answer is Michigan may be suffering the weight of its diminished finishes. You do something long enough, a pattern becomes a nasty habit. Michigan has a pattern of gathering good stretches during the Big Ten season, and a habit of running out of gas down the finish. You wonder if the burden of losing to Ohio State and blowing chances in bowls year after year isn't becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in the program.

Remember, this Michigan team had a confident group of third-year stars leading in key positions -- guys like Henne and Hart and offensive lineman Jake Long -- yet it still lost to a USC team that is young and developing. Could it be that, subliminally, a letdown finish is almost ... expected?

I know. The thought is depressing. It's distressing. You can argue that there's too much time off -- and you'd be right. You can argue that a Rose Bowl against USC is like a road game against a home team -- and you'd be right. You can argue that this justifies what happened ...

... and you'd be wrong.

Here's the hard truth: Michigan cannot claim itself an elite, national championship-caliber program and consistently go out with a whimper. Monday, it did not look like a team worthy of facing Ohio State again. It did not look like a team worthy of facing USC again. It looked like a team going backward, and you can't keep ending your seasons that way.

And that's a shame. What began as a wonderful story, an unlikely team racing to an 11-0 record, ended Monday with its leader, Henne, the quarterback, backpedaling, running away and finally going down, again and again, under a California wave.

"How disappointed are you?" someone asked Carr.

"How disappointed can you be?" he answered.

Today is Jan. 2, and people are polishing their New Year's resolutions. Michigan's resolution, once again, will have something to do with Jan. 1.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)1/2/2007 11:51:37 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
JIM KUNSTLER: Forecast For the Year Ahead

jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com

January 01, 2007

First a Look Backward

Let's get this out of the way up front: the worst call I made last year was for the Dow to crumble down to 4000 when, in fact, it melted up to a new all-time record high of about 12,500. The reason we saw this, in my opinion, was that inertia combined with sheer luck to keep the finance sector decoupled from reality long enough for the Wall Street insiders to guarantee their 2006 Christmas bonuses -- perhaps the last they will ever see.

Finance has been trending away from economic reality since the Ronald Reagan era on an accelerating basis. By this I mean the role of finance no longer represents sets of mechanisms and institutions designed to raise legitimate capital for investment in legitimate productive activities. Finance is now an end in itself, essentially a racket. The capital is no longer capital, i.e. genuine wealth accumulated from previous productive activities. Now it is jive-capital: notional "wealth" spun out of activities that are fundamentally not productive -- for instance, sub-prime mortgages bundled into tradable securities. In reality, the mortgages backing these securities are contracts for repayment of huge loans made on hazardous terms by shifty means to people with poor prospects for making their payments for assets (suburban houses made of vinyl and glue) that are, in any case, fated to lose much of their nominal value, becoming worth less than the obligations yet due on them, and rapidly so.

The sub-prime loans were made in the first place because the contracting institutions (banks) could pass off the risks associated with these jive contracts by off-loading them to larger institutions such as the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) which are largely exempt from regulatory oversight and hence could buy up whatever cockamamie paper contracts they felt like buying and convert them into bonds, certificates said to represent future earnings. (Not.)

These mortgage backed securities were only one species of engineered abstract financial "instruments" among many orders of incomprehensibly abstract mutant financial "products" (derivatives, credit default swaps) and procedures (carry trade, leveraged buyouts,) based on the fundamental unreality that it is possible to get something for nothing.

The inertia part of the story is that this collective hallucination (that jive-capital was real) was sustained through 2006 by the sheer massive weight and flow of jive capital and its ability to elude scrutiny by countless chimerical conversions from one abstruse form to another -- from loan, to bond, to bet, to position, to Christmas bonus. . . . The final result, though, was a nation with an increasingly impoverished middle class, a bankrupt public treasury, and all remaining wealth (notional or residual) creamed off by a racketeering upper crust of logrolling insiders who, for the moment, could convert their dollars into multiple mansions, private jet planes, and sky boxes at the gladiatorial combats du jour.

The rest of the US economy was increasingly composed of a suburban development hyper-boom that amounted to little more overall than a colossal misinvestment in a living arrangement with no future (and the irreparable destruction of the remaining US landscape). The building-and-selling of suburban houses and the ancillary accessorizing of them with collector highways, strip malls, and big box stores, fast food huts, and all the jobs associated with constructing, lending, evaluating, selling, servicing, and staffing these things, along with additional rackets like home equity withdrawal refinancing to keep the cash registers ringing in the Wal-Marts and Home Depots -- these were the activities supposedly keeping the "regular" (i.e. lumpenprole) economy chugging along. If you subtracted all this "housing bubble" activity from the rest of this economy since 2001 there was very little left besides, hair-styling, fried chicken, and open heart surgery.

Yet, marvelous to relate, the whole toxic, entropy-laden, creaking, reeking cargo of shit-and-deceit that comprised this system just managed to keep rolling along for another year without collapsing under its own stinking, fantastically stupid weight.

The luck part of the story came partly from the weather -- there was barely any hurricane activity in US territory last year and global warming was so advanced that the northern states set records for warm winter temperatures -- which redounded into the fossil fuel part of the 2006 story.

We came out of 2005 in very poor shape for oil and gas because so many platforms in the Gulf of Mexico were destroyed or damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- something like 23 percent of total production capacity at the worst point, some of which never recovered -- not to mention the circumstances worldwide regarding oil supply (more on this ahead). The supernaturally warm winter kept home heating prices super low in early 2006. Nonetheless, oil prices began ramping up in the spring as we approached the happy motoring part of the year joined by fear of yet another harsh hurricane season. At midsummer, we got the spasm of the Hezbollah-Israeli war, which threatened to infect the oil-producing areas of the Middle East. Around this time, oil spiked to $78 a barrel.

But that little war terminated with next-to-zero immediate repercussions. Both Hezbollah and Israel went home to regroup. The US was not tempted to step on Hezbollah's sponsor, Iran, and Saudi Arabia kept its beak out of the beef, too. The world's focus returned to the ongoing fiasco of America's misadventure in Iraq, and that just ground on and on like a giant Cuisinart making human guacamole in wholesale batches day after day.

The hurricane season turned out to be a total bust. The panic buying of oil contracts at mid-summer turned to an autumn rout as inventories were already built up and bidders left the futures markets. Oil prices sank from $78 to the high $50s. The Amaranth hedge fund crapped out on an oil futures play. It was rumored that Goldman Sachs (its CEO Hank Paulson just elevated to Secretary of the Treasury last summer) used its vast resources to further queer the oil futures markets going into the November election to keep prices down and voters zonked out. Whether this was true or not, I simply don't know -- but obviously it didn't help preserve the Republican hold on congress.

But it brings us to a crucial final angle on the story-as-a-whole, which is that the stresses, distortions, and perversities we see in the financial markets and the economy are largely attributable to the peculiar circumstances of Peak Oil .-- namely, a grinding background reality that this point of the world's highest-ever petroleum production represents the final blow off of an economy that really has no future, an economy in which typical industrial growth is no longer possible. And if this growth, this ceaseless expansion of everything is no longer possible, if instead we enter a wholesale global contraction of available energy, of industrial activity, and expectation of future activity, why then the markers used to signify the expectation of growth (at least the retention of wealth) -- currencies, stock certificates, bonds, derivative contracts, mortgages -- all these things lose their legitimacy and finally their value. That is the fundamental underlying reality in Peak Oil's relation to our modern economies in general and to the finance sector that is supposed to serve it.

Looking Ahead

I will be so bold to say that I called the housing crash correctly last year, though the worst symptoms are slow to present for technical reasons. There's no question that the action on the real estate scene changed drastically in mid-year. The implosion of this mighty structure of fraud, folly, and misinvestment so far has taken place in such breathtaking slow-motion that its victims have not really felt the pain from the falling bricks yet. By late summer, buyers started evaporating. Real estate signs planted in lawns last June are still sitting there on New Years. Prices have come down a bit in many markets, including most of the hotties such as Florida, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, and Boston. But the buyers are still not bidding. Meanwhile, the sellers have dug in, determined to get something at least close to their wished-for inflated prices, egged on by their representatives, the realtors. This mutually reinforcing psychology cannot hold indefinitely. Many of these sellers don't have the luxury to wait around forever. Some have had to move to other houses in other places because of job changes, and are stuck paying two mortgages. Many are stuck with "creative" mortgages that all the evil ingenuity of the human mind conjured in recent years to enable the feckless to live above their means -- adjustable rate, payment optional, no money down contracts that suckered buyers into booby-trapped obligations whose initial low-interest terms lured them in and are now set to blow up in their faces as terms automatically re-set upwards to higher rates and "optional" deferred payments get backloaded onto the principal, putting the mortgage holders so far underwater on their contracts that a tour of the Titanic would feel like a day at the beach.

The trouble is, when both the sellers and their agents decide to get with the reality program and lower their prices, they will only stimulate a massive death spiral of house price deflation as buyers see the numbers go lower and hold out longer in the expectation that prices will go down even further. That would, of course, put more sellers into gross distress and lead them either to dump their properties or enter the cold waters of default and foreclosure. The whole process could run for a couple of decades, and as that occurs it will be made much much worse by oil depletion -- as so many suburban houses drastically lose locational value, combined with the consequences of poor construction carried out in cheap materials like vinyl and chipboard.

Add to this that the late stages of the hyper-boom caused so much "product" to be brought onto the market by the "production home builders" that there now exists an unprecedented oversupply of exactly the kind of crappy suburban houses (in all price ranges) that are bound to lose value going just a little bit forward. Foreclosures will only add more to the oversupply. In the subprime mortgage niche, defaults are officially reported to be running at 20 percent. Foreclosures are trailing because the process is so awkward, and many have not yet shown up in the housing markets. I predict that foreclosures on subprime mortgages will run above the 50 percent range when all is said and done.

As the music stops in the lending rackets, liquidity in the form of mortgage backed securities and other sources of hallucinated "money" will dry up, and will start to make itself felt in all the other arenas and regions that "money" has been migrating to. Jobs associated with house-building and all those ancillary enterprises -- big box shopping, chain restaurant revenues, car sales -- will disappear and incomes with them. Many home sales in past decade were made to people benefiting directly from the housing bubble. (The sheer number of real estate agents in America more than doubled since 2001.) This evaporation of both credit and incomes will impact the so-called "consumer economy", said to make up 70 percent of the total US economy. In other words, the term "depression" might be applicable as this economy lurches into actual contraction of more than a few percentage points.

This scenario suggests that earnings in corporations listed on the public stock exchanges -- the companies that elude acquisition by "private equity" -- would necessarily see severe drops in earnings, and therefore in stock value. While many commentators view the rise in the Dow as just another symptom of inflation -- asset inflation -- the activity in these assets -- companies making, doing, and selling things -- must be reported on a quarterly basis. And if that activity is trending strongly downward, then stock prices will trend down even if the value of the dollar is going down and it takes more dollars to buy an equivalent share of stock year-over-year. So I would conclude by again predicting a substantial drop in the Dow and other equity markets. To some extent, it seems to me that the 2006 blow off in stock prices was just another symptom of the finance sector being decoupled from economic reality since real GDP probably contracted one percent in the second half of the year while misreporting and delusional thinking drove stock prices up.

One would think that the US dollar is poised to take a beating, and indeed the signs have been abundant that this is underway -- especially when the value of the dollar started to implode against the Euro around Thanksgiving. It has leveled off since then. But since then there have been other moves around the world to de-link commodity prices from the US dollar and restate them in Euros, especially oil, and the dollar's plunge will probably continue. A lot of commentators around the web have pointed out the side benefit for the US government to promote dollar inflation: to inflate itself out of crushing debt. But the government can't accomplish this without destroying the purchasing power of ordinary Americans and whatever remains of their meager savings. I'd have to conclude that the Federal Reserve is out of tricks for goosing economic activity. Their last major trick was hitching a jive economy to a real estate bubble by making loan money available to any jabonie with a pulse and promoting the demise of lending standards. The gambit lasted five years and is now blowing up in America's face.

The Energy Predicament

Oil ended 2006 roughly where it began, at just over $60 a barrel. This reassured the public that all talk about Peak Oil was hysterical blather from a lunatic fringe. It was reinforced by publication of the mendacious Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) report issued this fall -- a tragic document put out by a giant public relations firm representing the oil industry -- with the mission of staving off windfall profits taxes and other regulatory moves that a true resource emergency might recommend.

But beyond this debate, in the background, another ominous trend can account for the stalling of oil prices in 2006 -- totally unrecognized by the public and ignored by the news media: prices on the oil futures market leveled off because the Third World has effectively dropped out of bidding for it -- and using it. They cannot afford it at $60-a-barrel. The Third World has entered an era of energy destitution and it is manifesting in symptoms such as local resource wars, genocides, falling life expectancies, and in many places a near-total unraveling of the sociopolitical order. American mall-walkers and theme park visitors are oblivious to this tragic process, but it is perhaps the major reason why we are not now suffering from $100-per-barrel (or greater) oil prices (with the consequent unraveling of our sociopolitical and economic order).

The major trend on the oil scene the past 12 months is the apparent inability of the world to lift total production above 85 million barrels a day -- with demand now rising above that line. It is unclear how much more demand destruction will come out of the Third World before bidding intensifies between the developed nations. One commentator in particular, Dallas geologist Jeffrey Brown --a frequent contributor on the web's best oil debate site, TheOilDrum.com -- is advancing the idea that we are entering an oil export crisis that will presage a more general permanent world-wide oil emergency. Brown holds that the major oil exporting nations are using so much of their own product, because of rising populations, that their net exports are falling at an alarming rate, perhaps as much as 9 percent annually. This trend combines with general depletion rates now said to be around 3 percent a year.

The question of total oil reserves around the world remains somewhat murky, but Brown, Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton, and others using a straightforward mathematical model, have stated that the world is roughly at the same point in all-time production as the Lower-48 United States was at in 1970, when America passed its all-time production peak. We know for certain that three of the four super giant oil fields (Daqing in China; Cantarell in Mexico; Burgan in Kuwait) are past peak and there is plenty of evidence that the greatest of them all, 50-year-old Ghawar in Saudi Arabia is not only past peak but perhaps "crashing" into a super-steep decline.

Discovery of new oil to replace the production from declining fields remains paltry. Chevron announced it's "Jack" discovery in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico with great fanfare this year, but neither conclusively demonstrated that all the wished-for oil was down there (between 3 and 15 billion barrels, Chevron said) or that they could get it out of there in a way that made sense economically, since the oil was extraordinarily deep and difficult to lift up.

Meanwhile, companies developing tar sand production in Alberta announced that their costs of production were rising substantially, while a reckoning lay ahead as to how much of Canada's fast-disappearing natural gas reserves will be squandered in melting tar. The oil shale project is going nowhere. American corporate farmers have entered into a racket with congress to subsidize ethanol production from corn and biodiesel fuel from soybeans. The American public remains ignorant of the tragic futility of this project, which depends on oil-and-gas "inputs" to keep the crop yields up and ultimately is a net energy "loser." As the world crosses into the uncharted territory of "The Long Emergency," Americans will find themselves having to chose between eating food and making fuel to keep the car engines running.

The signal failure of public debate in this country is embodied in our obsession with this particular theme -- how to keep the cars running by other means at all costs. Everybody from the greenest enviros to the hoariest neoliberal free market pimps believe that this is the only thing we need to worry about or talk about. The truth, of course, is that we have to make other arrangements for virtually all the major activities of everyday life -- farming, commerce, transport, settlement patterns -- but we are so over-invested in our suburban infrastructure that we cannot face this reality.

The bottom line for oil in 2007: expect the bidding on the futures markets to regain intensity between the US, China, Europe, and Japan. A contracting US economy could take some demand out of the picture, but the sad truth is that we burn up most of the oil we use in cars, and American life is now so hopelessly based on incessant motoring that citizens cannot even go down to the unemployment office without driving. Geopolitical events can only make the oil supply situation worse and probably will. (See ahead.)

We are probably also in the early stages of a natural gas crisis in the US. Over the next decade, the gap between US demand for natural gas and dwindling supply may amount to one-and-a-half times the current equivalent of our oil imports. This is a staggering deficit. Natural gas is used for heating in more than half the houses in the US and accounts for just under 20 percent of our total electricity production. Domestic supply is crashing. We are drilling as fast as we can, with more and more rigs each year, just to to keep up. To make matters worse, the means of gas delivery -- through a vast web of pipeline networks around the nation -- makes "just-in-time" delivery the norm and, tragically, also makes "just-in-time" pricing normal, too. Thus, gas prices are responding only to the shortest-term signals -- for instance, unusually mild winter weather -- rather than to the catastrophic long-term reserve picture. Finally, we are unlikely to solve our natural gas problems with imports for technical reasons having to do with the cost and difficulty of moving the stuff by means other than pipelines and for geopolitical reasons, namely that most of the remaining gas in the world is in Asia. Bottom line: we could enter a home heating and electricity production crisis anytime. Massive price increases are likely to be required in order to reduce demand to the level of available supplies. This will be one of the major factors in the disabling of suburbia -- which is to say, normal American life.

Geopolitics

The Iraq misadventure has turned self-evidently into a fiasco and the American public is understandably losing the will to persevere there. Ditto Afghanistan. The overall trend is for dwindling American influence over events in the Middle East. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing in the long run is not as important as the sheer fact that it is happening.

Iran has benefited from every American misstep and sign of weakness and is seeking to become the regional hegemon. Is it worth it to them just to be the Big Cheese in the region? Or is this just a sort of booby prize in a contest between religious sects? Iran's current momentum is favorable toward this goal in the short term, but in the longer term Iran is faced with steeply depleting oil reserves and an exploding population that is growing restless under a now ossified regime of mullahs. Iran's natural gas reserves are impressive, but they cannot rely on them indefinitely for both export income and running their own electrical grid. While their pursuit of atomic weapons may be for real, it is also a fact that Iran must make plans for producing electricity without using up absolutely all of its fossil fuel -- and so their pursuit of atomic energy is not without practical necessity.

Shia influence, led by Iran, appears ascendant in the Middle East for the moment. Iraq is under Shia control (though Iraqi Shia are ethnically not Persian). Hezbollah is taking over Lebanon by degrees. Shia populations in Saudi Arabia are concentrated in the oil-producing area along the Persian Gulf. Iran and its Shia proxies appear avid to challenge Saudi Arabia's leadership -- and Arabia is, after all, the birthplace of Islam and the owner of its holiest shrines. What this boils down to is a collision between Saudi Arabia and Iran. However this plays out, in proxy wars or in direct conflict, it can only play havoc with Middle East oil production and export.

The players involved have the means to make enormous mischief if they want to. Any of them could take out a major oil installation with a jet plane and a suicide pilot, or missiles, or even with common small arms in a well-orchestrated operation. Doing so, of course, would so grievously damage the major importing nations that the global economy would seize up and effectively bring down the curtain on the industrial era. Other players currently lurking off-stage could make dramatic entrances in the year ahead -- for instance, Pakistan, perhaps the most dangerous nation in the world, a country held together with scotch tape and baling wire, with the world's biggest supply of angry Islamic maniacs and an arsenal of about twenty atomic bombs.

In short, the Middle East is rigged like a gargantuan booby trap, the biggest IED the world has ever seen. There are too many things that can go wrong, and countless possible combinations for Murphy's Law to come into play. As bloody and horrible as events have been in the Islamic world through 2006 -- including everything from the genocide in Darfur to the daily violence in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Hezbollah-Israel fight -- things can obviously get worse. At the bottom of all this are the exploding populations in a part of the world that has historically possessed only meager resources for human existence. Now that the most special resource of all -- abundant oil -- is heading into depletion all that remains on the horizon is a long, grinding competition among more people for less of every other resource. My guess is that the Middle East will shut down politically before it shuts down geologically. The process is underway. The populations aren't shrinking and the pressures are only getting worse. So I would predict greater disorder in the Middle East through 2007. The US may suffer a "double Dien Bien Phu" event of having to vacate both Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.

Europe and Japan have been lurking quietly on the sidelines since the US was lured into the "War on Terror" in 2001. Japan imports 95 percent of its oil and gas. If those lifelines are severed, Japan is simply toast. The only question is whether they will take it lying down, or revisit other options like military adventure. Given their energy disadvantages, military adventuring seems unlikely this time around. Perhaps they just go medieval again and retreat into the comfortable romance of a Neo-Shogun island culture.

Europe has been coasting along letting America take all the heat in the Middle East. Europe's own energy supply (the North Sea) is crashing. Only Russia has substantial supplies -- though it, too, is past peak -- and will probably continue making moves to use its oil leverage for political advantage. Britain has been the most feckless European nation, utterly ignoring its own energy crisis as North Sea oil and gas dwindles down to nothing. France can take a little comfort in getting 70 percent of its electric power from nukes -- and the nations that maintain electric service will be the nations that remain civilized. Germany, Italy, and Spain are now at the mercy of their oil importers. They didn't behave as foolishly as the US did; they didn't destroy their public transit or their city centers or their local agriculture. But they still face great difficulties in reorganizing daily life to fit the requirements of the post-oil age.

China faces difficulties at least as awesome as the United States. They have zilch left for oil. Their ecological problems are worse, their political stability depends on an export economy that could fall apart in 2007 as WalMart shoppers spend fewer and less valuable dollars on things made in China's factories. A hundred million unemployed factory workers might make things hairy for a central government that enjoys little true legitimacy. And there is always the chance that Chinese internal politics will return to the psychotic state of the mid-1960s if the stress is too great. What I wonder is when China might begin to go adventuring into former Soviet lands such as Kazakhstan in search of oil. Perhaps 2007 is the year that China turns aggressive.

US Politics

Elation ran through the body politic in November when the Republicans lost control of congress and the senate, and many state governments as well. But the Democrats have not shown any better understanding of the nation's economic and energy predicaments than the Republicans have. The Democrats are equally lost in fantasies about running WalMart and the interstate highway system on corn instead of petroleum. The Democrats are every bit as invested in our suburban gross liabilities as the Republicans have been. One way or another, we will either have to get some revolution in party ideology or the American political system is going to fail. Unfortunately, instead of ideas and agendas for facing our real problems, the public remains lost in a political personality showcase that is just one facet of our absurd celebrity culture.

My prediction for 2007 is that American politics will become more delusional, more based on false hopes for salvaging our tragic misinvestments, and more disappointing. I have stated many times on this blog that America faces a political readjustment of the kind not seen since the Civil War -- though not with the same plot and themes. I also believe that the feckless complacency of our current behavior could lead to a situation here in which Americans will beg an authoritarian leadership to tell them what to do. Winston Churchill famously remarked that Americans could always be relied upon to do the right thing -- after they had exhausted all the other possibilities. I hope we are not heading in that direction, but we are already romancing the "other possibilities" (like running WalMart on corn) instead of taking intelligent steps like fixing the railroads, or ending subsidies and incentives for suburban development, or slapping realistic taxes on gasoline.

To sum it all up, I believe 2007 will be the year that the US finally feels the pain. More disorder will appear in the system. More cries of anguish will be heard throughout the land. More paralysis will set in. The bid for leadership may not follow the current story line --Barack...Hillary...Edwards...McCain...blah blah blah. Jokers and wild cards could step into the frame. America will be looking for a man on a white horse and instead they'll get Newt Gingrich on an electric Humvee.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)1/2/2007 6:55:50 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Doing It Their Own Way: Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador

By: Mark Weisbrot*
International Herald Tribune
Sunday, Dec 31, 2006

A new wave of Latin American leaders is changing the face of the region and its relations with the United States, multilateral institutions, international financial markets and foreign investors.

While this is often seen in Washington in political terms, as the rise of populism or anti-Americanism, much can be explained by looking at the economics of these changes.

Rafael Correa, Ecuador's newly elected president, is a case in point. Correa recently sent the country's bond markets tumbling by announcing that he would seek to restructure Ecuador's foreign debt. He is looking toward a 75 percent debt reduction, and will use the savings on debt service to increase social spending.

Correa, who got his Ph.D. in economics at the University of Illinois in Urbana, understands very well that foreign capital can, in some circumstances, contribute to development. But when a country is borrowing simply to pay off debt, it may make more sense to clear some debt off the books and start over, just as someone who declares bankruptcy in the United States does.

Argentina defaulted on its debt in December 2001. The government drove a hard bargain with its foreign creditors and with the International Monetary Fund, which wanted the government to pay more to the defaulted bondholders and to follow more orthodox macro- economic policy prescriptions.

In the end the Argentines were proven right. The economy shrank for only about three months after the default; it has since grown at an annual rate of more than 8 percent, pulling more than 8 million people out of poverty in a country of 36 million.

President Néstor Kirchner of Argentina has pursued these policies outside of the international spotlight. But the way he led Argentina out of its depression of 1998-2002 is comparable to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's leadership in the United States during the Great Depression.

Like Roosevelt, Kirchner had to reject the advice of the majority of the economics profession (Roosevelt did this even before Keynes had published his General Theory), stand up to powerful interests (foreign bondholders and utility companies, the IMF and World Bank), and do what was best for the country.

A stable and competitive exchange rate, reasonable interest rates and the use of unorthodox measures to control inflation were some of the policies that Argentina needed to produce its remarkable economic recovery.

Venezuela's Hugo Chávez is a more controversial leader, but his government's economic policies are working. The year 2006 will be the second in a row in which Venezuela has a 10 percent growth rate, the highest in the region, after a 17.8 percent jump in 2004.

To put the country on a solid growth path, the government needed to get control over the national oil company PDVSA, which is the source of nearly half the government's revenues and 80 percent of the country's export earnings.

The opposition resisted fiercely, with a U.S.-backed military coup and an oil strike that devastated the economy in 2002-2003. But since the government prevailed it has been able to assure not only rapid growth but vastly expanded social programs for the poor, including free health care, subsidized food and increased access to education.

Some say this is just an oil boom that will collapse when oil prices drop, but the Chávez government has budgeted conservatively for oil prices that were about half of what they are now.

The governments of Argentina and Venezuela are transforming not only their own countries but also the region by finally breaking the IMF's control over credit.

Only a few years ago, a government that did not agree to IMF conditions would find itself denied credit not only from the Fund but from the much larger World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, G-7 governments and even the private sector.

This was the major instrument of Washington's influence in the region, and helped bring higher interest rates, tighter budgets, privatization, indiscriminate liberalization of international trade and capital flows and the abandonment of development strategies.

Venezuela has now provided an alternative source of credit, with no economic policy strings attached, to Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries. The dissolution of the IMF's "creditors' cartel" is the most important change in the international financial system since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates in 1973.

Now even poor countries like Bolivia can say no to the "Washington consensus," capture billions of dollars of additional revenues from resources like natural gas, and use them to deliver on their promises of a New Deal for the region's poor.

The region's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, is also making history as he completes his first year in office.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil has continued the neoliberal policies (and resultant sluggish economic growth) of his predecessor. But he has been a team player internationally, forging a close alliance with Argentina and Venezuela that has buried Washington's proposed "Free Trade Area of the Americas," and pursuing increased regional economic integration.

Latin America has clearly taken a turn in a new economic direction, and it looks to be overwhelmingly positive. After 26 years of slow economic growth, it would be difficult for the new leaders to do worse.

*Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (73645)1/22/2007 11:24:46 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
UPDATE: China May Step Up Diversificaion Of Forex Holdings /

10:19 EST Monday, Jan 22, 2007

HONG KONG (Dow Jones) -- There is little chance of any immediate fallout on the U.S. dollar resulting from China's decision to change the way it plans to manage its $1.06 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, according to reports.

Chinese authorities said over the weekend they were seeking to review how their foreign exchange reserve should be managed as part of a policy shift that will likely see greater diversity in future investments.

Premier Wen Jiabao, speaking at a financial conference Saturday, said China would "actively explore and expand the channels and methods for using foreign- exchange reserves," The Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition, citing a statement that was carried by the state-run Xinhua news agency.

Wen's comments were the highest-level signal yet that mainland authorities are rethinking how they can use the funds. China, which ranks as the fourth-largest economy, has seen its forex reserves grow six fold since 2000, making it one of the largest holders of U.S. Treasury bonds.

Wen's statement was made at the conclusion of the two-day financial conference.

The comments were part of a broader strategy expressed at the conference to strengthen the financial system and reduce China's dependency on exports and investment, The Journal reported.

Among its key objectives is to strengthen the financial system in rural areas. The U.S. and other nations have urged such reforms, arguing that China hasn't done enough to encourage domestic consumption.

Although no details of the shift in management of the reserves was presented, analysts said the diversification would likely entail greater investments in overseas securities, natural resources and foreign technologies.

Wen's statements, which did not make any specific reference to selling dollars, will act as a policy framework, with more detailed policy papers likely to be released following months.

In addition to his broad comment about the expanding currency reserves, Xinhua also attributed Wen as saying China would take measures to reduce the lopsided nature of its international payments, which currently show net fund inflows. Wen also reiterated a pledge to step up changes to its exchange-rates system and make the yuan more flexible.

To help diversify it forex holdings Beijing could encourage firms to import more raw materials, which would require importing firms to purchase dollars from China's Central bank.

Another possibility, The Journal reported, was to set up a state-run investment corporation, much like those in Singapore and South Korea, which could invest in overseas assets companies on behalf of the government.

Another possibility is to inject funds into the Agricultural Bank of China which lends mostly to rural borrowers.

Only about 60% of China's 120 million rural families have access to financial services such as loans, The Journal reported, citing Xinhua figures.