Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: silenceddissenter who wrote (68036)	8/25/2007 8:19:16 AM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

>Power Vacuums often lead to war - iraq is a smaller example of what may happen on the global scale - The next world war will involve nuclear no?> If we have forgotten, the last world war involved nuclear. That realization has prevented the power blocks of the world to find alternate ways to settle conflicts. Like trade... And Iraq is a special case. Iraq did not collapse, it was deliberately destroyed. > Really ARUN you don't expect the military gung ho types to limit themselves to conventional weapons eh?> The history of last 60 years has showed that the NATO, USSR, Chinese, and Indian nuclear powers have behaved very responsibly so far as far as the use of nuclear weapons is concerned. The British Empire collapsed. And it was way bigger, more entrenched, and more stretched in its managerial resources. They just went bankrupt fighting World War II. The power vaccum was filled in by United States, which behaved more sensibly than the old world European countries with their historical and nationalistic baggage. On the strength of United States, the whole of Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea became stabilized and peaceful. USSR collapsed without any major bloodshed (except yugoslavia). And in a short span of 15 years, many eastern european countries have almost integrated into western europe. And nuclear weapon capability among the former Soviet republics has so far been a non issue (I did not see the movie "The Peacemaker" which was tackled some of the fears). The British left India in such a hurry (after only 300 years or so of being around), that there was a power vaccum which affected 12 million people in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. However, the Indian political parties picked up the pieces and have cobbled together a reasonable nation (still an unfinished work). >Do you agree with el mats view that if the empire collapses or is forcibly decimated that we will only have a few 10's of millions in deaths worldwide and then have rebalanced power - if so why would you believe that?> You have to give some credit to the US empire. They have managed to bring about significant trade relationship with China that may be irreversible, and will align China's interest with the NATO powers. And now they are bringing on another competing vendor (India) to balance China's strength. This globalist agenda, which Slagle seems to find very corrupting, is in some ways a sensible way to avoid direct confrontation with other nuclear powers. US even tried developing Russia into a trade relationship and capitalism. And Russia has adapted and become more capitalist, however, it still needs the backbone of its previously entrenched organizational structure to go further. And US should not be making the same mistake the winners of World War I did to the Germans. Do not push Russians into a corner. Let them recover from the setbacks they have suffered. And Putin has been fairly responsible so far. >Do you think economic hit man perkins is wrong> No. Using loans to control other people/countries is an age old trick used by moneylenders and empire builders. Look at how Bank of America is lending to Countrywide. >.and we should not try to use the empire to spread good like the Republic in Star Wars before emporer palpatine turned to the darkside?> It is in self interest. The ruled allow the rulers to rule if the rulers make their life easier and less stressful. > Mish says we can't afford to be the worlds police force - but there was a general in canada that headed a UN force that said if we do not - more people are going to die needless deaths all over.> The more likely scenario is that US will start sharing the police force responsibilities with other nations. > The cities I have lived in with an honest police force seems to have kept my muggings and robbings down.> That is the right principle. However, the world has still not built an honest global police force that is answerable to humanity. Actually, a reasonably fair structure has been built to the national level. Beyond that we are still in might is right mode. > If IRAN or china try to block the straits of hormuz or some other thing why would the current holders of power go peacably into the night?> They will not do take such an action unless they have been driven to an absolute corner. >Hasn't it been proven that world leaders all over from putin to bush are willing to use violence to achieve their goals?> Yes. That is proven. In case of Iraq, Saddam's resistance to United States/UK in spite of all the punishment for 15 years was the problem US faced. This was almost like the Sopranos episode in which Tony Soprano comes back from the hospital and to prove to his henchmen that he was still the boss, he picks a fight with one of the bigger guys. After the USSR collapse, US had kind of decided to pick a couple of countries to bash up to show others who is still the boss. This might have backfired a little, but the point has still been made. -Arun