Re: Energy War
Terry An interesting treatise on the future war with China: http://www.321energy.com/editorials/winston/winston020905.html There is probably a better adjective... maybe terrifying, alarming, etc. but is it really accurate? Are there any economists on Vortex? As China's Master Plan to Destroy America manifesto outlines, the multifaceted battle plan recommended by the Chinese military has taken shape...Financially: Using Currency as the Primary Weapon...[snip] While America's media is hypnotizing us with frivolous entertainment such as American Idol or The Amazing Race, they are totally ignoring the perilous economic time bomb the Chinese have placed against us. The Government of China is holding U.S. currency and Treasury notes in a $1.9 trillion Treasury bond trap. When they pull the trigger on their primary weapon, the dollar will crash and gold will break $600 in a heart beat and just keep going. [End of quote] I wonder how accurate this is... what can the Chinese do with this paper, in reality. Since Nixon took us off any international gold standard, they have no choice but to hole the paper, correct? We do not back up any T-bills with gold anymore do we? Jones
Re: Energy War
Jones Beene wrote: As China's Master Plan to Destroy America manifesto outlines, the multifaceted battle plan recommended by the Chinese military has taken shape...Financially: Using Currency as the Primary Weapon...[snip] I think that is ridiculous. No one is more conservative than stable communist dictator. The last thing the Chinese leaders want to do is rock the boat or cause instability anywhere in the world. My father, who was posted to the Soviet Union during WWII, said the Stalinists were the most stick-in-the-mud right-wing conservatives he ever met in his life. The North Korean Communists are not stable, and they may be a threat to other countries, but the Chinese leaders love the status quo. This position paper from PLA should not be taken any more seriously than these kooky right wing American plans to invade Iran, North Korea and Syria over the next six months (or whenever it is). By the way, I doubt the North Koreans have actually made nuclear weapons. Why should they bother? What use would they have for a bomb? If they used it on anyone they would be blown to smithereens by the U.S. They have all the leverage they need just by claiming to have bombs. I read interviews with retired U.S. scientists from Los Alamos who visited North Korea a few months ago. The Koreans tried to convince them that they have weapons, but the experts saw no credible. They got the impression that Koreans are trying to make everyone think they have weapons. Saddam Hussein did the same thing for a long time, for reasons only he can tell. If the Koreans actually had weapons or a weapons production facility, they could have convinced the Los Alamos experts in 15 minutes. I doubt there will be an energy war -- either economic or the shooting kind of war. Fixing the energy crisis with conventional alternative energy would be at least a thousand times cheaper. But if there is conflict over energy, it will prove how right Arthur C. Clarke was when he wrote in 1963: The heavy hydrogen in the seas can drive all our machines, heat all our cities, for as far ahead as we can imagine. If, as is perfectly possible, we are short of energy two generations from now, it will be through our own incompetence. We will be like Stone Age men freezing to death on top of a coal bed. That should be, Stone Age barbarians. - Jed
Re: Energy War
$1.93 T is the *total* outstanding T-Note debt of which 10% is held by China: http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage The Government of China is holding U.S. currency andTreasury notes in a $1.9 trillion Treasury bond trap. Whenthey pull the trigger on their "primary weapon," the dollarwill crash and gold will break $600 in a heart beat and justkeep going."[End of quote]I wonder how accurate this is... Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! Try it today!
Re: Energy War
I'm not an economist, but I have been doing considerable reading about the problem. The Chinese can do the following: 1. They can use dollars obtained from providing products to Wal-Mart et al. to buy oil and other commodities that are sold in dollars. This will drive up the prices of these commodities and drive up most prices in the US. (Think fuel prices for airlines as one example.) 2. They can sell the treasury bonds on the open market, which will drive down the price of the bonds and increase interest rates. This will increase the cost of money to individuals and business, causing massive bankruptcy, both for businesses and for individuals as they lose their homes. 3. They can sell dollars and buy Euros. This will reduce the value of the dollar. As a result oil will cost more in dollars and the price of energy will go up. All of these actions will increase inflation and require the government to borrow even more money at a higher price. Business costs will rise causing more job loss and more moving of business to other countries. Meanwhile, the hope of selling our products to the world at a lower price will be frustrated because China and Japan now make and sell at a much lower price a lot of what we might have sold. Ironically, we gave them the wealth to develop their industry so that their products are just as good as ours and cheaper. Thanks to the greed and shortsighted planning of major companies and the ignorance of the government, we are slowing selling to China the power to weaken our country without firing a shot. Meanwhile, we go into debt and transfer funds from important programs for our people, to fight terrorism that has been created to a large extent by our failure to address the real problems in the world and to some extend is being encouraged by China. China is playing Go while we are playing Chess. Regards, Ed Jones Beene wrote: Terry An interesting treatise on the future war with China: http://www.321energy.com/editorials/winston/winston020905.html There is probably a better adjective... maybe terrifying, alarming, etc. but is it really accurate? Are there any economists on Vortex? As China's Master Plan to Destroy America manifesto outlines, the multifaceted battle plan recommended by the Chinese military has taken shape...Financially: Using Currency as the Primary Weapon...[snip] While America's media is hypnotizing us with frivolous entertainment such as American Idol or The Amazing Race, they are totally ignoring the perilous economic time bomb the Chinese have placed against us. The Government of China is holding U.S. currency and Treasury notes in a $1.9 trillion Treasury bond trap. When they pull the trigger on their primary weapon, the dollar will crash and gold will break $600 in a heart beat and just keep going. [End of quote] I wonder how accurate this is... what can the Chinese do with this paper, in reality. Since Nixon took us off any international gold standard, they have no choice but to hole the paper, correct? We do not back up any T-bills with gold anymore do we? Jones
Re: Energy War
Jed Rothwell wrote: Jones Beene wrote: As China's Master Plan to Destroy America manifesto outlines, the multifaceted battle plan recommended by the Chinese military has taken shape...Financially: Using Currency as the Primary Weapon...[snip] I think that is ridiculous. No one is more conservative than stable communist dictator. The last thing the Chinese leaders want to do is rock the boat or cause instability anywhere in the world. My father, who was posted to the Soviet Union during WWII, said the Stalinists were the most stick-in-the-mud right-wing conservatives he ever met in his life. As you have probably noticed, policy is based on what a country CAN do not on what we think it WILL do. Not only is it not possible to know how a country will behave, we have found that a country usually does what it CAN do. Consequently, given a clear advantage or an perceived threat, China has the power to destroy our economy. If it WILL do that depends on our behavior and on the rational behavior of China's leaders. Neither restriction gives me much comfort. The North Korean Communists are not stable, and they may be a threat to other countries, but the Chinese leaders love the status quo. This position paper from PLA should not be taken any more seriously than these kooky right wing American plans to invade Iran, North Korea and Syria over the next six months (or whenever it is). By the way, I doubt the North Koreans have actually made nuclear weapons. Why should they bother? What use would they have for a bomb? If they used it on anyone they would be blown to smithereens by the U.S. They have all the leverage they need just by claiming to have bombs. I read interviews with retired U.S. scientists from Los Alamos who visited North Korea a few months ago. The Koreans tried to convince them that they have weapons, but the experts saw no credible. They got the impression that Koreans are trying to make everyone think they have weapons. Saddam Hussein did the same thing for a long time, for reasons only he can tell. If the Koreans actually had weapons or a weapons production facility, they could have convinced the Los Alamos experts in 15 minutes. The NK would not use the weapon, they would sell it. That way they get money and they have someone else do the dirty work and get the blame. Actually, they appear to be using the threat of selling as a way to gain influence and money. As long as a doubt remains about their having a weapon, they are safe from attack. Consequently, they playing poker while we are playing chess. I doubt there will be an energy war -- either economic or the shooting kind of war. Fixing the energy crisis with conventional alternative energy would be at least a thousand times cheaper. But if there is conflict over energy, it will prove how right Arthur C. Clarke was when he wrote in 1963: Cheaper yes, doable no. The oil companies will not give up the power and money they are making. A lot of things would be cheaper, but they are not done because too much pride and ignorance are involved. The heavy hydrogen in the seas can drive all our machines, heat all our cities, for as far ahead as we can imagine. If, as is perfectly possible, we are short of energy two generations from now, it will be through our own incompetence. We will be like Stone Age men freezing to death on top of a coal bed. That should be, Stone Age barbarians. It is great to believe that mankind would act in an ideal and rational way - it helps a person sleep nights. However, too many examples of opposite behavior are available to count on the ideal occurring- or am I just getting too old? Regards, Ed - Jed
Re: Energy War
Edmund Storms wrote: As you have probably noticed, policy is based on what a country CAN do not on what we think it WILL do. Not only is it not possible to know how a country will behave, we have found that a country usually does what it CAN do. The Soviet Union might have started a nuclear war anytime from 1949 to the day of its demise. Many people thought it would; some said it was inevitable. But there was never the slightest chance of that, according to most Russians who were close to power. If the Chinese government were to destroy the US economy, the Chinese government were also be brought down by the ensuing economic upheaval. Nations do not often destroy themselves for no reason. It does happen, I agree. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, after all. The U.S. fought in Vietnam for years and years, long after it was obvious it could not win. The NK would not use the weapon, they would sell it. That way they get money and they have someone else do the dirty work and get the blame. If a bomb explodes anywhere in South Korea or Japan, North Korea will be destroyed, regardless of who plants it or who is responsible. Where else would North Korea want to attack? Cheaper yes, doable no. The oil companies will not give up the power and money they are making. A lot of things would be cheaper, but they are not done because too much pride and ignorance are involved. The oil companies will not remain powerful forever -- and probably not for long. Political economic dominance is evanescent. In 1890, many Americans felt that railroads and steel companies had an iron grip on the soul of the nation, and so much political power they would abolish democracy. But technology changed, and people no longer fear railroads. In 1975 IBM dominated the computer industry to such an extent, some experts predicted that all other computer companies would soon go out of business. Most computer purchasers did not even bother to look at equipment from other companies. By 1989, IBM was suffering the biggest losses in the history of commerce and the Wall Street Journal described it as fading from view. It is great to believe that mankind would act in an ideal and rational way - it helps a person sleep nights. However, too many examples of opposite behavior are available to count on the ideal occurring . . . Most people throughout most history have been rational and reasonable. Not ideal, but good enough. If that were not true our species would have gone extinct long ago. We are social animals -- pack hunting carnivores, like wolves. Such animals must to cooperate and protect other members of the pack, or they do not survive. We are only in danger now because our technology has increased our power. But our power has often escalated in the past, and we have usually survived these escalations. As shown in Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, even primitive people had the power to destroy themselves. Occasionally they did destroy themselves, but more often they survived. We often talk about the madness of crowds and the fact that people sometimes collectively go bonkers, in the Wall Street dot-com boom, for example. Yet paradoxically, when you take a large sample of people, you always find they are sane. A large sample is not a mob gathered in one place. It is a bunch of people at home or at work. Mobs can be inhumanly irrational, but once the mob scatters, and people go back to their daily lives, they usually recover. When you select 200 individual people at random, and examine their behavior in their normal, settled social context, you will find that on average they are sane, reasonable, and reliable. Most people do their jobs conscientiously. That is why your bread is baked and your telephone line stays connected. That is also why the experimental method works. The other day I wrote to reporter: If several hundred researchers could all make large mistakes using 100 and 200-year-old techniques, science would never work in the first place. That is like asserting that you can select 200 carpenters at random, have each of them build a wooden house, and when they finish every single house might collapse because of mistakes the carpenters made. That would not happen in the lifetime of the universe. Of course newly-built houses do collapse from time to time. Individual carpenters do make drastic mistakes, and so do individual electrochemists. But they are never *all* mistaken. When 200+ physicists got together at the APS to listen to Robert Park the rabble rouser, they became an unruly mob. If you could isolate them in their laboratories and somehow have them to observe a cold fusion experiment, sanity would return and most of them would begin acting like professional scientists again. - Jed
Re: Energy War
Nice one, Jed If several hundred researchers could all make large mistakes using 100 and 200-year-old techniques, science would never work in the first place. That is like asserting that you can select 200 carpenters at random, have each of them build a wooden house, and when they finish every single house might collapse because of mistakes the carpenters made. That would not happen in the lifetime of the universe. Of course newly-built houses do collapse from time to time. Individual carpenters do make drastic mistakes, and so do individual electrochemists. But they are never *all* mistaken. Steve
Re: Energy War
Jed wrote: snip. . . Most people throughout most history have been rational and reasonable. Not ideal, but good enough. If that were not true our species would have gone extinct long ago. We are social animals -- pack hunting carnivores, like wolves. Such animals must to cooperate and protect other members of the pack, or they do not survive. We are only in danger now because our technology has increased our power. But our power has often escalated in the past, and we have usually survived these escalations. As shown in Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, even primitive people had the power to destroy themselves. Occasionally they did destroy themselves, but more often they survived. MC: I don't know of Jed has read Diamond's book: I recommended it the other day. It is easy to see China as a looming threat, as the USSR seemed during the cold way. Diamond characterizes it as a lurching giant, not a s drunk, but because of its size and highly centralized government, changes in drection move a lot of 'mass'. As with the USSR, internal problems eventually made it weaker than it looked, and it may be so with China as well. This cnetralized government both enabled the early growth of technology long before Europe, enabled the buildingof a great fleet of exploration in the 1400s [which mapped the world and discovered the Americas and Antartica] and also led to the collapse of that expansion and a turn inward that lasted for centuries. MC: Of course they will set up their own network of oil sources, as does the US. They are buying massive amounts of stuff from the US in building their infrastructure -- this is good for Amaerican jobs and business, isn't it? Reduces the trade deficit? Or are we becoming a colony, exporting our mineral and agricultural resources while buying manufactured goods from others? If we 'gave this away' it is the fault of every consumer who bought for the lowest price, and of workers who demanded ever higher wages and benefits. Or blame the Wright Brothers and Fulton, whose inventions in transport made a global economy possible. Mike Carrell
