Monbiot and Iraq

Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:17:09 -0600

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C2D7B4.9FD644E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

That's a strange analysis by George Monbiot.

At this moment the US is running a severe capital shortfall.

The growth in wealth here in the last two decades has not come about =
because
of commodity capacity. That capacity is shifting to the second and third
world. Our growth is due to borrowing (balance of debt imbalance) and to =
the
efficiencies brought about by computerization and the service economy =
which
utilizes that technology. Where the US has flourished has been creating
efficiencies in production and distribution. Comparing our current =
situation
to pre WW 2 is errant thinking.

The impetus for the invasion it's much more simple as you often suggest.
Iraq has the worlds second supply of oil reserves and they are readily
available. A quick intro of an American puppet in Iraq plus the =
introduction
of market capitalism and Viola!  after the USA is paid back for the cost =
of
liberating the country - the good old boys at Chevron, Texaco, Standard =
Oil
etc will be siting on a gravy train for the next 40 years.

Nightbyrd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Baker" <rcbaker@EDEN.INFOHWY.COM>
To: <GHETTO2@LISTSERV.WHATHELPS.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: Makes sense to me

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,897766,00.html
>
>
> Too much of a good thing
>
> Underlying the US drive to war is a thirst to open up new =
opportunities
> for surplus capital
>
> George Monbiot
> Tuesday February 18, 2003
> The Guardian
>
> We are a biological weapon. On Saturday the anti-war movement released
> some 70,000 tonnes of organic material on to the streets of London, =
and
> similar quantities in locations all over the world. This weapon of =
mass
> disruption was intended as a major threat to the security of western
> governments.
> Our marches were unprecedented, but they have, so far, been
> unsuccessful. The immune systems of the US and British governments =
have
> proved to be rather more robust than we had hoped. Their intransigence
> leaves the world with a series of unanswered questions.
>
> Why, when the most urgent threat arising from illegal weapons of mass
> destruction is the nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, =
is
> the US government ignoring it and concentrating on Iraq? Why, if it
> believes human rights are so important, is it funding the oppression =
of
> the Algerians, the Uzbeks, the Palestinians, the Turkish Kurds and the
> Colombians? Why has the bombing of Iraq, rather than feeding the =
hungry,
> providing clean water or preventing disease, become the world's most
> urgent humanitarian concern? Why has it become so much more pressing
> than any other that it should command a budget four times the size of
> America's entire annual spending on overseas aid?
>
> In a series of packed lectures in Oxford, Professor David Harvey, one =
of
> the world's most distinguished geographers, has provided what may be =
the
> first comprehensive explanation of the US government's determination =
to
> go to war. His analysis suggests that it has little to do with Iraq,
> less to do with weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with
> helping the oppressed.
>
> The underlying problem the US confronts is the one which periodically
> afflicts all successful economies: the over-accumulation of capital.
> Excessive production of any good - be it cars or shoes or bananas -
> means that unless new markets can be found, the price of that product
> falls and profits collapse. Just as it was in the early 1930s, the US =
is
> suffering from surpluses of commodities, manufactured products,
> manufacturing capacity and money. Just as it was then, it is also =
faced
> with a surplus of labour, yet the two surpluses, as before, cannot be
> profitably matched. This problem has been developing in the US since
> 1973. It has now tried every available means of solving it and, by =
doing
> so, maintaining its global dominance. The only remaining, politically
> viable option is war.
>
> In the 1930s, the US government addressed the problems of excess =
capital
> and labour through the New Deal. Its vast investments in =
infrastructure,
> education and social spending mopped up surplus money, created new
> markets for manufacturing and brought hundreds of thousands back into
> work. In 1941, it used military spending to the same effect.
>
> After the war, its massive spending in Europe and Japan permitted
> America to offload surplus cash, while building new markets. During =
the
> same period, it spent lavishly on infrastructure at home and on the
> development of the economies of the southern and south-eastern states.
> This strategy worked well until the early 1970s. Then three inexorable
> processes began to mature. As the German and Japanese economies
> developed, the US was no longer able to dominate production. As they
> grew, these new economies also stopped absorbing surplus capital and
> started to export it. At the same time, the investments of previous
> decades began to pay off, producing new surpluses. The crisis of 1973
> began with a worldwide collapse of property markets, which were, in
> effect, regurgitating the excess money they could no longer digest.
>
> The US urgently required a new approach, and it deployed two blunt
> solutions. The first was to switch from the domination of global
> production to the domination of global finance. The US Treasury, =
working
> with the International Monetary Fund, began to engineer new
> opportunities in developing countries for America's commercial banks.
>
> The IMF started to insist that countries receiving its help should
> liberalise their capital markets. This permitted the speculators on =
Wall
> Street to enter and, in many cases, raid their economies. The =
financial
> crises the speculators caused forced the devaluation of those =
countries'
> assets. This had two beneficial impacts for the US economy. Through =
the
> collapse of banks and manufacturers in Latin America and East Asia,
> surplus capital was destroyed. The bankrupted companies in those
> countries could then be bought by US corporations at rock-bottom =
prices,
> creating new space into which American capital could expand.
>
> The second solution was what Harvey calls "accumulation through
> dispossession", which is really a polite term for daylight robbery. =
Land
> was snatched from peasant farmers, public assets were taken from
> citizens through privatisation, intellectual property was seized from
> everyone through the patenting of information, human genes, and animal
> and plant varieties. These are the processes which, alongside the
> depredations of the IMF and the commercial banks, brought the global
> justice movement into being. In all cases, new territories were =
created
> into which capital could expand and in which its surpluses could be
> absorbed.
>
> Both these solutions are now failing. As the east Asian countries =
whose
> economies were destroyed by the IMF five years ago have recovered, =
they
> have begun, once more, to generate vast capital surpluses of their =
own.
> America's switch from production to finance as a means of global
> domination, and the government's resulting economic mismanagement, has
> made it more susceptible to disruption and economic collapse.
> Corporations are now encountering massive public resistance as they =
seek
> to expand their opportunities through dispossession. The only peaceful
> solution is a new New Deal, but that option is blocked by the =
political
> class in the US: the only new spending it will permit is military
> spending. So all that remains is war and imperial control.
>
> Attacking Iraq offers the US three additional means of offloading
> capital while maintaining its global dominance. The first is the
> creation of new geographical space for economic expansion. The second
> (though this is not a point Harvey makes) is military spending (a
> process some people call "military Keynesianism"). The third is the
> ability to control the economies of other nations by controlling the
> supply of oil. This, as global oil reserves diminish, will become an
> ever more powerful lever. Happily, just as legitimation is required,
> scores of former democrats in both the US and Britain have suddenly
> decided that empire isn't such a dirty word after all, and that the
> barbarian hordes of other nations really could do with some =
civilisation
> at the hands of a benign superpower.
>
> Strategic thinkers in the US have been planning this next stage of
> expansion for years. Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy secretary for defence,
> was writing about the need to invade Iraq in the mid-1990s. The
> impending war will not be fought over terrorism, anthrax, VX gas, =
Saddam
> Hussein, democracy or the treatment of the Iraqi people. It is, like
> almost all such enterprises, about the control of territory, resources
> and other nations' economies. Those who are planning it have =
recognised
> that their future dominance can be sustained by means of a simple
> economic formula: blood is a renewable resource; oil is not.
>
> www.monbiot.com

------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C2D7B4.9FD644E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>That's a=20
strange analysis by George Monbiot. At this moment the US is =
running a=20
severe capital shortfall. The growth in wealth here in the last =
two=20
decades has not come about because of commodity capacity. That =
capacity is=20
shifting to the second and third world. Our growth is due to =
borrowing=20
(balance of debt imbalance) and to the efficiencies brought about by=20
computerization and the service economy which utilizes that =
technology. Where=20
the US has flourished has been creating efficiencies in production =
and=20
distribution. Comparing our current situation to pre WW 2 is errant=20
thinking. The impetus for the invasion it's much more simple as =
you often=20
suggest. Iraq has the worlds second supply of oil reserves and they =
are=20
readily available. A quick intro of an American puppet in Iraq plus =
the=20
introduction of market capitalism and Viola!&nbsp; after the USA is =
paid back=20
for the cost of liberating the country - the good old boys at =
Chevron,=20
Texaco, Standard Oil etc will be siting on a gravy train for the next =
40=20
years. Nightbyrd ----- Original Message ----- From: =
"Roger=20
Baker" &lt;<A href=3D"mailto:rcbaker@EDEN.INFOHWY.COM"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>rcbaker@EDEN.INFOHWY.COM</A><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>&gt; To: &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:GHETTO2@LISTSERV.WHATHELPS.COM">GHETTO2@LISTSERV.WHATHELPS.COM</A>&gt; Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:11 AM Subject: =
Makes sense=20
to me &gt; <A=20
href=3D"http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,897766,00.html"><F=
ONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,897766,00.html</F=
ONT></A> <FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>&gt; &gt; &gt; Too much of a =
good=20
thing &gt; &gt; Underlying the US drive to war is a thirst to open =
up new=20
opportunities &gt; for surplus capital &gt; &gt; George =
Monbiot &gt;=20
Tuesday February 18, 2003 &gt; The Guardian &gt; &gt; We are a=20
biological weapon. On Saturday the anti-war movement released &gt; =
some=20
70,000 tonnes of organic material on to the streets of London, =
and &gt;=20
similar quantities in locations all over the world. This weapon of =
mass &gt;=20
disruption was intended as a major threat to the security of =
western &gt;=20
governments. &gt; Our marches were unprecedented, but they have, so =
far,=20
been &gt; unsuccessful. The immune systems of the US and British =
governments=20
have &gt; proved to be rather more robust than we had hoped. Their=20
intransigence &gt; leaves the world with a series of unanswered=20
questions. &gt; &gt; Why, when the most urgent threat arising from =
illegal=20
weapons of mass &gt; destruction is the nuclear confrontation between =
India=20
and Pakistan, is &gt; the US government ignoring it and concentrating =
on=20
Iraq? Why, if it &gt; believes human rights are so important, is it =
funding=20
the oppression of &gt; the Algerians, the Uzbeks, the Palestinians, =
the=20
Turkish Kurds and the &gt; Colombians? Why has the bombing of Iraq, =
rather=20
than feeding the hungry, &gt; providing clean water or preventing =
disease,=20
become the world's most &gt; urgent humanitarian concern? Why has it =
become=20
so much more pressing &gt; than any other that it should command a =
budget=20
four times the size of &gt; America's entire annual spending on =
overseas=20
aid? &gt; &gt; In a series of packed lectures in Oxford, Professor =
David=20
Harvey, one of &gt; the world's most distinguished geographers, has =
provided=20
what may be the &gt; first comprehensive explanation of the US =
government's=20
determination to &gt; go to war. His analysis suggests that it has =
little to=20
do with Iraq, &gt; less to do with weapons of mass destruction and =
nothing to=20
do with &gt; helping the oppressed. &gt; &gt; The underlying =
problem=20
the US confronts is the one which periodically &gt; afflicts all =
successful=20
economies: the over-accumulation of capital. &gt; Excessive =
production of any=20
good - be it cars or shoes or bananas - &gt; means that unless new =
markets=20
can be found, the price of that product &gt; falls and profits =
collapse. Just=20
as it was in the early 1930s, the US is &gt; suffering from surpluses =
of=20
commodities, manufactured products, &gt; manufacturing capacity and =
money.=20
Just as it was then, it is also faced &gt; with a surplus of labour, =
yet the=20
two surpluses, as before, cannot be &gt; profitably matched. This =
problem has=20
been developing in the US since &gt; 1973. It has now tried every =
available=20
means of solving it and, by doing &gt; so, maintaining its global =
dominance.=20
The only remaining, politically &gt; viable option is =
war. &gt; &gt; In=20
the 1930s, the US government addressed the problems of excess =
capital &gt;=20
and labour through the New Deal. Its vast investments in =
infrastructure, &gt;=20
education and social spending mopped up surplus money, created =
new &gt;=20
markets for manufacturing and brought hundreds of thousands back =
into &gt;=20
work. In 1941, it used military spending to the same =
effect. &gt; &gt;=20
After the war, its massive spending in Europe and Japan =
permitted &gt;=20
America to offload surplus cash, while building new markets. During =
the &gt;=20
same period, it spent lavishly on infrastructure at home and on =
the &gt;=20
development of the economies of the southern and south-eastern =
states. &gt;=20
This strategy worked well until the early 1970s. Then three =
inexorable &gt;=20
processes began to mature. As the German and Japanese economies &gt;=20
developed, the US was no longer able to dominate production. As =
they &gt;=20
grew, these new economies also stopped absorbing surplus capital =
and &gt;=20
started to export it. At the same time, the investments of =
previous &gt;=20
decades began to pay off, producing new surpluses. The crisis of =
1973 &gt;=20
began with a worldwide collapse of property markets, which were, =
in &gt;=20
effect, regurgitating the excess money they could no longer=20
digest. &gt; &gt; The US urgently required a new approach, and it =
deployed=20
two blunt &gt; solutions. The first was to switch from the domination =
of=20
global &gt; production to the domination of global finance. The US =
Treasury,=20
working &gt; with the International Monetary Fund, began to engineer=20
new &gt; opportunities in developing countries for America's =
commercial=20
banks. &gt; &gt; The IMF started to insist that countries =
receiving its=20
help should &gt; liberalise their capital markets. This permitted the =

speculators on Wall &gt; Street to enter and, in many cases, raid =
their=20
economies. The financial &gt; crises the speculators caused forced =
the=20
devaluation of those countries' &gt; assets. This had two beneficial =
impacts=20
for the US economy. Through the &gt; collapse of banks and =
manufacturers in=20
Latin America and East Asia, &gt; surplus capital was destroyed. The=20
bankrupted companies in those &gt; countries could then be bought by =
US=20
corporations at rock-bottom prices, &gt; creating new space into =
which=20
American capital could expand. &gt; &gt; The second solution was =
what=20
Harvey calls "accumulation through &gt; dispossession", which is =
really a=20
polite term for daylight robbery. Land &gt; was snatched from peasant =

farmers, public assets were taken from &gt; citizens through =
privatisation,=20
intellectual property was seized from &gt; everyone through the =
patenting of=20
information, human genes, and animal &gt; and plant varieties. These =
are the=20
processes which, alongside the &gt; depredations of the IMF and the=20
commercial banks, brought the global &gt; justice movement into =
being. In all=20
cases, new territories were created &gt; into which capital could =
expand and=20
in which its surpluses could be &gt; absorbed. &gt; &gt; Both =
these=20
solutions are now failing. As the east Asian countries whose &gt; =
economies=20
were destroyed by the IMF five years ago have recovered, they &gt; =
have=20
begun, once more, to generate vast capital surpluses of their =
own. &gt;=20
America's switch from production to finance as a means of global &gt; =

domination, and the government's resulting economic mismanagement, =
has &gt;=20
made it more susceptible to disruption and economic collapse. &gt;=20
Corporations are now encountering massive public resistance as they =
seek &gt;=20
to expand their opportunities through dispossession. The only =
peaceful &gt;=20
solution is a new New Deal, but that option is blocked by the =
political &gt;=20
class in the US: the only new spending it will permit is =
military &gt;=20
spending. So all that remains is war and imperial =
control. &gt; &gt;=20
Attacking Iraq offers the US three additional means of =
offloading &gt;=20
capital while maintaining its global dominance. The first is the &gt; =

creation of new geographical space for economic expansion. The =
second &gt;=20
(though this is not a point Harvey makes) is military spending =
(a &gt;=20
process some people call "military Keynesianism"). The third is =
the &gt;=20
ability to control the economies of other nations by controlling =
the &gt;=20
supply of oil. This, as global oil reserves diminish, will become =
an &gt;=20
ever more powerful lever. Happily, just as legitimation is =
required, &gt;=20
scores of former democrats in both the US and Britain have =
suddenly &gt;=20
decided that empire isn't such a dirty word after all, and that =
the &gt;=20
barbarian hordes of other nations really could do with some =
civilisation &gt;=20
at the hands of a benign superpower. &gt; &gt; Strategic thinkers =
in the=20
US have been planning this next stage of &gt; expansion for years. =
Paul=20
Wolfowitz, now deputy secretary for defence, &gt; was writing about =
the need=20
to invade Iraq in the mid-1990s. The &gt; impending war will not be =
fought=20
over terrorism, anthrax, VX gas, Saddam &gt; Hussein, democracy or =
the=20
treatment of the Iraqi people. It is, like &gt; almost all such =
enterprises,=20
about the control of territory, resources &gt; and other nations' =
economies.=20
Those who are planning it have recognised &gt; that their future =
dominance=20
can be sustained by means of a simple &gt; economic formula: blood is =
a=20
renewable resource; oil is not. &gt; &gt; <A=20
href=3D"http://www.monbiot.com">www.monbiot.com</A> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C2D7B4.9FD644E0--