War planned before 9/11

[a_unique_person]

America is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic domination of the world, writes Kenneth Davidson.


George Bush planned "regime change" in Iraq before becoming United States President in January 2001. The events of September 11, 2001, were the pretext for invasion of Iraq, not the reason.

The blueprint for the creation of a "global Pax America", to which Bush subscribes and which is driving the invasion of Iraq, was drawn up in September 2000 for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush (George's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).

The document, called Rebuilding America's Defences: strategies, forces and resources for a new century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century.

According to the document, written three months before Bush became president, "the US for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The document outlines the global ambitions of the Bush Administration. It sets out a "blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests".





According to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions".

This is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe, China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.

It would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports.

It is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a global recession.

In 2000, Saddam's regime had the temerity to demand payment in euros for the trickle of Iraqi oil the US has allowed onto the international market. Iran and Venezuela are following Iraq's example. This is the real threat to US hegemony.



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749824415.html

the US having to pay in Euros? Now that would be a disaster.

[Tony]

The war was planned before Bush took office.

Clinton1 (http://www.950kprc.com/clinton-ordered_attack.mp3)

Clinton2 (http://www.950kprc.com/clinton-from_savage.mp3)

Clinton3 (http://www.950kprc.com/clinton-he_kicked_out_inspectors.mp3)

Clinton4 (http://www.950kprc.com/clinton-he_will_use_weapons.mp3)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person




http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749824415.html

the US having to pay in Euros? Now that would be a disaster.

Speaking as an economist. That is is the biggest crock of sh*t I have ever read in my life.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Drooper


Speaking as an economist. That is is the biggest crock of **** I have ever read in my life.

Care to enlighten us?

[a_unique_person]

As a non economist, i have read this journalist make the point before that the US has enjoyed a unique place in history. up till now, the majoirity of trading debts in the world have had to be paid in US$. This made sense, as it was the worlds strongest currency.

For evey other country in the world, that meant having to buy hard currency, as they do not make US$, but only buy them. For the companies of the US, if times are tight, all the US has to do is print more US$ bills.

For example, i worked for an import company for a few years once. We would import electronic goods into australia from asia. The bills would all be paid in US$. If the AU$ dropped against the US$, this meant that our prices had gone up. For US companies, this was never a consideration, they always paid in US$, at a fixed rate.

The Euro was partly created to provide an alternative 'hard' currency for the world. If bills now have to be paid in Euros, then US companies lose this advantage.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As a non economist, i have read this journalist make the point before that the US has enjoyed a unique place in history. up till now, the majoirity of trading debts in the world have had to be paid in US$. This made sense, as it was the worlds strongest currency.

For evey other country in the world, that meant having to buy hard currency, as they do not make US$, but only buy them. For the companies of the US, if times are tight, all the US has to do is print more US$ bills.

For example, i worked for an import company for a few years once. We would import electronic goods into australia from asia. The bills would all be paid in US$. If the AU$ dropped against the US$, this meant that our prices had gone up. For US companies, this was never a consideration, they always paid in US$, at a fixed rate.

The Euro was partly created to provide an alternative 'hard' currency for the world. If bills now have to be paid in Euros, then US companies lose this advantage.

1.) The US money supply is known as M-1. The amount of dollars in circulation is a matter of public record:

http://www.bsu.edu/web/bbr/IBB/US/m1.htm

If the US tried to print its way out of debt, the dollar would quickly become useless. The concept of government credit would go down the tubes. Printing money would cause more problems than it would solve. You need not be an economist to figure that one out.

2.) US business certainly do request payment in dollars. Customers who do not wish to pay in dollars are free to either find another company to do business with or negotiate to use another currency. Where is the problem here? When a US company buys things form overseas, they may even have to pay up in the local currency. Dollars get used more often because they are more stable. It beats doing business in something less predictable. If the Euro becomes more stable, than even the US companies will use it. Again, where is the problem?

3.) US and any other country that is likely to find itself at war maintain contingency plans for how to fight those wars. To do otherwise would be an issue of military incompetence. For example, the US plan for war with Japan from the 1930's was called plan Orange:

http://www.sandiego.edu/~pbugler/page5.htm

[Drooper]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Care to enlighten us?

I wouldn't really know where to start. It is pretty much a load of jargon thrown together to make no economic sense at all.

[Drooper]

Sorry,

I've tried and tried to make some coherent explanation of why this is utter tosh, but I am not up to the task. The best I can do is to point out that a price is a price is a price.


Instead, at the risk of being accused of constructing a straw man, I will do two things. Firstly I will point out a few more easily corrected errors. Second, I will, at the risk of being accused of constructing a straw man, provide some more conventional commentary on foreign exchange.


First, some points:
For evey other country in the world, that meant having to buy hard currency, as they do not make US$, but only buy them. For the companies of the US, if times are tight, all the US has to do is print more US$ bills.

Anybody in the world can buy US Dollars. There are restrictions on some countries of various degrees, but where there are no capital control (e.g. most of the world) trading Dollars for Pesos is no different for trading bananas for pineapples.

The next bit. US companies don't get cash handed out to them. they earn profits by employing people, investing capital and trading. Printing US dollarsjust increases the money supply. Increasing the money supply reduces the value of the US Dollar (inflation). Inflation make one one US Dollar worth fewer Pesos, Euros or whatever. So: The US companies have to cough up more Dollars to change into Pesos or whatever to make the purchase (if invoiced in Pesos), or will find the the supplier is demanding more Dollars for the same item (if invoiced in Dollars).


The bills would all be paid in US$. If the AU$ dropped against the US$, this meant that our prices had gone up. For US companies, this was never a consideration, they always paid in US$, at a fixed rate.

Using this example to illustrate the point immediately above. If your Asian supplier had invoiced in Aussie Dollars, you would have found that he increased the price - the same result as you having to buy US Dollars at a less favourable exchange rate.

Now this claim:
The Euro was partly created to provide an alternative 'hard' currency for the world. If bills now have to be paid in Euros, then US companies lose this advantage.

There are certainly politicians in Europe who see the Euro in this political sense, but it doesn't mean it has any economic efficacy.If more trade is invoiced in Euros, it just means that a US buyer would pay trade Dollars for Euros to effect payment. This makes no effective diffference to the situation of the European seller taking Dollar and then trading them for Euros. Note that transaction costs, although becoming the nominal responsibility of the buyer, rather than the seller in this example, the effective responsibilty would be unchanged and shared between the trading partners (a standard economic result, on which I can expand if required).

So it doesn't matter how things are invoiced. As I said earlier: a price is a price is a price.


The rest of the stuff, in particular everything written by this Kenneth Davidison is beyond explanation - as in "explain the reason why that invisible pink elephant can hover above your head" - it just isn't possible.


I also promised a more conventional commentary on foreign exchange. Well here is an attempt within this context.

It is more traditionally argued that there is some significant or economic adantage bestowed on the US due to foreign holdings of Dollars. This is very different from what I have discussed to date, which is simply about pricing something in Dollar terms. This has to do with a foreigner accepting US dollars (say in cash form) and sticking them under their bed, or accepting a US Dollar bank draft and depositing it in a US Dollar account - in all these cases, the holder does not convert them into another (presumably their domestic) currency. There has certainly been a large holding of Dollars in this way and still is - including holding by central banks as part of their foreign reserves.

There is some benefit to the US from this. It accrues to the US government and hence to the US people. The nature of this beneift is called seignorage. Since Dollar bills are effectively US Government back IOUs, then foreign holdings of this currency represents an interest free loan to the US government nd hence the US people. However, it is relatively small beer in the scheme of things.

Beyond this, what does it matter if people hold US dollars, Yen, Euros or marbles? They will only do so on the basis that it is a sensible store of value protecting against various risk, including sovereign risk and inflation among others. If the Euro becomes fmore widespread in use as a store of waelth, then so what? There is some loss of seignorage to the US, but that ardly amounts to the smallest fraction of a cent to the dollar in relative terms.

For those with non-cash US Dollar holdings (e.g. deposits, T-bills etc.), they would need a reason to shift their holdings and the possible reasons could be, increased use of Euros for transaction purposes or a change in expected return on Euro vs Dollar denominated assets. As for the former, well that just gets down to the original pricing issues. It is neither here nor there to the US economy if transactions are made in Dollars, Euros or Pesos. As for the latter point, the relative return has to change - it is bit like saying I am going to keep cans of baked beans in my cupboard now instead of spaghetti: why would you do that for no reason??

Anyway, that is about as far as I can go. It probably just confuses things further (although from my perspective that isn't possible).

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Drooper


Speaking as an economist. That is is the biggest crock of sh*t I have ever read in my life.

Well, it IS "A Unique Person" we're talking about...

One of the downsides of the internet is that while, in the past, AUP would have had to write out his antisemitic conspiracy theories about the israel, the middle east, the USA, the world, etc. by himself, now he can go on a search engine and find some idiot who already wrote something similar.

So all he has to do is post a link and call it a "reliable source" that is posting the "real truth the media is not talking about", and then say he is only "giving the other side of the discussion", while those who dismiss his nonsense or tear it to shreads are part of the "silencing" or "defamation" campaign against him.

It's like Harlan Ellison said:

"Goddammit! The world is just filling up with more and more idiots! And the computer is giving them access to the world! They're spreading their stupidity! At least they were contained before—now they're on the loose everywhere!"

[Mike B.]

This is really a bizzare and paronoid rant here, why not just say the Illumaniti planned this war since the 19th century?

But from AUP, nothing surprises me.

Hey AUP do you still think that those of us convinced of Mummia's guilt are not being skeptical?

[Skeptic]

This is really a bizzare and paronoid rant here, why not just say the Illumaniti planned this war since the 19th century?

Because it's harder to blame the jews for it in that case.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


I wouldn't really know where to start. It is pretty much a load of jargon thrown together to make no economic sense at all.

this guy is a commentator on many things, and he has made some pretty spot on predictions. for example the debacle of free enterpise being used to create the cable network in the country, rather than the government rolling out one set of infrastructure.

His predictions came totally true. The two competitors spent a fortune rolling out two, parallel sets of cable, but mostly only where the other guy did. Therefore many people missed out, as they only did it in the most populous areas, with overhead powerlines, as it is more expensive to put it underground with the existing telephone lines.

The two companies are now merging, as one did better and one worse. the one that did worse can see no point in not being the dominant player, and like all telecoms at the moment, is doing it hard.

So, what did we wind up with? two cables to half the people, no cables to the other half. one company with an effective monopoly.
A heck of a lot of money wasted, which is utlimately paid for by the consumer in some way. exactly as this guy predicted.

he has also had other sensible points to make on economic matters, such as, why build a super, high speed train for multiple billions, when the existing train track is so run down there are large sections of it that trains cannot go faster than 60km/h. much of the traffic on the main highway, and damage done to it, is from trucking. a much cheaper upgrading of the existing line, to allow current technology to run at full speed, would cut a lot of the advantage trucks have been given, and save billions on roads as well.

as for the current topic, i would prefer it if you would address his points rather than mine, as i am after some input that i do not understand on this topic. the fact is, however, that when I worked for this import company, international transactions were done in US$. It is, i believe, the currency of preference for trade.

this point in particular



According to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions".

This is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe, China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.

It would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports.

It is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a global recession.

In 2000, Saddam's regime had the temerity to demand payment in euros for the trickle of Iraqi oil the US has allowed onto the international market. Iran and Venezuela are following Iraq's example. This is the real threat to US hegemony.

[Skeptic]

this guy is a commentator on many things, and he has made some pretty spot on predictions

Just like "psychics", who makes tons of vague comments and then claim "hits" whenever one of them comes true by accident.

[shanek]

Well, if you want real evidence that Bush was planning a war with Iraq from day one, check out The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375509038/qid=1048207443/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-9329534-6666421) by former speechwriter David Frum. And this isn't any kind of whistleblower or anything; it's a positive look at Bush that the Bush fans love. And he says Bush was looking for a reason to attack Iraq from the start.

[edited to add this reference:]

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.14899/news_detail.asp

A few weeks after Inauguration Day, Card summoned the newly sworn-in special assistants to the president for the first in a series of lectures...I certainly was not cool, but I managed to scratch some notes to keep my memory fresh. As I reread them now, I am startled at how much of what would happen over the next year is prefigured there: Bush's optimism about Russia and Vladimir Putin, his wariness of China, his focus on the danger presented by Iran, his determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq, his conviction that the country hungered for a revival of the ideals of duty and service....

(emphasis mine)

It's actually scary reading. Bush has been calling upon his scriptwriters to come up with sound bites and glib phrases and setting his policy based on that, instead of the other way around like any reasonable person would do.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


this guy is a commentator on many things, and he has made some pretty spot on predictions. for example the debacle of free enterpise being used to create the cable network in the country, rather than the government rolling out one set of infrastructure.

His predictions came totally true. The two competitors spent a fortune rolling out two, parallel sets of cable, but mostly only where the other guy did. Therefore many people missed out, as they only did it in the most populous areas, with overhead powerlines, as it is more expensive to put it underground with the existing telephone lines.

The two companies are now merging, as one did better and one worse. the one that did worse can see no point in not being the dominant player, and like all telecoms at the moment, is doing it hard.

So, what did we wind up with? two cables to half the people, no cables to the other half. one company with an effective monopoly.
A heck of a lot of money wasted, which is utlimately paid for by the consumer in some way. exactly as this guy predicted.

So, let's see. Instead of the taxpayer paying for this cable infrastructure, as you call it, private companies did.

So far, a plus for capitalism. A downer for socialism.

We had two competitors. This keeps prices down. Another plus for capitalism and the consumer.

You think the government could have done it cheaper? Who exactly would have built the infrastructure? Why, a private company! Probably just ONE company. With cost overruns. With the government as an added middleman, and the associated costs of that. *slaps head*

But, wait! There's more! Satellite TV! In Direct TV competition, pun intended.

So where did this guy's predictions come true? Thank goodness he's not in charge.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
According to the think tank document, the US would have to increase its defence spending to 3.8 per cent of GDP (which it has just achieved) to finance an American military capability "to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" and to "perform constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions".

This is a massive task that can only be achieved if the US can continue to draw on the resources of the whole world, which in turn is only possible if the US can continue to run massive trading deficits with Western Europe, China and Japan. In other words, these regions must remain willing to exchange the product of their industries for American dollars.

It would be fatal to America's global strategic ambitions if countries in Europe began to ask for euros instead of US dollars for their exports, or if China demanded settlement of their accounts with the US in yuan instead of US dollars. The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid for in dollar-denominated IOUs into exports to earn yuan and euros to pay for US imports.

It is difficult to see how the US could develop new, internationally competitive industries and run a military machine on the scale envisaged by the think tank without a massive increase in taxation and redistribution of wealth to the productive elements in the economy without precipitating a global recession.

In 2000, Saddam's regime had the temerity to demand payment in euros for the trickle of Iraqi oil the US has allowed onto the international market. Iran and Venezuela are following Iraq's example. This is the real threat to US hegemony.



The point is utter nonsense.

But from the top.

first two paras: Spending 4% of GDP on defence is easily manageable. It represents a significant but small proportion of the total US budget. The US spent significantly more in times gone by. So the rest of the second para (about drawing on foreign resources blah blah, willing to exchange blah blah blah is all completely irellevant and spares me the problem of having to explain why it doesn't even make any sense.

The rest is about "demanding Euros for exports" blah blah blah, but I spent too much of my energies trying to explain in my last post why the companies doing the trading (noone centrally decress what will be demanded) are free to request payment denominated in any currency they want. But it has trivial implications.

The second last para is complete fantasy realm. "difficult to see how the US could develop new internationally competitive industries" blah blah blah. Economics is the study of the allocation of resources. In particular how resources tend to find their most efficient use by virtue of trade and price. This bloke writes as if there is some conscious policy , direction or cotrol required to achieve this. There is none. Capital will flow to where there is a return. Labour will be demanded by companies looking to put such capital to work. New technology and industries will just pop up where there is a profit opportunity. It makes no difference where goods are priced is Dollars, Euros, Peso, or marbles.


His whole discourse is a discription of some centrally planned, organised and directed process - as in: "The US would have to redirect domestic demand for imported goods paid ...". That is just wrong. EVEN IF the underlying premise (that all of a sudden companies would start requesting payment in Euros, or that it would make any difference) were correct (and it ain't) the US would not HAVE TO do anything. Prices would change, capital would flow and the economy would move over time from one efficient state to another.


So coming to the last paragraph. There is nothing here for the US to protect, so this isn't a reason for the war.


In summary, this entire article is flawed in logic starting with:

basic premises flawed, fantastic or just plain wrong in fact.
the inference (based on flawed premise) does not stand up to the most cursory check against conventional economic knowledge.
the conclusion, resting as it does on flawed premise and erroneous inference, is thus complete nonsense in the extreme.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, if you want real evidence that Bush was planning a war with Iraq from day one, check out The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375509038/qid=1048207443/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-9329534-6666421) by former speechwriter David Frum. And this isn't any kind of whistleblower or anything; it's a positive look at Bush that the Bush fans love. And he says Bush was looking for a reason to attack Iraq from the start.

[edited to add this reference:]

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.14899/news_detail.asp



(emphasis mine)

It's actually scary reading. Bush has been calling upon his scriptwriters to come up with sound bites and glib phrases and setting his policy based on that, instead of the other way around like any reasonable person would do.

I have no problem accepting this is possible. I have read (in today's paper in fact) claims that GW wanted to go for Saddam immediately after 911.

However, the BIG problem with this thread is the claim that the war is because in 2000 Iraq invoiced Exxon or whoever in Euros rather than Dollars. Suposedly that was a massive threat to the US and necessitated invasion. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT


So, let's see. Instead of the taxpayer paying for this cable infrastructure, as you call it, private companies did.



the money comes from somewhere, it doesn't appear by magic. The consumer does pay for it, somewhere along the line.



So far, a plus for capitalism. A downer for socialism.

We had two competitors. This keeps prices down. Another plus for capitalim and the consumer.



prices have been too low, companies are going broke, jobs being lost, people losing houses and pensions.



You think the government could have done it cheaper? Who exactly would have built the infrastructure? Why, a private company! Probably just ONE company. With cost overruns. With the government as an added middleman, and the associated costs of that. *slaps head*



the government company, telstra, used to do all the work itself. it still does, but is now 49% publicly owned.

( one of my brothers works for it. much that had been outsourced, including himself, is now back in house.)

either way, multiple millions were spent on two cables, to the same addresses, while missing out on exactly the same addresses.






But, wait! There's more! Satellite TV! In Direct TV competition, pun intended.

So where did this guy's predictions come true? Thank goodness he's not in charge.

satellite tv, as everyone knows, is for those who can't get cable.

he predicted

1. the 'competition' would end up with a monopoly.
2. multiple millions would be wasted
3. the consumer would miss out, as has happened, I have two lovely cables right past the end of my street.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


the money comes from somewhere, it doesn't appear by magic. The consumer does pay for it, somewhere along the line.



prices have been too low, companies are going broke, jobs being lost, people losing houses and pensions.



the government company, telstra, used to do all the work itself. it still does, but is now 49% publicly owned.

( one of my brothers works for it. much that had been outsourced, including himself, is now back in house.)

either way, multiple millions were spent on two cables, to the same addresses, while missing out on exactly the same addresses.



satellite tv, as everyone knows, is for those who can't get cable.

he predicted

1. the 'competition' would end up with a monopoly.
2. multiple millions would be wasted
3. the consumer would miss out, as has happened, I have two lovely cables right past the end of my street.


You seem in awe of this. there is nothing special here.

From provision of utilties to computer operating systems, ISPs this is well understood. Zero short-run marginal cost gives rise to unstable competitive solutions and usually natural monopoly. If you had asked me a few years ago, I could told you the most likely course of events.

There is an accepted role for regulation or public provision in many cases. In this case the government opted for the regulatory route, saving the public purse. In the UK, they bestowed regionalised monopolies from the outset - but the result was:

- much slower role out.
- a poor technical service (realy crappy decoders etc.)
- poorer customer service.
- higher prices

not necessarily a superior outcome.

You also seem to be living under an illusion that every home HAS to have cable access by right. Why? For instance it makes no sense to cable up sparesly populated areas, something that would only likely to occur under specific regulation or public provision. Note that these same places don't have mains water or sewerage (I come from a country town in NSW)

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
the money comes from somewhere, it doesn't appear by magic. The consumer does pay for it, somewhere along the line.

Of course. The question is, do the consumers who want and use the service pay for it or do you force everyone to pay for it? The latter is taxation.

prices have been too low,

:rolleyes:

satellite tv, as everyone knows, is for those who can't get cable.

This, like so much of what you say, just isn't true. Satellite TV has more programming than cable at a better quality and a lower price. Of the nation's ~100 million tv households, something like 4 million live in areas without cable. And yet, DirecTV and Dish Network between them have almost 20 million subscribers. There were more new subscribers to Dish Network last year than there were to all of the other cable companies combined.

And that's with a bunch of regulations passed at the behest of cable lobbyists holding them down.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Drooper
You also seem to be living under an illusion that every home HAS to have cable access by right. Why? For instance it makes no sense to cable up sparesly populated areas, something that would only likely to occur under specific regulation or public provision. Note that these same places don't have mains water or sewerage (I come from a country town in NSW)

And note that the satellite companies easily provide programming to these areas. The free market finds a way.