Posted by: Jose | July 16, 2007

The American(?) Film industry

Des films americains? J’en suis ras le bol!. ¡Hasta las narices! Fed up!

I was watching this afternoon an American(?) film where everything was about American Justice, American judicial proceedings and American police investigations, everything under the American point of view. And I was wondering what was different in that film to our Spanish Justice and laws. And suddenly I grasped everything!

All my life since I was a young boy I have been very fond of British films, mind you not of Spanish films which I have always considered too folkloric, but the American film industry suddenly after World War II intruded in our lives in Europe. And with it came its influence.

The other day I was watching the TV here in Spain and a gypsy that tried to kill a man - I don’t remember if he eventually killed him -  who inadvertently ran his lorry into the gypsy’s little daughter causing her minor injuries, was imprisoned.

The almost eerie part of the story was that the presumed would-be killer alleged in his defence that he invoked the “fifth ammendment”. What “fifth ammendment” in Spain? As everybody who reads this post should have presumed by now he was referring to the American Constitution’s Fith Ammendment”.

This guy must be a fanatic of American films, as many Spanish, British, French, Germans, and other Europeans in general the influence of American films extrapolate to their ordinary existence in Europe, making them forget what the “real” European laws are and how Europeans live.

Conversely British films have never made me think of anything different to what happens in Spain, I am referring to thrillers, as you may have assumed by now.

My question is : should our European countries take into account this subliminal influence in European lives? Or haven’t they considered how much of evil this influence is doing to our existence, how much do these American films influence what our young study in their schools?

Why the American way of living should be consubstantial with our way of living? And not all the way round?

 All in all America is a product of Europe majoritarily.

Posted in Human beings

« Abortion: that dreadful enemy of the so-called Right
Has life any sense? »

Responses

This cultural imperialism has existed ever since the creation of Hollywood.

If I remember rightly, when I was a frequent filmgoer as a youngster just before and during WW2, every programme, even when the main feature was British, included what was known as a ‘B’ movie - some nondescript American film, usually either a sugary sentimental ‘boy meets girl’ romance, or else glorifying gangsters and shootouts, which had to be shown because of some film industry quota agreement.

The Yankee leopard never changes its spots. Money talks. The sooner the rug is pulled from under the once - but no longer - mighty dollar, the better.

By: anticant on July 17, 2007
at 2:17 pm

PS Pleased to see you are posting again, Jose!

By: anticant on July 17, 2007
at 2:19 pm

Thank you, Anticant. Always so kind.

But the most dangerous of all those American films coming to us in Europe, are those which in a subliminal manner try to conduct people’s opinions and tastes. Propaganda is not only that we see in advts or posters, subliminal propaganda clad in cinematographic celluloid is the one we Europeans with a different culture, because our culture has always been different and more democratic than anywhere else, should very much be careful about.

By: Jose on July 18, 2007
at 9:20 am

All communication is propaganda, intended to influence the recipient. The problem with the USA, and not just American films, is that the visions of themselves they pump out to the rest of the world rest upon unexamined and often fallacious assumptions.

You rightly say that European culture is “more democratic” than theirs. Tell that to any American, and he would probably throw a punch at you. All Americans, of whatever political stripe, believe that theirs is God’s Own Country and that their Constitution and government are the most democratic and free-est there has ever been in the world.

The puzzle for the rest of us - including those who sincerely admire many aspects of the USA - is how to penetrate this invincible ignorance?

By: anticant on July 18, 2007
at 11:48 am

PS I still think Geoffrey Gorer’s “The Americans” [1948] remains the shrewdest analysis of some of their national characteristics that I’ve ever read. Sixty years on, it hits a lot of present-day nails on the head. It’s available, quite cheaply, through Amazon.

By: anticant on July 18, 2007
at 12:30 pm

“Why the American way of living should be consubstantial with our way of living?”

Good question Jose. Having three children, I can see how they influence our lives. Even the little things. My daughter has been celebrating leaving primary school and her class held a “Prom night”. They’ve only aged eleven! They even voted for a prom queen and king although thank goodness, they called them Best Boy and Best Girl and they didn’t do the whole ridiculous crowning thing. But they event itself they called their “prom night”. We never had such things before, least of all at primary school! At high school, we just went out for a meal together in the final week but we didn’t call it a Prom night. It was just our “leavers do”. Now it’s a Prom night. With hired stretch limo’s to take them! That’s definitely the American TV influence.

Way too tacky for me. I had to go along with it all because my daughter was enjoying it so much but it’s not my thing at all.

All the major movies are American. And the Americans are always seen to be the heroes - “saving the world”. They have even been known to change the details of historical events so that they come out looking like the heroes.

Anticant, I will look out for that Geoffrey Gorer film. Funnily enough, someone else has recently recommended that to me so I must see it.

And how right you are when you say that the Americans believe that America is “God’s own country”. They have this oblivious ‘God Bless America’ mentality that is built deep in their psyche.

By: earthpal on July 19, 2007
at 7:02 am

I’ve noted that book by G. Gorer to get it, Anticant.

Is that American feeling of taking themselves as examples to the world got something to do with their origins? I mean their European origins, why their founders had to leave the old continent to settle in an unknown land because of their religious beliefs or perhaps for fleeing the then stern, absurd justice in Europe, a justice that had much to do with religion and money?

There is, in my view, something of a complex in that behaviour, a complex of inferiority.

By: Jose on July 19, 2007
at 7:30 am

Sometimes, Earthpal, I sigh with resignation when I see those films depicting a catastrophe which normally takes place in the US and which normally is tackled by the Americans with incredible means and heroism.

Have Americans ended up by believing that only America exists?

By: Jose on July 19, 2007
at 7:33 am

Earthpal, Gorer’s “The Americans” is a book - not a film.

I agree with you, Jose, that American notions of their “exceptionalism” as the Shining City Upon a Hill stem from their emigratory experiences in discarding Europe. Those who left fell mainly into two classes: the ones fleeing from religious or political persecution, or economic hardship, and the adventurous pioneers who aspired to a new, self-determined life. Hence the emphasis on “freedom” [their version].

The consequence of this self-absorption is that their descendants - except those wealthy enough to travel abroad - are woefully ignorant of the rest of the world, and veer between isolationism and spreading “democracy” through military and economic imperialism, in order to feel “safe” at home.

Americans, of course, are the last to admit that they have an Empire. They still regard the British as devious, old-fashioned imperialists, and fell over themselves during and after WW2 to dismantle the British Empire - not least at Suez [which Eisenhower later admitted was his biggest mistake].

As I am always saying, the fact that Americans speak a bastardised version of English does NOT make them any less foreign than other nations. The “special relationship” so valued by Churchill and other British prime ministers - rightly, during WW2 - is now well past its use-by date, and we should be concentrating on developing our ties with Europe, where our ultimate destiny lies.

By: anticant on July 19, 2007
at 10:57 am

You mean the book hasn’t been made into a Hollywood Blockbuster yet??

Yes, yes, I know. I had Jose’s post title in my mind.

*

Hi Jose. Yes, Mr. America is born brainwashed with propaganda and it goes on throughout his life via many outlets.

They are still brainwashed in schools to hate and fear communists but really, what is there to fear?

And patriotism is drummed into them from the cradle to the grave. My friend lives in the States with his wife and two boys and he tells me that quite often, the children in their boys class break out in song during lessons - songs with patriotic sentiments about how much they love America and such-like. The result - a country full of xenophobic isolationists.

By: earthpal on July 19, 2007
at 5:16 pm

Good to see you posting again, Jose…only just found out !

Fascinating topic.

For me, the ‘Cowboy & Indian’ films which were churned out in the 50’s & 60’s are the worst examples of propaganda films…I used to love ‘The Lone Ranger’ when I wee boy..but now such nonsense leaves me very cold.

By: Richard on July 19, 2007
at 8:29 pm

You have said it wonderfully, Anticant, and yes the mistake acknowledged by Eisenhower for the Suez canal crisis could be only likened to the mistakes made by British and French when they bowed to the American pressure to withdraw. In defence of the latter I must say that perhaps their decision was conditioned by the huge amount of the war debt.

I agree with you, Earthpal, that in patriotism and religion Americans surpass the limits of fanaticism. Generally speaking of course. In a world today when we all seek peace, this position of isolationism can bring no good both to Americans and the rest of the world inhabitants.

Yes, Richard. I regret the contribution of Spain to those westerns by “lending” Almeria’s plains for many of the films. Something which is very difficult to do now “thanks” to the tourist buoyancy some years afterwards.

By: Jose on July 20, 2007
at 6:43 am

My ancestral family were part of the 19th century transatlantic emigrations, as two or three of my great-great grandfather’s brothers and sisters and their families went from famine-stricken Ireland in the 1840s and 1850s to the USA and Canada.

I still have some fascinating letters from them, describing their experiences. Some bought land in Kentucky and Tennessee from a clergyman friend who had acquired large tracts from the government for resale. They literally cleared the ground by felling trees and using the timber to build their houses!

One American cousin was still corresponding with my great-grandfather in the 1890s. I have sometimes wondered whether to employ the internet to trace his descendants, but hesitate in case they should turn out to be millionaires, or lunatics - or both….

By: anticant on July 20, 2007
at 8:13 am

Well, Anticant, I’d advise you to make that search via the Internet in which I can help you if you wish.

It would be interesting to see how your family progressed in the New World - now becoming older by the way - and if they are inerested in knowing what happened to their ancient European family and their descendants.

That’s history.

By: Jose on July 20, 2007
at 9:05 am

All the one in Kentucky who wrote to my great-grandfather seemed to be interested in was horses - he was continually singing the praises of the Kentucky Derby, and saying how he longed to see the English Derby. I don’t think he ever did, though some of them visited England and I have unidentified photogeraphs.

I have done a lot of family history rer=search online, and will follow this up - if I get around to it: as you know, energy is a bigger problem for me than time, these days.

By: anticant on July 20, 2007
at 1:43 pm

Good for Jose on so many counts.
Give’em Hell, big man.

By: MerkinOnParis on July 20, 2007
at 10:14 pm

Thanks, Merkin.

By: Jose on July 21, 2007
at 5:42 am

It’s not just Hollywood of course but also American TV programs in general. They all seem to glorify violence, death and destruction. American kids must grow up thinking that they are somehow invincible and that everyone else is evil and that they are the only representatives of God and goodness in the world. The reality is of course quite the opposite.
I tend to immediately change channel as soon as I hear the accent.

By: Michael on July 21, 2007
at 9:10 am

Yes, I couldn’t be more in agreement, Michael, but they also show us that there is much more violence in the US than anywhere else. The National Rifle Association and its goals are a clear symbol of it.

By: Jose on July 21, 2007
at 10:41 am

Never let us be anti-Americans as human beings. Let us always be anti-American values and policies when these strike us as wrong. The USA is a huge country, with over 300 million inhabitants. They include all shades and varieties of opinion. Reading some of the American blogs it is apparent that increasing numbers of them - including some Republicans - are waking up to the fact that for the past few years their country has been on the wrong tack. These people are in a dilemma, because although the popularity of the Bush/neoCon cabal is shrinking rapidly there are still very powerful lobbies supporting them, and the Democrats are so far reluctant to criticise the Administration too harshly for fear of being branded “unpatriotic”.

However, I smell a sea-change and sense that the tide is beginning to turn.

By: anticant on July 21, 2007
at 4:49 pm

Unless there’s another ‘Pearl Harbour’ again

By: Richard on July 21, 2007
at 5:01 pm

Unless there’s another ‘Pearl Harbour’…

Respect discussion board
Author Message
Michael
——————————————————————————–

White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070720/69340886.html

WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.

Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: “When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there’s no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule.”

“The American people don’t really understand the danger that they face,” Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.

Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.

According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.

“The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists … are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events,” he said. “You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated.”

Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush’s current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.

“They may have had enough. They may not go along with it,” he said.

The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert’s latest column, in which he warned that “unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.”

Roberts, who has been dubbed the “Father of Reaganomics” and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers.

Back to top

Jose
Simply Jose

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2296
Location: Canary Islands
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:04 am Post subject:

——————————————————————————–

And the administration will say that talking as Roberts is shows the world that the USofA is a democracy. With that the Americans will sigh and their reaction will be one of support to the incumbent administration.

A gradual dictatorship is being established in the US. As I have already said somewhere else in this forum, I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t elections next year and a martial law imposed on the whole of the USofA.

And Bush will say, of course, that everything is in defence of the Americans.

Which reminds me of Franco of all people.
_________________
Jose+++

Back to top

PaulGA
Commander

Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 4408
Location: LaGrange, GA
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject:

——————————————————————————–

Mr. Roberts, I daresay, will be among the first to be silenced, should his predictions come true, Jose.

As I see it, the NeoCons have studied every 20th-Century dictatorship in order to glean ideas for the transformation of the USA to their image.

Yours,
Paul
_________________
I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. ~ The Libertarian Pledge

By: Richard on July 21, 2007
at 5:07 pm

You sure it’s just a sea change that you can smell? Let’s be serious, it isn’t just Bush, the “American problem” has been going on for decades. Plenty of time for the majority of Americans to elect a Government which isn’t militarististic, which isn’t interested in having 500 military bases spread throughout the world, which isn’t interested in world domination. As for the Democrats, they are just another branch of the same political party, the USA is in affect a one party state. It was after all Democrat Bill Clinton who insisted that the UN Sanctions remained in place on Iraq despite the fact that it caused 1.5 million deaths, prompting Mad. Albright to say that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were “worth it”.
Frankly I don’t see any problem with pillaring the whole nation, it happened to Germany after the war for at least a couple of decades. The Americans have had more than enough time to appreciate the error of their ways and there’s not the slightest indication that things are going to change.

By: Michael on July 21, 2007
at 5:57 pm

Well, I’ve posted plenty of stuff critical of the USA on my blogs, and I agree with much of what you say, Michael, but although lots of them are dumb, and ignorant of anything beyond their own cabbage patch, there are also some intelligent Americans who are doing a lot of soul-searching and they aren’t a monolithic mass.

Yes, after a nightmarish decade I do sense a changing tide in several respects.

OK, the opponents of the war may be against it for the wrong reasons - because they’re losing - but they are becoming more vocal.

And remember that power abhors a vacuum. What do you anticipate will succeed a diminished USA as the dominant world force? Anyone you’d prefer to America, flawed though it is?

By: anticant on July 21, 2007
at 6:22 pm

Economically I would like to see the European Union , but I feel it’s more likely to be Russia/China/India.

Interesting article written over a year ago, but it explains perfectly what has been happening in the world for decades. It’s no longer a “proposed Iranian Oil Bourse”, it is now reality.

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html
by Krassimir Petrov

A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms�usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods�the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world�s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960�s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ�s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax�the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of �severing the link between the dollar and gold�, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond� the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world�s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren�t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush�s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam�s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.
Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can�t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields�he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have went into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished�he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate �nuclear� weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam�s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:
� The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

� The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

� The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro � the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.
� The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.
Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York�s NYMEX and the London�s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.
At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter�those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs�will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation�s exchange:
� Sabotaging the Exchange�this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.

� Coup d��tat�this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.

� Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations�this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d�etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.

� Joint U.N. War Resolution�this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.
� Unilateral Nuclear Strike�this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.
� Unilateral Total War�this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.
Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis�between deflation and hyperinflation�it will be forced fast either to take its �classical medicine� by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard�s America�s Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem�to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world�that barbarous relic called gold.

–

Recommended Reading
William Clark �The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War in Iraq�
William Clark �The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target�

About the Author
Krassimir Petrov (Krassimir_Petrov@hotmail.com) has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.

Also by this author
�China�s Great Depression�
�Masters of Austrian Investment Analysis�
�Austrian Analysis of U.S. Inflation�
�Oil Performance in a Worldwide Depression�
See: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/petrov/main.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An excellent and thought provoking article by Krassimir Petrov!

However, I think perhaps it’s not entirely correct to state that “critics can�t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields.” The Bush regime are probably aiming to set themselves up as policeman of the Middle East oil fields, ‘protecting’ oil supply to Asia and Europe in return for various advantages at any future negotiation tables. Meanwhile billions of dollars of unaccountable no-bid contracts have been handed to corporations with ties to Bush administration, and the Iraqi oil industry is set to be privatised. So the reasons for the war are rich and varied. However Petrov has given us one of the clearest explanations yet of one of the most important, and certainly least understood, motivations for the war.

By: Michael on July 21, 2007
at 6:48 pm

We don’t need just one country dominating the world militarily, economically I hope the European Union comes out on top naturally and I expect both Russia and China to increase their influence in the world.
But the USA is incapable of changing through internal pressures, change will have to be imposed on them and the way that can come about is replacing the US$ as the world’s reserve currency and the simple way for that to come about is by oil producing nations selling oil in a currency other than the US$, preferably the EURO.
Please read http://michaellee.modernwriters.org/viewtopic.php?t=3582

By: Michael on July 21, 2007
at 7:34 pm

The US has made it quite clear of their intention for global domination, with its official policy of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ (FSD) and ‘Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strikes’ - just like Hitler made his intentions clear in ‘Mein Kampf’.

The US has attempted to control/discredit/destroy the United Nations - one instititution which would be the largest threat to US global dominance.

The trouble is most decent people cannot believe that a country like the US could think something so unthinkable - just like most decent people couldn’t believe such a monster as Nazism could develop from one of the most civilised, cultured and advanced European country.

We have to wake up, wise up and grow up - fast…and fight the best way we can…unless we want to depart this world with a shocked, disbelieving look on our faces.

By: Richard on July 21, 2007
at 8:21 pm

Looks as if that’s already starting to happen. They - we too, alas! - are facing the increasing likelihood of military defeat and forced withdrawal from Iraq. This, I fear, increases the likelihood of an attack on Iran by the Crazies in Washington and Jerusalem. Soon T. Blair will be spinning round in ever-decreasing circles and disappearing up his own backside. Serve him right!

By: anticant on July 21, 2007
at 8:30 pm

I fear for the well-being of our Tony over there…

By: Richard on July 21, 2007
at 8:34 pm

Yes I’m sure we are going to see one or two more desperate throws of the dice but that will only reinforce opposition throughout the world against the USA and the Apartheid State. A hard rain going to fall, as they say, my advice if you have savings is to change them to EUROS and switch investments to the EURO zone. When the ship goes down we will be dragged down with it and Gordon is certainly showing no signs of counting the number of lifeboats.

By: Michael on July 21, 2007
at 9:53 pm

Excellent contribution, Michael, and I am afraid it exposes the real intentions of the incumbent American administration. It is pure economy and it talks of a long run by the US to control the economy of the world. Let us hope the eagles of war will remain in their nests, otherwise it would be chaos for all, including the USofA.

By: Jose on July 22, 2007
at 5:58 am

We’ve come a long way on this thread from Hollywood gangster films. Or have we?

By: anticant on July 22, 2007
at 9:30 am

Sadly no, AC - ‘gangster capitalism’ reigns globally, run mafia-style by out-of-control lunatics who have escaped an asylum.

By: Richard on July 22, 2007
at 10:45 am

Where is or was the asylum? When I was little, we lived near one and a story was told - doubtless apocryphal, but still entertaining - that one day a visitor walking in the grounds was chased by a lunatic brandishing a pick-axe. He ran and ran until, utterly exhausted, he had to slow down. The lunatic caught up with him, touched him on the shoulder, said “Tig!”, handed him the pick-axe, and ran off.

Unfortunately, the global lunatics you refer to are unlikely to behave like that! Their pick-axes are for real.

By: anticant on July 22, 2007
at 11:04 am

Sounds like something out of “Little Bwitain” Anticant

By: Michael on July 22, 2007
at 11:23 am

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories