Money is the root of all madness
Money rules - a simple, yet essentially truthful reflection of the modern age. Almost all decisions, from the level of society to that of government, can be reasoned simply by distilling the heady brew of sound bites and politics down to the bottom line. Nostradamus would be useful of course - but here an accountant would trump an astrologer based both on average earnings and success rate. Let’s put our theory to the test with some recent and future questions.
Question 1. Why did the Labour government win the last election? At the time the result was surprising. After all, they had clearly lied over the reasons for going to war, got the country into a mess in doing so, had broken all of their key electoral pledges over education, health, and the abolition of poverty, and yet still they won - comfortably. The reason for this tour de force was simple - the Labour party had become better conservatives. More people had entered into the ‘middle’ income bracket, notably the self-employed, skilled manual and new entrepreneurs, creating an unprecedented blue collar enclave within the wealthy classes. Although the rich had still become richer, and the poor had become poorer since Labour took power, more people had nonetheless found themselves with new financial aspirations. The poor of Britain would simply never vote conservative by tradition, and Labour had retained the votes of the champagne socialists and of the new blue collar enclave. As their lot was good under New Labour, there was no need to fix the government when they weren’t broke. New Labour still owned the left (they have no other natural political affiliation) and had bought the electoral centre of the party political battlefield.
Question 2. Why do we allow the rapid exhaustion of fossil fuels when renewable green energy sources have been available (in a cost-effective form) for over thirty years? The answer is a hundred years old, and supports the thrones of many of the world’s leading power brokers. The Rockefellers, the Bush dynasty, the Sultan of Brunei, and the House of Saud all enjoy massive political and economic influence which today extends through arms, education, the arts and politics. The root of their power was of course the discovery of massive oil deposits, and although since that time their interests may have diversified considerably, the foundation of their prosperity remains oil. The oil industry generates massive margins and tax revenues and drives the automobile, aviation and military sectors. In short, there is simply too great a profit stream and far too much vested interest for these oil mandarins to allow a transition towards ‘free’ and sustainable forms of energy such as wind, solar or tidal power. The rational, healthy and sustainable decision would of course be to opt for the new technologies. However, it is the bottom line that drives our energy policy not our changing environment or social conscience.
Question 3. Will the US now attack Iran? Well let’s do the math. The US has a massive fiscal deficit, an ever widening trade deficit, and an enormous national debt. It’s headed for a major recession unless of course there is a boom in employment, industry and construction. Controlling Iraqi oil would boost construction, income from the ‘petrodollar cycle’ and the military-industrial complex, and that’s not going to happen as long as the shadow of Iran looms over the waters of the gulf. The ongoing occupation of Iraq has already cost trillions and will cost trillions more unless there is a resolution.
As with Hitler in 1939, Bush is left in a ‘war or bust’ dilemma. If he now leaves Iraq in its current state and loses control over a reliable flow of Iraqi oil, he will be at the mercy of Iranian, Venezuelan and Saudi Arabian supplies and will go home broke and powerless, all of his military investment wasted. However, if he believes that he can successfully attack Iran in the short term he may successfully create a war economy, boosting oil consumption and sales within his military industrial complex. In the longer term he aims to gain control of not only Iraqi oil production, but also that of Iran and Venezuela. In this position America will be able to print money from construction, arms sales and oil revenues. Having already deliberately spent so much in committing forces to create a potential pincer movement to attack Iran from his southern carrier force in the Gulf, from Iraq in the West and from Afghanistan in the East, he will fail at the international poker table if he doesn’t now go ‘all in’ with his chips.
The economics, politics and balance of forces all point towards a war to consolidate his Eastern campaign. If he succeeds, he will be the first Western leader since Alexander to prosecute a successful military campaign in the Middle East, although history is littered with the many failures of Roman, Napoleonic, British, Greek and Nazi campaigns. Perhaps he too has overextended himself, but for now he is economically obliged to place all his cards and chips on the table. Alea iacta est.
Money is not the root of all evil – it is the root of all madness.
Question 1. Why did the Labour government win the last election? At the time the result was surprising. After all, they had clearly lied over the reasons for going to war, got the country into a mess in doing so, had broken all of their key electoral pledges over education, health, and the abolition of poverty, and yet still they won - comfortably. The reason for this tour de force was simple - the Labour party had become better conservatives. More people had entered into the ‘middle’ income bracket, notably the self-employed, skilled manual and new entrepreneurs, creating an unprecedented blue collar enclave within the wealthy classes. Although the rich had still become richer, and the poor had become poorer since Labour took power, more people had nonetheless found themselves with new financial aspirations. The poor of Britain would simply never vote conservative by tradition, and Labour had retained the votes of the champagne socialists and of the new blue collar enclave. As their lot was good under New Labour, there was no need to fix the government when they weren’t broke. New Labour still owned the left (they have no other natural political affiliation) and had bought the electoral centre of the party political battlefield.
Question 2. Why do we allow the rapid exhaustion of fossil fuels when renewable green energy sources have been available (in a cost-effective form) for over thirty years? The answer is a hundred years old, and supports the thrones of many of the world’s leading power brokers. The Rockefellers, the Bush dynasty, the Sultan of Brunei, and the House of Saud all enjoy massive political and economic influence which today extends through arms, education, the arts and politics. The root of their power was of course the discovery of massive oil deposits, and although since that time their interests may have diversified considerably, the foundation of their prosperity remains oil. The oil industry generates massive margins and tax revenues and drives the automobile, aviation and military sectors. In short, there is simply too great a profit stream and far too much vested interest for these oil mandarins to allow a transition towards ‘free’ and sustainable forms of energy such as wind, solar or tidal power. The rational, healthy and sustainable decision would of course be to opt for the new technologies. However, it is the bottom line that drives our energy policy not our changing environment or social conscience.
Question 3. Will the US now attack Iran? Well let’s do the math. The US has a massive fiscal deficit, an ever widening trade deficit, and an enormous national debt. It’s headed for a major recession unless of course there is a boom in employment, industry and construction. Controlling Iraqi oil would boost construction, income from the ‘petrodollar cycle’ and the military-industrial complex, and that’s not going to happen as long as the shadow of Iran looms over the waters of the gulf. The ongoing occupation of Iraq has already cost trillions and will cost trillions more unless there is a resolution.
As with Hitler in 1939, Bush is left in a ‘war or bust’ dilemma. If he now leaves Iraq in its current state and loses control over a reliable flow of Iraqi oil, he will be at the mercy of Iranian, Venezuelan and Saudi Arabian supplies and will go home broke and powerless, all of his military investment wasted. However, if he believes that he can successfully attack Iran in the short term he may successfully create a war economy, boosting oil consumption and sales within his military industrial complex. In the longer term he aims to gain control of not only Iraqi oil production, but also that of Iran and Venezuela. In this position America will be able to print money from construction, arms sales and oil revenues. Having already deliberately spent so much in committing forces to create a potential pincer movement to attack Iran from his southern carrier force in the Gulf, from Iraq in the West and from Afghanistan in the East, he will fail at the international poker table if he doesn’t now go ‘all in’ with his chips.
The economics, politics and balance of forces all point towards a war to consolidate his Eastern campaign. If he succeeds, he will be the first Western leader since Alexander to prosecute a successful military campaign in the Middle East, although history is littered with the many failures of Roman, Napoleonic, British, Greek and Nazi campaigns. Perhaps he too has overextended himself, but for now he is economically obliged to place all his cards and chips on the table. Alea iacta est.
Money is not the root of all evil – it is the root of all madness.
posted by The Angry Man at 7:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home