Did we just declare a financial War on Iran?

[piercehawkeye45]

I just read this and I don't have a lot of time to check up and make sure its legit, but read this (long).

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/mcglynn240308.html

[deadbeater]

If only the US did the same to Iraq, no unnecessary war.

US did the same to Cuba with decidedly mixed results.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

US did the same to Cuba with decidedly mixed results.

These days it mostly just means if you travel to Cuba (as I did) you take US dollars instead of a travellers cheque raised from a US bank.

Oh and you don't meet Americans there - just Canadians & Europeans. Downside for me, but I got by.
Good point is it's completely untouched by US corporations. In Rome or Luxor you have McDonalds & Starbucks.

[tw]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

If only the US did the same to Iraq, no unnecessary war.

We did that to Iraq. Saddam's hold on his government was so tenuous that Operation Desert Fox in 1998 could have been enough to topple his regime. Same financial misery helped make S Africa's apartheid government unstable and made rejection of apartheid (the transition) so much easier and faster. Get rid of some silly laws and sudden things get drastically better?

We know from post invasion interviews that Saddam was fully involved only in maintaining his power. His military was diminishing quickly as was his hold on Iraq. Saddam was making financial deals with enemies everywhere just to stay in power. Sanctions were working. Operation Desert Fox, according to CIA analysts, easily could have been the feather that finished him off. CIA did not realize, until post invasion, how weak Saddam really was due to sanctions.

Instead we chose to use 'big dic' thinking as a solution. Look where that got us.

When was Castro must at risk? When we ignored him. What restored Castro’s popularity? Every time America made military threats. Well, Castro’s brother has just issued a major decree. It is now legal to buy can openers and air conditioners in Cuba. When the Castro regime falls, it will fall hard and final because of those financial strains. Cuba will endorse capitalism probably with a flair and vigor that exceeds end of the Cold War when financial restrains are removed. Change probably will be more dynamic that what happened in Eastern Europe.

Financial sanctions are quite effective. However some of those most important effects are only realized during the transistion. Those sanctions make it impossible for a falling government to recover - a concept called hysteresis.

[richlevy]

Actually, last year, Iran started demanding currencies other than the US dollars for their oil. The Japanese are paying in Yen and the Chinese in Euros. Essentially, starting in 2005 and in full force since 2007, Iranian oil has been cut loose from the dollar. This is one of the factors behind the recent spike in oil prices.

The Bush administration's action is at best a weak counterattack against a significant economic blow. Noone is going to be able to force the Chinese to stop paying euros to Iran. Iran is the 4th largest oil producer and exporter in the world. No independent nation is going to stop doing business with them because the US wants them to.

The US produces 8 million barrels a day but uses 20. If the administration had gotten off it's ass in 2001 and addressed the strategic importance of reducing consumption, we wouldn't be doing the political equivalent of crying and stamping our feet in response to Iran and Venezuela, two nations whose oil we may need if Saudi Arabia and Russian oil exports to the US were to falter.

Having oilmen as president and vp can be a bad thing when you are trying to address the problem.

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

If the administration had gotten off it's ass in 2001 and addressed the strategic importance of reducing consumption, we wouldn't be doing the political equivalent of crying and stamping our feet in response to Iran and Venezuela, two nations whose oil we may need if Saudi Arabia and Russian oil exports to the US were to falter.

Let's see. We put 10 gallons of gasoline into a car. How many actually do productive work? Between one and two gallons. But George Jr said we cannot innovate - cannot make cars more efficient. For the last decade, he insisted that we must not improve gas mileage standards. George Jr even tried to lower those standards. Only those who hate innovation (ie an MBA) would do that. Even oil men have long complained about some auto industry's fear of innovation.

What was George Jr's (Cheney's) solution? We must produce more oil. We must secure *our* oil (from Project for a New American Century). Ten gallons of gas. Only one or two do productive work. Americans consume more than twice the oil per person compared to any other nation in the world. Those who fear innovation (MBA types) say this is good as proven on spread sheets. It means higher profits (and more money to purchase politician favors). Only one to two gallons. So what is his solution? Produce more oil. Consume more oil.

[richlevy]

On this topic I am in complete agreement with TW. In the midst of a single party controlling both Congress and the White House, noone stood up to address the importance of reducing oil consumption. This was part of the administration's "business must know what it's doing and should not be interfered with, even if the results are of strategic importance to the US" policy.

As a result, the first companies with hybrids were Toyota and Honda. Ford had to lease the technology from Toyota and started by putting it into an SUV, not a sedan or coupe.

As of 2006, besides the Ford Escape hybrid, most American cars barely made it past 25 mpg.

Of course, with gas prices rising, these decisions will cause GM and Ford to rightfully fail in the marketplace, after which we as taxpayers will be asked to bail them out. So when the government could have interfered to effect a resolution that was necessary for national security and the economy, nothing was done. But when it comes time to insulate the parties from the results of their bad decisions, we will be there in time with taxpayer supplied money to make sure that the executive's bonuses and pensions are secured.

“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.”


From here. These numbers are from 2006

Top 5 Most Fuel Efficient American Cars:

1. Ford Escape Hybrid - 36 mpg city / 31 mpg highway
2. Chevy Aveo - 26 mpg city / 35 mpg highway
3. Ford Focus - 26 mpg city / 34 mpg highway
4. Chevy Cobalt - 25 mpg city / 34 mpg highway
5. Ford Fusion - 24 mpg city / 32 mpg highway

Top 5 Most Fuel Efficient Japanese Cars:

1. Honda Insight - 60 mpg city / 66 mpg highway
2. Toyota Prius - 60 mpg city / 51 mpg highway
3. Honda Civic Hybrid - 49 mpg city / 51 highway
4. Toyota Corolla - 32 mpg city / 41 mpg highway
5. Toyota Matrix - 30 mpg city / 36 mpg highway

After doing some math, I figured the average of the top five American cars gets 27.4 mpg in the city and 33.2 mpg on the highway, while the average of the top five Japanese cars get 46.2 mpg in the city and 49 mpg on the highway. This equates to 68% better gas mileage in the city and 48% better gas mileage on the highway for Japanese cars.

[spudcon]

Despite all the rhetoric about gas prices, Iran declared war on America when it invaded American soil in 1979, taking over the Tehran American Embassy, killing Americans there, and holding the rest hostage and torture.. Our response? Jimmy Carter's lame attempt at a rescue, and weak kneed third party diplomacy. It wasn't GWB and oil men who started and encouraged Islamic Fascism, it was a liberal peanut farmer who showed weakness to bullies. If we had someone like GWB in the white house, instead of a wimp, the revolution probably would never have happened in Iran, and the Islamic terror war against America would never have happened.

[tw]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Despite all the rhetoric about gas prices, Iran declared war on America when it invaded American soil in 1979, taking over the Tehran American Embassy, killing Americans there, and holding the rest hostage and torture.

Or that war started when America deposed the Iranian government, imposed a government upon the Iranian people, and then provided that government with weapons, support, and money to protect it against the people. Invading an embassy to kidnap its people (without torture) is trivial compared to imposing a government upon an entire nation.

Is this too simplistic? So are those who think the Iranian hostage crisis was anything more than two nations flaying against each other rather than listening. A problem created because each called the other an enemy and then imposed a worst policy of "not talking to an enemy".

Meanwhile, when a nation or a world uses it resources wastefully (does not innovate), then those resources become both scarce and expensive. In oil's case, prices returned to what they once were.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Despite all the rhetoric about gas prices, Iran declared war on America when it invaded American soil in 1979, taking over the Tehran American Embassy, killing Americans there, and holding the rest hostage and torture.. Our response? Jimmy Carter's lame attempt at a rescue, and weak kneed third party diplomacy. It wasn't GWB and oil men who started and encouraged Islamic Fascism, it was a liberal peanut farmer who showed weakness to bullies. If we had someone like GWB in the white house, instead of a wimp, the revolution probably would never have happened in Iran, and the Islamic terror war against America would never have happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir...'%C3%A9tat

Major foreign policy blowback.

[classicman]

I cannot blame the govt for the lack of foresight on the part of the American automotive manufacturers. What did they think, that GWB et al were going to be in office forever? And that they were gonna take care of them past 4 or 8 years? C'mon! Did they believe that their "reign" would never end? Thats a load of crap!
The reality is that, collectively, they were shortsighted and not innovative enough. They didn't plan long term and were AGAIN beaten by more innovative, creative and driven corporations. Isn't that just capitalism at its best? Why is it a bad thing that a better product was made? Or is it just that it wasn't American technology or innovation. Well that really isn't anything new in that industry is it? The Japanese and others have made far superior vehicle than ours for a very long time.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by classicman

I cannot blame the govt for the lack of foresight on the part of the American automotive manufacturers. What did they think, that GWB et al were going to be in office forever? And that they were gonna take care of them past 4 or 8 years? C'mon! Did they believe that their "reign" would never end? Thats a load of crap!
The reality is that, collectively, they were shortsighted and not innovative enough. They didn't plan long term and were AGAIN beaten by more innovative, creative and driven corporations. Isn't that just capitalism at its best? Why is it a bad thing that a better product was made? Or is it just that it wasn't American technology or innovation. Well that really isn't anything new in that industry is it? The Japanese and others have made far superior vehicle than ours for a very long time.

American automakers have been in decline since the seventies. What did GWB have to do with it?

[classicman]

NOTHING - contrary to what some here would lead you to believe.

[xiphos]

Everybody thinks that the war is GWB's fault. Yeah, we invaded Iraq under his control, but you would probably do the same thing if one of the most symbolic buildings in america was attacked by terrorists. Besides, I support the war because we need to look further into the future. The middle-east is a HUGE mess, and we are establishing the 1st democracy there. Just think if we do, other counties will overthrow there governments and the middle east will, hopefully be more peaceful. Personally, I think America should just take Iraq for itself.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Or is it just that it wasn't American technology or innovation. Well that really isn't anything new in that industry is it? The Japanese and others have made far superior vehicle than ours for a very long time.

Sad truth is that those 'so called' Japanese innovations were really developed in America - sitting stifled and unused for up to 10 or 20 years when foreigners finally 'discover' and implemented them.

Classic examples are the Honda CVCC engine of 1980 - developed and stifled in early Ford Motor in early 1960s as the stratified charge engine.

Classic example is the 70 Hp per liter engine found in reliable cars starting about 1992 - ready for production and stifled in 1975 GM.

How to stop American automakers from innovating? Stop EPA air standards and mileage standards from forcing these MBA educated auto executives from innovating. Then things that make America great - ie hybrid and electric power trains using 1938 railroad technology - can remain stifled.

Government gave GM something like $100 million in 1994 to build a hybrid. What happened to that money? Well GM was only four hours away from bankruptcy in 1991. That money probably came in real handy to keep executive bonuses coming - corporate welfare.