[Marxism] Bolton: Israel 'will attack Iran' before new USpresident in office, especially if it's Obama
marvgandall at videotron.ca
Sat Jun 28 15:17:14 MDT 2008
S. Artesian writes:
You ought to spend a little less time honing your sarcasm and a lot more
time actually looking at economic data. I don't mean to appear rude or
crude-- but you really don't seem to have the slightest understanding of
MG: Of course. Next paragraph, please.
SA: My thesis is that the war was made necessary by overproduction and the
decline in profits; that the war was part and parcel, whole and piece, body
and soul, of all those things that make US capitalism such a joy to behold
and endure (that's my sarcasm).
MG: No. That's your all-purpose soundbite, which you believe is sufficient
to explain every subject which comes up for discussion on this list - from
Bolivia to the Democrats to Iraq to Lindsay Lohan.
SA: That includes: restriction on capital expenditures; serious reduction
in the numbers of manufacturing workers; maintaining higher productivity
levels; declining unit labor costs; increases in oil prices with the
saber-rattling, (and the actual invasion actually), "counter-cyclical" to
petroleum earnings, i.e. earnings need a boost? Time to threaten Iran;
declining dollar; and yes, Marvin an actual, and sustained increase in U.S.
exports; all of this capped by record earnings quarter upon quarter for Wall
Street investment banks.
MG: What an empty litany of pretentious blather designed to demonstrate
economic erudition but which, in concrete terms, demonstrates absolutely
nothing about the supposed net benefit of the frst five years of the war in
Iraq to the US ruling class - the position you were invited to defend.
SA: As for burning oil fields-- that was Gulf War 1, not 2. Very little of
that occurred in Iraq. Production was kept off-line however...
MG: What a nit picker. Of course, I was referring metaphorically to the
sabotage of the pipelines by the insurgency, which did include setting them
ablaze, as you well understood.
SA: ...and yes, the oil companies loved that. Positively. Look at their
MG: Strong demand in the world economy, especially in the newly emergent
countries like China, has driven the commodities boom, fueled by speculation
in its most recent stages. The earnings of the Chinese, Iranian, Russian,
Venezuelan, Saudi and other state energy companies have matched those of the
private oil majors.
Iraq hasn't made anyone except the defence contractors rich during the past
period. The foreign oil companies are only now considering investments there
in the belief that the mayhem, which you believe they welcomed, seems to
them to be subsiding. Even a simpleton like myself who doesn't understand
capitalism knows the profits of the industry have had very little to do with
Iraq, except perhaps indirectly insofar as its unused capacity has modestly
contributed to higher oil prices. Neither Wall Street nor the government,
which speaks for the class as a whole, thinks the high oil price is good for
SA: Until of course all these things, these remedies for overproduction
flipped and the "recovery" precipitated further overproduction.
MG: Whatever that means. But (slaps forehead) I shouldn't be inviting
another long-winded reply.
If Wall Street, as Artesian claims, is happy that Bush has brought them Iraq
and can't wait to have McCain bring it more of the same, it has chosen a
peculiar way to show its gratitude:
In fact, as is plain from these accounts, Wall Street, far from driving the
Iraq war, hardly thinks about it. Capital seeks profitable opportunities for
investment and Iraq, in present circumstances, has been far outside the
field of vision of America's big bankers and manufacturers.
On that note, I hereby declare a unilateral ceasefire. Let Artesian have the
last word if he wants it.
More information about the Marxism