Tapsearch Com EditorGreenspan Economic Gymnastics (LINK)
December 23rd 2007 23:44
Bizarre Politics Reports:
Greenspan Economic Gymnastics
A view of Greenspan from the trenches continues....
1956 - it was not a very good year - it was also the start of the deindustrialization of the United States
It was the year 1956, Edith Piaf sang Non je ne regrette rien - meaning no regrets- about 50 years later, Alan Greenspan sings the same song about his time in office. He says he has no regrets. However, many others do have regrets especially the ones who are losing their homes now and the millions who have lost their jobs during the reign of Greenspan. HIs reign included the most massive dislocation of jobs in U.S. history. The Golden Goose that laid the Golden eggs was chopped up with the pieces sent around the world. The eggs of value added local economies are gone.
Alan Greenspan says the Iraq war is all about oil. He could have said the same thing 50 years ago. Most of the wars in the Middle East are about oil or should we call it wars about black gold since real gold is no longer a standard for the dollar. In many cases, oil is.
1956 proved to be a turning point in history in many ways. One happening is widely discussed and the other is not.
I was an Army Officer stationed in VIrginia during the Suez crisis and for a day or two, I thought we were on our way to Egypt but President Eisenhower " ordered " the allies to stop their attack on Egypt.
Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal. England, France and Israel rushed in their armies.
Apparently Egypt's actions were a surprise. It came at a time when the British were just getting over their loss of the British Empire. After Eisenhower ordered the allies to stop the attacks, British Prime Miniser Harold McMacmillan said - rules in Washinton in whose hands all our destinies largely lay - rules the game. In 1956, the USA was handed the baton as the new super power replacing the British Empire in the Middle East.
Oil represented two third of the products going through the canal during that time. The CIA had just established the Shah in Iran three years prior to the Suez crisis and everyone thought the USA was on top of things in the Middle East. Nasser was flirting with the Russians. He wanted to establish a Middle East balance of power outside the control of external forces.
The USA was still wary about getting deeply involved in the Middle East. President Eisenhower's as a General in World War 2, steered the invasions away from the Middle East and the Balkans even though the USA won the war in Northern Africa.
In college, my field of concentration was in Geopolitics and Diplomatic History and I was surprised to find one of the best geopolitical sources was my 1950 U.S. Army Officer's Manual. It warned about getting involved in the Middle East and stated it was a good thing that the U.S.A did not have to depend on the Middle East for oil. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld should have read the manual before going into Iraq. Actually, I wish many more would have read it from the moment they installed the Shah in Iran. When the Shah went down, all reasonable stragedies fell apart. The USA had to back Iraq in a war with Iran and then we know what followed. From there on you had to have a good score card to tell who your enemy is during a shuffeling of alliances. In the Middle East there are only beginnings and very few endings. It is like playing musical chairs forever.
The Shah spent billions of dollar buying military equipment from the USA and then Iran was cut off when the Shah was disposed. Iraq took Iran's place as the U.S surrogate. The U.S. supplied Iraq with weapons for their war with Iran. It got to be - a who's on first game. We even had an Iraq munitions related factory in our city connected with President Bush the first. Congress Gonzalez tried to cover the story and get it all into the Congressional Record before he died.
There is a joke that says President George Bush the second knew Iraq had weapons of mass distruction because his family had the receipts for them. And don't forget President Clinton consistently bombed Iraq during his term in office after the Desert Storm War. Clintons treated the Bush family as family.
Alan Greenspan says these wars are all about oil. Why did he wait until now to say this.
John Perkins in his book The Confessions of an Econmic HIt Man has the story about the USA making Saudi Arabia dependent on the United States. I would say the wars are more about money surrounding the oil with the dollar closely tied with the price of oil. It is not just a matter of supply lines being blocked.
As we covered in other posts at Orble, Bizarre Politics and at our Tapart News and Art that Talks site Our Federal Government also started the deindustrialization of the USA fwhen the USA sponsored the moving of factories outside the USA starting in 1956
Globalist Free Trader Greenspan never mentions this in his book or for that matter anywhere else. He never tells us when the definition of Free Trade included making production portable ready to be moved from place to place anywhere in the world for the sake of cheaper labor. He never mentions the fact that workers are the main commodities traded in Free Trade. Workers are the ones who are put on a world trading block to compete with each other for the same jobs.
Globalization and Free Trade have not evolved in any natural economic way but has been driven by powerful forces inside and outside government. Greenspan must have known this before he ever started his book. His economics theories are based on pragmatism that ignores the common good. He never mentions the fact that workers have no voice in the process of Globalization and Free Trade. I knew this back when I worked in several factories while attending college. Greenspan's degree should be in economic gymnastics. To his credit, he did a balancing act on the high wire of global economics for many years, but the lost of the common good and the common man was a very large one. Do unto others as you would have them do to you changed to do unto others before they do it to you.
Actually the Great Depression never ended. President Roosevelt just followed the economists who said - you do not owe anyone if you owe it to yourself. Money becomes paper with any value your imagination wants to put on it and the amount of power it represents. Greenspan says his money policies mocked the gold standard. I can see where President Clinton's conclusions come from - it all depends on what your definition of "is" is. Things can be anything you want to label it.
1956 - it was not a very good year - it was also the start of the deindustrialization of the United States
It was the year 1956, Edith Piaf sang Non je ne regrette rien - meaning no regrets- about 50 years later, Alan Greenspan sings the same song about his time in office. He says he has no regrets. However, many others do have regrets especially the ones who are losing their homes now and the millions who have lost their jobs during the reign of Greenspan. HIs reign included the most massive dislocation of jobs in U.S. history. The Golden Goose that laid the Golden eggs was chopped up with the pieces sent around the world. The eggs of value added local economies are gone.
Alan Greenspan says the Iraq war is all about oil. He could have said the same thing 50 years ago. Most of the wars in the Middle East are about oil or should we call it wars about black gold since real gold is no longer a standard for the dollar. In many cases, oil is.
1956 proved to be a turning point in history in many ways. One happening is widely discussed and the other is not.
I was an Army Officer stationed in VIrginia during the Suez crisis and for a day or two, I thought we were on our way to Egypt but President Eisenhower " ordered " the allies to stop their attack on Egypt.
Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal. England, France and Israel rushed in their armies.
Apparently Egypt's actions were a surprise. It came at a time when the British were just getting over their loss of the British Empire. After Eisenhower ordered the allies to stop the attacks, British Prime Miniser Harold McMacmillan said - rules in Washinton in whose hands all our destinies largely lay - rules the game. In 1956, the USA was handed the baton as the new super power replacing the British Empire in the Middle East.
Oil represented two third of the products going through the canal during that time. The CIA had just established the Shah in Iran three years prior to the Suez crisis and everyone thought the USA was on top of things in the Middle East. Nasser was flirting with the Russians. He wanted to establish a Middle East balance of power outside the control of external forces.
The USA was still wary about getting deeply involved in the Middle East. President Eisenhower's as a General in World War 2, steered the invasions away from the Middle East and the Balkans even though the USA won the war in Northern Africa.
In college, my field of concentration was in Geopolitics and Diplomatic History and I was surprised to find one of the best geopolitical sources was my 1950 U.S. Army Officer's Manual. It warned about getting involved in the Middle East and stated it was a good thing that the U.S.A did not have to depend on the Middle East for oil. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld should have read the manual before going into Iraq. Actually, I wish many more would have read it from the moment they installed the Shah in Iran. When the Shah went down, all reasonable stragedies fell apart. The USA had to back Iraq in a war with Iran and then we know what followed. From there on you had to have a good score card to tell who your enemy is during a shuffeling of alliances. In the Middle East there are only beginnings and very few endings. It is like playing musical chairs forever.
The Shah spent billions of dollar buying military equipment from the USA and then Iran was cut off when the Shah was disposed. Iraq took Iran's place as the U.S surrogate. The U.S. supplied Iraq with weapons for their war with Iran. It got to be - a who's on first game. We even had an Iraq munitions related factory in our city connected with President Bush the first. Congress Gonzalez tried to cover the story and get it all into the Congressional Record before he died.
There is a joke that says President George Bush the second knew Iraq had weapons of mass distruction because his family had the receipts for them. And don't forget President Clinton consistently bombed Iraq during his term in office after the Desert Storm War. Clintons treated the Bush family as family.
Alan Greenspan says these wars are all about oil. Why did he wait until now to say this.
John Perkins in his book The Confessions of an Econmic HIt Man has the story about the USA making Saudi Arabia dependent on the United States. I would say the wars are more about money surrounding the oil with the dollar closely tied with the price of oil. It is not just a matter of supply lines being blocked.
As we covered in other posts at Orble, Bizarre Politics and at our Tapart News and Art that Talks site Our Federal Government also started the deindustrialization of the USA fwhen the USA sponsored the moving of factories outside the USA starting in 1956
Globalist Free Trader Greenspan never mentions this in his book or for that matter anywhere else. He never tells us when the definition of Free Trade included making production portable ready to be moved from place to place anywhere in the world for the sake of cheaper labor. He never mentions the fact that workers are the main commodities traded in Free Trade. Workers are the ones who are put on a world trading block to compete with each other for the same jobs.
Globalization and Free Trade have not evolved in any natural economic way but has been driven by powerful forces inside and outside government. Greenspan must have known this before he ever started his book. His economics theories are based on pragmatism that ignores the common good. He never mentions the fact that workers have no voice in the process of Globalization and Free Trade. I knew this back when I worked in several factories while attending college. Greenspan's degree should be in economic gymnastics. To his credit, he did a balancing act on the high wire of global economics for many years, but the lost of the common good and the common man was a very large one. Do unto others as you would have them do to you changed to do unto others before they do it to you.
Actually the Great Depression never ended. President Roosevelt just followed the economists who said - you do not owe anyone if you owe it to yourself. Money becomes paper with any value your imagination wants to put on it and the amount of power it represents. Greenspan says his money policies mocked the gold standard. I can see where President Clinton's conclusions come from - it all depends on what your definition of "is" is. Things can be anything you want to label it.
| 28 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
