Just reading the news the last few weeks, and it seems the world is even crazier than normal right now. There are significant regional skirmishes in Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, Middle East/Syria/Iraq, various hot spots in various lawless areas in Africa, a new Ebola outbreak, North Korea looking for attention, etc.
It got me wondering how vulnerable the US really is - not in a military sense, because I do not see any scenario where the US would be at risk militarily. But, when the US falls, I think it will be more likely the result of an economic collapse. And, if I had to guess, I would say that most, if not all, of our foreign and domestic policy choices are driven by the need to protect our economy.
Going back to the Iraq wars - most would now agree that these wars were about oil, more than any other reason, and I think the primary assumption is that we wanted to protect the free flow of oil into the world markets to keep oil prices low/stable. It seems, as a result there has been a lot of talk about reducing our dependence on oil, but for all of our innovation/brain power, we don't seem any closer to reducing our dependence on oil. That seems counter-intuitive that we could not make greater headway - unless we did not really want to move away from oil.
Certainly big-oil is a huge industry unto themselves, and the lobby power is significant. But what if, as others have suggested, the issue is not really our dependence on oil - which we have been "talking" about since the early '70s. Rather the issue is more primal in that OPEC primarily trades oil in US dollars. That alone, keeps the demand for US currency high, which allows the US Government to continue to issue bonds to fund our ever-increasing deficits. When OPEC decides to move off the US currency, it could have a significant impact on our economy.
There are only a few players in the world who can really make that happen: Iran - wielding undue influence over middle-eastern members, Russia - has enough economic and military clout to support friendly OPEC members who would vote to change currencies, China - has the economic clout (and enough future oil demand) to make it happen, Saudi Arabia - single largest contributor in oil production to OPEC.
When you look at our foreign policy decisions around these countries, we seem to be doing everything we can to keep them from forcing the switch. Our failed Iraq policy was designed to create a stronger (western-leaning) country to keep Iran in line in the Middle East; we seem to be tip-toeing around Russia's excursions into Ukraine, providing only a stern look, while imposing no real sanctions; and we seem to overlook any transgression that comes out of Saudi Arabia, from human rights issues, to funding terrorists.
I wonder how much our hands are tied in many of these situations by not wanting to upset one of the key players. If so, just how vulnerable are we to being economically blackmailed, or worse?
It got me wondering how vulnerable the US really is - not in a military sense, because I do not see any scenario where the US would be at risk militarily. But, when the US falls, I think it will be more likely the result of an economic collapse. And, if I had to guess, I would say that most, if not all, of our foreign and domestic policy choices are driven by the need to protect our economy.
Going back to the Iraq wars - most would now agree that these wars were about oil, more than any other reason, and I think the primary assumption is that we wanted to protect the free flow of oil into the world markets to keep oil prices low/stable. It seems, as a result there has been a lot of talk about reducing our dependence on oil, but for all of our innovation/brain power, we don't seem any closer to reducing our dependence on oil. That seems counter-intuitive that we could not make greater headway - unless we did not really want to move away from oil.
Certainly big-oil is a huge industry unto themselves, and the lobby power is significant. But what if, as others have suggested, the issue is not really our dependence on oil - which we have been "talking" about since the early '70s. Rather the issue is more primal in that OPEC primarily trades oil in US dollars. That alone, keeps the demand for US currency high, which allows the US Government to continue to issue bonds to fund our ever-increasing deficits. When OPEC decides to move off the US currency, it could have a significant impact on our economy.
There are only a few players in the world who can really make that happen: Iran - wielding undue influence over middle-eastern members, Russia - has enough economic and military clout to support friendly OPEC members who would vote to change currencies, China - has the economic clout (and enough future oil demand) to make it happen, Saudi Arabia - single largest contributor in oil production to OPEC.
When you look at our foreign policy decisions around these countries, we seem to be doing everything we can to keep them from forcing the switch. Our failed Iraq policy was designed to create a stronger (western-leaning) country to keep Iran in line in the Middle East; we seem to be tip-toeing around Russia's excursions into Ukraine, providing only a stern look, while imposing no real sanctions; and we seem to overlook any transgression that comes out of Saudi Arabia, from human rights issues, to funding terrorists.
I wonder how much our hands are tied in many of these situations by not wanting to upset one of the key players. If so, just how vulnerable are we to being economically blackmailed, or worse?