Imperialism, China and Russia

zbarlici · Post by **zbarlici** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:33 pm

"Imperialism, is a form of monopolistic appropriation or control of raw materials, energy sources and the export of capital..."

The following article paints a picture of the current state of economical and military clashes, of the earth`s leading powers.

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/9805

from the article..

"We are in a phase when the world's reserves of oil, natural gas, uranium and (for industrial needs) copper and cobalt are diminishing, and control over them has become vital for the large economies."

If you don`t get a sense of unease after having read the article, there is something seriously wrong with you.

... as i see it, there are only three ways out of this precarious situation.

1. Fight for the survival of you nation(can you say nuclear?), and i DO mean survival as unoccupied land does not exsist anymore,

2. Population control THUS limiting resources consumed/required

3. ...hmm. Can anybody guess what the third option is?

this is a very serious issue....

zbarlici · Post by **zbarlici** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:07 pm

heh. I just realised what the source of the article is... Long as the facts are correct.. the situation remains the same.

drmike · Post by **drmike** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:11 pm

It's just stating what has been obvious to most observers for 100's of years. The golden rule is "he who controls the gold, rules". A few queens have proven it can be a she too.

"Precarious" depends on where you stand. If you are not lucky, there are a lot of useful resources under your feet, and bombs may be the next thing you see before the dust settles and new management puts you back to work. The fight for oil is simply a continuation of 100's of years of "IT'S MINE!!!". Maybe 100's of thousands. Details matter, and so does luck.

It only takes one bully to ruin a party. I don't think you'll see an end to the ebb and flow of who controls what for a very long time. It's more fun to read about than experience, that is for darn sure.

zbarlici · Post by **zbarlici** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:29 pm

"The fight for oil is simply a continuation of 100's of years of "IT'S MINE!!!""

yeah but the population today is not what it used to be 100 years ago... and resource demand has grown not only because of that but also because we have spoiled ourselves with all kinds of technologies and non-essetianls.

Granted, techology is required for advancements but it doesnt change the fact that a lot of our resources are sucked up by that sector, and demand comes with it...

And now it seems like all nations demand resources... puts much more of a strain on the supply.

Roger · Post by **Roger** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:33 am

Good reson to get off earth to get more resources.

If we make it.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:53 am

Roger wrote:Good reson to get off earth to get more resources.

If we make it.

Make it as in survive? No problem. We have a minimum of 1E32 years until the heat death of the universe. If anything our descendants will intentionally evolve (provolve) themselves into multiple posthuman species.

Make it as in maintain industrial civilization so that we can get off Earth? The dangers of "industrial failure" are waaaaaay over-hyped.

Make it as in get populations off Earth? Even if we go into civilizational stasis for 10,000 years, that will happen.

Nanos · Post by **Nanos** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:36 am

You could also recycle more, even import others rubbish to recycle to gain their materials for free!

From what I can gather, we are looking at mining the ocean floor now, which from what I can also gather, some of us signed a treaty not to..

Then there is the Antarctic to squabble over..

Somehow, I see us squabbling over the moon too once we start digging it up..

Population control seems a sensible route, but as the more population you have, the more economic power and military strength you have, I don't see many countries actually wanting to do that..

choff · Post by **choff** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:38 am

I thought the timing to the war in Georgia was a little hokey. Basically, Putin visits Bush a few weeks before, and one report said they were talking about Putin's concern at maintaining the price of oil.

Georgia has the rival pipeline from the Caspian Sea to western Europe. Who was the braintrust that put the Georgian army up the shelling the Ossentian civilians, and the Russian army was parked right there to respond.

If Georgia's pipeline is out of commission, how does this affect the world price for oil, follow the money.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:38 am

Nanos wrote:You could also recycle more, even import others rubbish to recycle to gain their materials for free!

Plenty of trash dumps available.

Nanos wrote:From what I can gather, we are looking at mining the ocean floor now, which from what I can also gather, some of us signed a treaty not to..

Then there is the Antarctic to squabble over..

Somehow, I see us squabbling over the moon too once we start digging it up..

Treaties die in time, just like everything else. If they didn't we'd still be abiding by Pharonic deals with Babylon.

The human species will always squabble. Universal human unity is a fool's ambition and a totalitarian's dream. Factionalization is natural.

Nanos wrote:Population control seems a sensible route, but as the more population you have, the more economic power and military strength you have, I don't see many countries actually wanting to do that..

Population control was foolish when first popularized a century ago, it was foolish when re-popularized in the '70s, and it remains foolish today. We are in no danger of running out of resources to support huge human populations, and never were. And population is now decreasing world wide of its own accord.

Duane

Nanos · Post by **Nanos** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:18 pm

> Plenty of trash dumps available.

Not so easy to get at as having it delivered in a container, here at least we like to stick a layer of soil over the top and build houses on them..

But looking at Naples, they sure could use a solution to their problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7174320.stm

> Treaties die in time

Yeah, but whoever breaks them gets a bad reputation, whose going to trust a country if they just break any treaty they feel like.

You end up with countries like North Korea getting jittery and you can begin to see why.

> We are in no danger of running out of resources to support
> huge human populations, and never were

I might agree there in principle, its just a shame its not shared out such that some starve to death whilst others suffering from being obese..

> And population is now decreasing world wide of its own accord.

Pity thats not happening here!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7057765.stm

> The population of the UK is set to increase by 4.4 million to
> 65 million by 2016, according to new projections

Trouble with falling populations, is, doesn't it mean house prices fall ?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 697785.ece

> The US Government took control of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,
> the stricken companies that underpin the American mortgage market,
> yesterday and promised to inject up to £110 billion of taxpayers’
> money to keep them afloat.

Which resulted in:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 703130.ece

> Trading on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) was halted this morning
> for the longest period in over eight years because of a “connectivity
> issue” on one of the busiest days of 2008 following America's £110
> billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'm sure it was a 'techincal' fault...

I'm not sure my glasses are as rose coloured as yours

Excuse me whilst I go back to my overcowered cockroach infested sewage smelling rented rat hole whilst I dream that if I had a 9 to 5 job, I'd never be able to afford anything better and will food and electric prices go up another 50% this coming year..

scareduck · Post by **scareduck** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:04 pm

zbarlici wrote:yeah but the population today is not what it used to be 100 years ago... and resource demand has grown not only because of that but also because we have spoiled ourselves with all kinds of technologies and non-essetianls.

Such as what, Mr. Five-year-planner? Who are you to tell me what is and is not essential?

scareduck · Post by **scareduck** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:07 pm

Nanos wrote: > And population is now decreasing world wide of its own accord.

Pity thats not happening here!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7057765.stm

It would be if (a) you actually read the article you cited, and (b) the U.K. stopped admitting immigrants. As in the U.S., population growth is actually occurring principally among recent immigrants. For everyone else, the birthrate trends are below replacement level.

djolds1 · Post by **djolds1** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:29 pm

Nanos wrote:
Plenty of trash dumps available.
Not so easy to get at as having it delivered in a container, here at least we like to stick a layer of soil over the top and build houses on them..

But looking at Naples, they sure could use a solution to their problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7174320.stm

Using Bussards?

Just dump the stuff into a plasma torch and magnetically sort the ions into different hoppers for each element.

Nanos wrote:
Treaties die in time
Yeah, but whoever breaks them gets a bad reputation, whose going to trust a country if they just break any treaty they feel like.

You end up with countries like North Korea getting jittery and you can begin to see why.

Breaking them usually isn't the problem. They just decay away into nothingness. Practices at odds with the particulars of the treaty become customary, and the treaties die the death of a thousand cuts. No one even notices that they've ceased to apply until some history scholar writes a book ten years latter. IIRC the average lifespan of a treaty is 50 years.

Nanos wrote:
We are in no danger of running out of resources to support huge human populations, and never were
I might agree there in principle, its just a shame its not shared out such that some starve to death whilst others suffering from being obese..

Life sucks then you die.

Unless we're willing to go back, recolonize the Third World, and rule the places for at least 300 years, we really can't force the natives to develop functional civil societies. With tribal societies, secular-humanist rule of law societies cannot take root. Without some variant on that type of society, they will continue to live in various levels of MadMaxdom.

Nanos wrote:
And population is now decreasing world wide of its own accord.
Pity thats not happening here!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7057765.stm

Fertility rates are dropping worldwide. That's why the average age is going up. Rate of growth in populations is already slowing. Some populations, such as ethnic Europeans, have slowed much more then others. Given current trends its anticipated to crest at approx 9 billion ~ 2050 and then go into decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worl ... n_(UN).svg

Nanos wrote:Trouble with falling populations, is, doesn't it mean house prices fall ?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 697785.ece

Maybe. Inflation might cushion a fall into a null. Stable prices over a long period that the economy can absorb, instead of rapid outright deflation. Decades of transition provide ample wiggle room.

Assuming the current problems, which are worse then anyone on Wall Street or in The City are willing to admit, don't click over into Great Depression Take Deux.

Nanos wrote:http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 703130.ece

Trading on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) was halted this morning for the longest period in over eight years because of a “connectivity issue” on one of the busiest days of 2008 following America's £110 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I'm sure it was a 'techincal' fault...

When pigs fly via rectal ramjets, maybe.

Nanos wrote:I'm not sure my glasses are as rose coloured as yours

My mirrorshades are not rose-tinted. I simply see the current crop of Malthusian disaster prophecies of apocalypse, which started up with the 1972 "Limits to Growth" model, as being bad jokes. Every prediction they've made has come and gone without happening. Every time their predictions are falsified the goalposts shift and the apocalypse is re-dated for ten years from right now. This "move the prophecy timeline" behavior is also typical of apocalyptic death cults whose memberships commit suicide so they can join the UFO on its way to Zeta Reticuli.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth

Oddly, humans seem to have an ability to innovate, world stockpiles of everything are found to far larger then believed when we're motivated to look more, and substitutes have been very easy to develop.

At best, ALL OF the Apocalypse prophecies have been badly in error. At worst they have been and continue to be intentionally fraudulent.

Duane

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:31 pm

Nanos wrote: ...
Population control seems a sensible route, but as the more population you have, the more economic power and military strength you have, I don't see many countries actually wanting to do that..

Wholeheartedly disagree.. I believe the sensible route is a goal of 20B well fed actualizing People here on Earth, 100B People in total.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:42 pm

"We are in a phase when the world's reserves of oil, natural gas, uranium and (for industrial needs) copper and cobalt are diminishing, and control over them has become vital for the large economies."

They said this in 1930, 1970, 1995, etc, too.

There's always some resource that's running out. The combination of free markets and free minds always leaves us better off than before. Whale oil was replaced by cheaper petroleum. New mining techniques greatly expanded the availability of minerals and metal.

If you don`t get a sense of unease after having read the article, there is something seriously wrong with you.

I'm filled with unease about the state of the author's understanding of history. To say that we invaded Iraq to control their oil ignores the fact we could have pumped far more oil by simply allowing Saddam to have Kuwait in 1991, or by ending sanctions rather than invading in 2003, or by establishing a friendly dictator in 2004 rather than risking the vagaries of a democratic electorate.

If we really wanted to seize an oil-rich country, the much larger Saudi fields could be ours in a matter of hours.

Finally, there's the usual silly "oh no China has our debt!!11!!" doom-mongering. The China trade situation is a double-edged sword, and the edge they're staring at is a LOT sharper than the one pointed at us. What leverage does our debt give them? Very little; if they dump dollars and drive down the U.S. dollar, the Chinese exporters go bankrupt overnight and their bubble economy collapses in a week, while U.S. exporters roll around in the tsunami of extra cash a weak dollar brings them. And there's the rub of the export-driven economy: consumer uber alles. If you piss off the people buying your goods, it's generally a much bigger problem for you than for them.

The Chinese buy our debt for the same reason the Japanese do: to keep their exports going.

If you haven't been paying attention to what Japan's been doing for the last 50 years, this principle was illustrated pretty clearly last year when a Chinese official in charge of export controls was executed after a few news stories in the U.S. about lead paint and bad pet food coming from China. Which way is the power flowing here?