by evilgenius » Sun 02 Apr 2023, 09:32:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('theluckycountry', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'T')he problem with countries who do try and find an alternative to the U.S. Petrol dollar is:
1. The U.S. will destroy your country through war.
2. Kill the leader of the country.
Yes, that has been the history of the last 80 years. But now the US empire is on it's last legs and the BRICS collectively are stronger militarily, natural resource wise, and through China control the bulk of the modern industrial base.
In the "West" people are stressed about "the" Ukraine, about oil and gas shortages, but the BRICS are singing, knowing their time has come. Kicking Russia out of SWIFT was the biggest mistake the West made, it's forced the opposition's hand. The only thing the West controls now is money creation and they have made a complete mess of that. Once Iran and Saudi Arabia join the BRICKS it will be game over I believe. That's why the war, there are always big wars as an empire fails and the power shifts to the new empire.
Look at the desperation over the Ukraine, it smacks of the WWI efforts of Britain to maintain control of its empire. It wasn't the death of an arch duke that started that one, it was Germany's construction of the Berlin-Baghdad railway that threatened the UK dominance on oil shipments across the high seas.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... hdad-3.htm
There is only one problem with your calculus. When it comes to most resources that impact upon the coming electric future, all that the US has to do is reverse its Wilderness Area policy. If they re-open those areas for exploration and mining, the problem would go away within five years.
Alright, maybe five years is a little optimistic, but the old timers did amazing things in that amount of time. The US has the right capitalistic model, though, that of private ownership over national ownership of natural resources. There is no, nor could there currently be any, US national oil company. Probably, there won't be one for lithium either.
You are not thinking about the United States in what we might call an economic war footing. It's like this, when we compare the rest of the world to the US the US is a lot like GM was historically for the US auto industry. GM set the pricing structure for models, options and other things. They didn't necessary do that because they were the biggest, but because they could manufacture for the cheapest price. The other car makers occasionally found out the hard way what it means to compete against that sort of thing. They learned to cave. When it comes to most resources, the only possible competitor with the US is probably some kind of unified Africa. The US is that rich. A lot of it is political, due to organization, but a lot of it is about how many resources there are too.
Bringing up the electric future does highlight your point, though. Breton Woods relies upon oil consumption to function efficiently. It wasn't conceived in a world where people could possibly produce their energy locally. The successful renewable world was not even a dream. It might be wise to revisit the order. Otherwise, it risks imposing a greater order, high levels of ownership that don't need to exist, upon the situation. To continue to ask energy to order the world might impose that, when energy has evolved into something that can be more local. Breton Woods works against you having panels on your roof and recharging your car with them. Well, not you, but them. It puts a strait jacket on going local that way. It wants levels of ownership to exists which you still have to pay. It wants a subscription model!