The Donald Trump Score Card

They sure do. The oil for dollars setup has created an artificial demand for the U.S. dollar.

Here is something on that:

Oil can be bought from OPEC only if you have dollars. Non-oil producing countries such as most underdeveloped countries and Japan, first have to sell their goods to earn dollar with which they can purchase oil. If they cannot earn enough dollars, then they have to borrow dollars from the WB/IMF, which have to be paid back, with interest, in dollars. This creates a great demand for dollars outside the U.S. In contrast, the U.S. only has to print dollar bills in exchange for goods. Even for its own oil imports, the U.S. can print dollar bills without exporting or selling its goods. For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., “fiat” dollars.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_dollar_vs_euro.html

 

So you're going by the 2004 analysis by Sharma, Tracey and Kumar in Third World Traveler Z Magazine, a non-refereed publication? It's a curious collection of authors: a retired engineering professor from San Diego State, a hazardous waste specialist, and an Indian economist who publishes mainly on local Indian subjects. What would they know about why the United States invaded Iraq? The authors suggest a causal relationship between the currency situation and the invasion, but to establish such a relationship, they'd need to do more than allege it and show that it might be a good reason. I don't know of a reputable scholar who agrees with them about the invasion of Iraq, and their arguments seem half-baked and farfetched, But they could be right, who knows?. I doubt that an "oil for Euros" scheme sounds as inviting now as it did in 2004, and as I said, the economic collapse of the United States would not be in the best interest of people selling oil and depending on us to defend them from ISIS, But who knows? I'm puzzled as to why a person who accepts this analysis would vote for an economic nationalist like Trump.

 

Do you know of any reputable scholars who disagree with them? Do you still honestly believe that the invasion of Iraq and the reinstating of the oil for dollars system just coincidently coincided with the U.S.'s fear of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; you know, the ones that didn't exist.

The article I linked to was co-authored by Dr. Surender Kumar whom was working as Professor of Economics and Head of the Department of Policy Studies at TERI University, New Delhi. His previous stint involved the position of Fellow at NIPFP, New Delhi, after being involved in teaching economics at undergraduate and post-graduate levels for about eight years at Kurukshetra University. He had been a Visiting Fellow at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (USA) and JSPS Fellow at the Yokohama National University Yokohama (Japan).

A Ph D from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, Dr Kumar has worked with a concentrated focus on environmental and resource economics. He also extends his ambit of research to productivity and efficiency measurement.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And why do you assume I voted for Trump? I didn't vote at all.

 

Oh, you didn't vote at all? Amazing, in light of your extensive posts on the election and strong opinions on the Trump victory!

I doubt that most reputable scholars who are experts on the invasion of Iraq have ever heard of the authors you mentioned, since they are writing outside their fields of expertise. Interesting you should mention the qualifications of the third author on the article. His expertise on environmental resource economics, with side specialties on productivity and efficiency measurement don't seem to be relevant to an analysis of U.S. involvement in the Iraq War. The first author is a retired engineering professor from San Diego State U., and the second is a specialist on hazardous waste. Their "thesis" is little more than a hunch without the empirical support expected in a scholarly article. I think one of the authors got this brainstorm, told his friends, and they decided to dash something off to a rinky dink e-magazine with low acceptance standards.

Far be it from me to give a definitive explanation of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but I think any responsible account should address the through analysis provided by Professors Rick Fawn and Raymond Hennebusch in The iraq War: Causes and Consequences. Fawn is an expert on international security at the University of St. Andrews, U.K.; Hinnebusch is Director of the Center of Syrian Studies and Professor of international relations and Middle East studies at the same institution. Also essential reading are the articles of Drs. Alexandre Debs and Muno Monteiro of Yale University in the leading journal International Organization, Volume 68 / Issue 01 / January 2014, pp 1 - 31; and President of the American Political Science Association, Professor David Lake's article in International Security,, Two Cheers for BargainingTheory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations for the Iraq War" volume 35, issue 3, pages 7-52.

What do these authors have to say? Fawn and Hinnebush emphasize the new, aggressive policy of G.W Bush and his Neocons under the so-called "Bush Doctrine" designed to establish U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, including protection of oil and Israel. Saddam, nursing anti-American grudges from his defeat in the Persian Gulf War, was perceived as trouble. The terrorist attack on 9/11 provided a convenient pretext to link him, without foundation, to the attack. (Interestingly, Cheney was vocal in asserting this, but G.W. denied it.) Debs and Monteiro stress the so-called "1%" strategic doctrine of Dick Cheney that the United States must deal with "low probability, high impact events" as though they were certain. Our inability to be certain about whether or not Saddam had WMDs (which it runs out he didn't) made him an unacceptable risk. Lake agrees with this basic framework but emphasizes the importance of non-rational, psychological variables that colored the Bush Administration's perception of risk, especially the arrogance of the Neo-cons in fitting political reality into their ideological prism. As for the possible influence of Saddam's decision in 2000 to go Euro, if it was a factor at all, it was one of many that contributed to what was probably a foregone conclusion.

 

You need to read my posts more carefully. I had no strong opinions on the Trump victory. Please produce the post or posts from which you came to that conclusion.

It is apparent that you don't care for the sources I provided. But if you need to believe that the petrodollar setup, whose demise would severely affect the U.S. economy, was not threatened by Iraq's change of currency it would accept for the sale of its oil, then doubt away. There were no WMDs. Weapons inspectors said as much. So tell me in your own words, based on facts, why war crimes were visited on the country and people of Iraq if not to protect the petrodollar setup.

And here's a pretty good article that can fill in the gaps you're missing in your attempt to figure out why the sale of oil in anything other than the U.S. dollar would be harmful to the U.S. economy, and the reason for invading Iraq. It's not complicated at all. Why do you think that the dollar was reinstated as the currency for Iraq's oil after the illegal invasion? And if you have a problem with the author, explain why.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ENG401A.html

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Here's a pretty good way to explain to you the unfortunate situation that requires the U.S. to defend its petrodollar setup with military force:

Imagine this:

You are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.
This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As its debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/173-sovereign/30447.html

Do you get it now? Or are you going to maintain your idea that it's just a coincidence that when Iraq decided to accept another currency for its oil, THAT'S when the specter of WMDs became a concern--even though inspectors told the war hawks that there's nothing there?

 

I've already explained ad nauseum in my own words why I think your earlier sources are limited (they're way out of their fields,their method of analysis is intuitive and non-empirical , and they don't take relevant variables into account), why the presence of WMDs was irrelevant, and why the United States visited war crimes "on the country and people of Iraq if not to protect the petrodollar setup." . When the 1% rule called for virtual certainty, the perception that there was a chance of WMDs which Saddam could slip to terrorists was enough to take action. The fact that he created ambiguity on the matter for purposes of preserving the appearance of strength with domestic and regional actors (i.e., Iran and the Kurds) did him in. I understand completely why the sale of oil in currencies other than the dollar would pose a real problem for the U.S. economy,, but I 'm skeptical that it will happen overnight on a large scale. There's reluctance to change a system that's been in place for so long..In order for OPEC to price oil in another currency, it would need to set its own price, as opposed to relying on the benchmark prices that are set in the free market - a practice OPEC has worked two decadesto avoid. And I doubt that the dollar would be affected that much even if OPEC did switch its oil pricing to another currency. OPEC sells about $1.5 billion worth of oil per day, compared to over twice that much that changes hands daily in world currency markets. I understand what you're saying about Iraq. I accept the analyses of the sources I mentioned above,.

 

You thought the sources I provided were basing their statements on intuition and were non-empirical? You have shown nothing to disprove their facts concerning Iraq's decision to switch currencies for oil sales and what it would mean for the U.S. economy. Instead you have offered the intuition of your own sources who state that the reason for the illegal invasion was that there was a perception that their was a chance that there were WMDs which Saddam could slip to terrorists. Now, despite the fact that weapons inspectors found no WMDs, you nevertheless choose to accept the intuitive nature of the official narrative you've provided. You also claim that the ambiguity Hussein created in order to present an appearance of strength is what did him in. That statement is total bullshit in light of the fact that two teams of weapons inspectors went in and found nothing. So . . .

Do you also find it a coincidence that in the months leading up to the invasion of Libya, Gaddafi was talking about creating a currency based on the Gold Dinar which would have been backed by gold?

 

That Iraq decided to switch currencies for oil sales is certainly a fact. That alone would not be devastating for the U.S. economy unless the other nations followed suit. I have chosen to follow analyses by respected experts on international politics, published in peer reviewed journals. They, of course, could be wrong. You keep citing the fact that weapons inspectors found no WMDs, but that has nothing to do with the perception of U.S. decision makers that they might have existed. I've explained the limitations of your sources and theri "facts". You seem to be obsessed with this issue. I've decided to end the discussion, because it's getting to be pretty repetitious.

 

Your appeal to an authority source who states that the reason for the illegal invasion was a perception that their was a chance that there were WMDs which Saddam could slip to terrorists is also an appeal to intuition.

Also, other nations have followed suit. I asked you if you believed it was a coincidence that in the months leading up to the invasion of Libya, Gaddafi was ready to create a currency based on the Gold Dinar which would have been backed by gold. You didn't answer. And Iran now wants to accept euros instead of dollars for its oil trade. Oh, and Syria made the decision to dump the dollar, too. Do you see a pattern here? I sure do.

It's funny that you would accuse me of being obsessed with this issue. I mean, here you are running right beside me. Funny. It's just a discussion.

I'm considering your comment that no evidence of WMDs has nothing to do with the perception of U.S. decision-makers that they might have existed. Really? You'll have to explain your reasoning, or the reasoning of those who convinced you that that makes any sense.

 

I read through all the numbered things and looked for the part where he said he will take care of the injured vets. (Not sure if that will happen but it's more likely than many other things you gave long paragraphs to.
I had a small list of similar things I was gonna mention just to show your bias. But after reading this post I quoted I get it. You just want to bitch. That's fine I may have done the same thing had hillary won. Not likely. I mean I am a big enough person to point out good things from even people I despise (kind of like I have done with trump for the last few weeks) but now that I know you only want to highlight everything in a negative light I at least know not to waste my time with any of this.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Something that came up with a few Trumpets was that Hillary would be a hawk and War monger and now the person put forward for Secretary of Defence is called ‘Mad Dog’ [/SIZE]

 

Not one thing can I think of to say good about him ,either.

 

I guess you like the people serving our country getting shit health care. I just lost any respect I might have had for you.

 

That is ok. MeAgain has my respect.