Ray Peat On Donald Trump

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
People in the US have only been doing well because the third world was doing terribly. What do you think the petrodollar is based off if not stolen oil? Who do you think makes your phones and trinkets?
Last time I checked it was the West that funded the oil wells in the Middle East. Also through their illegal cartel we are paying a much higher price than we should for that "stolen" oil.

Our phones and trinkets should be made in the US. The fact that they are not is what is hurting us
 

managing

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,262
Can you point out which members are paid trolls? I'd like to avoid them.

You?

Which countries have unreciprocated protectionist barriers against American G&S? We should do something about that.

China, Germany, Japan and many, most others

Who is making big money selling out our great country? That ought not be allowed.

Hillary Clinton, corporate america.

What countries are selling child and/or slave made products into the US? I don't want to buy those.

Half of asia and central america amoung others.

Did you overlook the enviromental dumping being employed by countries selling into america for the purpose of gaining a trading advantage. That ought not be allowed too right?
Alright, I'll bite. Three guesses who signs the checks I get for trolling you. If you get it right, I'll go away and never bother you again. :muted: Uh oh, my boss is going to be pissed.

As for China, Germany, and Japan, among many, most others, should we get into a tariff war with them, or develop agreements not to have barriers both ways?

A quick Google search says Hillary and Bill are worth 30-50 million. That's a lot of money to most of us. But its pretty transparent where it comes from. I've seen her tax returns after all. Mostly speaking engagements. Which, for a former President and/or Sec of State, the fees are pretty good. I'd like that gig. Can you give me some examples of things, American things, they've sold off to become wealthy? Their tax returns don't reveal anything like that. Probably lied on their taxes.

As for corporate America . . . can you elaborate? That seems pretty big.

Which half of asia and central America? The list of countries with significant child labor for example doesn't seem to include central America at all. And only one from Asia:
Worst Countries For Child Labor
Hey, I've got an idea! Somebody ought to start an organization that goes around the world and audits labor to ensure fair and humane practices! They could also audit environmental practices! Of course, this would all require an international treaty . . .
 

managing

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,262
The antidote to globalism is fair trade. What we have now is not fair or free trade. Its a scam to remove all economic disparities between the countries at the expense of the richer nations. The cold hard data does show that the middle class is getting squeezed and that real wages have stagnated. People in the US are doing much worse while the third world has greatly benefited. If you believe in globalism you have some interesting bedfellows such as David Rockefellar and George Soros. I would rather stand with Ray Peat.
Before I respond, I just want to thank you for being articulate and well-informed. Its been a pleasure debating you. I mean it, no sarcasm.

You are absolutely right that nothing ever called a "Free Trade Agreement" has actually ever really been a free trade agreement. Every country has complex issues and negotiates these agreements over the course of months. A little give here, a little take there. They ought to have automatic renegotiation clauses. We always have protected a lot of things, like corn and sugar cane and trucking. Not saying we shouldn't.

The middle class is absolutely getting squeezed by a decline in real wages. However, that is not necessarily a decline in buying power or quality of life. The one area where economic measures saying QoL is declining is access to/quality of healthcare. My brother makes less than my father made. But he can buy a new computer that would have been unaffordable to my dad. Globalism is a double-edged sword in that scenario. The reason real wages can decline, while buying power and QoL increase is because economics is not a zero sum game. Third world economies, especially the BRIKs are growing much faster than our economy. But all are growing. The decline in real wages comes from a smaller and smaller few taking a greater and greater share of that growth, thus limiting the growth for the rest of us to a rate lower than the overall economic growth.

But the real evil of globalism comes from the fact that the person who assembled that computer is making peanuts. This, I am certain, is what RP dislikes about globalism. And I agree. This is what I am calling "immature" globalism. I stand with RP on this as well. But I also look past it. Third world countries buying power and QoL have risen dramatically in recent decades. As I pointed out before, economies are not zero sum--it hasn't been at our expense, in fact, we too benefit when BRIK and other economies grow. Somebody IS eating our lunch. But that isn't "the Chinese" its the oligarchs. The key here is to accelerate the growth of the world economy, not to decelerate the growth of some and accelerate the growth of others. This latter approach results in less overall growth for all. Looking ahead to mature globalism, like I said before, you end up with a situation where there is rarely a reason to manufacture something far away. There is a long way from here to there, I'll admit.

As for Soros and Rockefeller, I know the names, don't know much about what they advocate. I don't really care who I stand with though. I've always been one to seek out the different out of curiosity.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Before I respond, I just want to thank you for being articulate and well-informed. Its been a pleasure debating you. I mean it, no sarcasm.

You are absolutely right that nothing ever called a "Free Trade Agreement" has actually ever really been a free trade agreement. Every country has complex issues and negotiates these agreements over the course of months. A little give here, a little take there. They ought to have automatic renegotiation clauses. We always have protected a lot of things, like corn and sugar cane and trucking. Not saying we shouldn't.

The middle class is absolutely getting squeezed by a decline in real wages. However, that is not necessarily a decline in buying power or quality of life. The one area where economic measures saying QoL is declining is access to/quality of healthcare. My brother makes less than my father made. But he can buy a new computer that would have been unaffordable to my dad. Globalism is a double-edged sword in that scenario. The reason real wages can decline, while buying power and QoL increase is because economics is not a zero sum game. Third world economies, especially the BRIKs are growing much faster than our economy. But all are growing. The decline in real wages comes from a smaller and smaller few taking a greater and greater share of that growth, thus limiting the growth for the rest of us to a rate lower than the overall economic growth.

But the real evil of globalism comes from the fact that the person who assembled that computer is making peanuts. This, I am certain, is what RP dislikes about globalism. And I agree. This is what I am calling "immature" globalism. I stand with RP on this as well. But I also look past it. Third world countries buying power and QoL have risen dramatically in recent decades. As I pointed out before, economies are not zero sum--it hasn't been at our expense, in fact, we too benefit when BRIK and other economies grow. Somebody IS eating our lunch. But that isn't "the Chinese" its the oligarchs. The key here is to accelerate the growth of the world economy, not to decelerate the growth of some and accelerate the growth of others. This latter approach results in less overall growth for all. Looking ahead to mature globalism, like I said before, you end up with a situation where there is rarely a reason to manufacture something far away. There is a long way from here to there, I'll admit.

As for Soros and Rockefeller, I know the names, don't know much about what they advocate. I don't really care who I stand with though. I've always been one to seek out the different out of curiosity.
I too enjoy your comments, whether you are a paid shill or not:)

I have a different view on what has been sold to us as the benefits of free trade. I looked into this quite a bit before and found that the only way that free trade benefits both countries is when the assumptions of David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage are met. The most critical is that both trading countries have to be at full employment. If so country 1 will focus on only what it does comparatively better and allow country 2 to do what it does comparatively better. That way both countries benefit and there is no trade imbalance that builds up. Unfortunately the developing world is far from full employment. So instead of focusing only on what it does comparatively better and leave the rest to others, it is able to manufacture everything since there is no constraint on available labor. Though this type of trade makes the world cumulatively better off, the country with the higher wages or other competitive disadvantage ends up doing much worse than it would have done without the trade deal. This is what is happening to the US.

I actually asked Paul Krugman this once at a talk he gave and after stumbling for a bit he said eventually both countries reach full employment. With China’s millions of unemployed peasants this could take 20-30 years and by then our country will be a shadow of its former self. In addition to this China and other developing countries have maintained unfair trade barriers and rules while we have opened our markets to them. This is not free trade but rather economic suicide.
 
Last edited:

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
I think Peat is excercising caution in relation to specific opinions on Trump,Peat seems to comment on the current consciousness of the public,what in "general" they currently believe,the zeitgeist.

Is it not a massive bait and switch the topic of trade or the topic of Mexicans? America may have issues in these departments but the real problem is the financial system,the level of fraud is astounding.
I don't follow Trump or American politics religiously but it seems he is not talking about the financial system as much as the above ,this would have me worried,also when you look at his team.

Global trade is back on when they peg currencies of the countries who wish to partake in global trade,the ability of China and Japan to devalue will always "trump" the USA, whatever is produced in USA will be mimicked if not bettered in China,no intellectual property rights will exist in a protectionist styled world.
Keep in mind the Chinese are living their lives on low salaries for what they produce,they are socially adjusted in many areas for this salary, what will you guys do in the USA if your asked to work for similar pay in a factory producing iPhones say?
I believe Trump is behind global trade with currencies pegged?
 

managing

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,262
I too enjoy your comments, whether you are a paid shill or not:)

I have a different view on what has been sold to us as the benefits of free trade. I looked into this quite a bit before and found that the only way that free trade benefits both countries is when the assumptions of David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage are met. The most critical is that both trading countries have to be at full employment. If so country 1 will focus on only what it does comparatively better and allow country 2 to do what it does comparatively better. That way both countries benefit and there is no trade imbalance that builds up. Unfortunately the developing world is far from full employment. So instead of focusing only on what it does comparatively better and leave the rest to others, it is able to manufacture everything since there is no constraint on available labor. Though this type of trade makes the world cumulatively better off, the country with the higher wages or other competitive disadvantage ends up doing much worse than it would have done without the trade deal. This is what is happening to the US.

I actually asked Paul Krugman this once at a talk he gave and after stumbling for a bit he said eventually both countries reach full employment. With China’s millions of unemployed peasants this could take 20-30 years and by then our country will be a shadow of its former self. In addition to this China and other developing countries have maintained unfair trade barriers and rules while we have opened our markets to them. This is not free trade but rather economic suicide.
Its an interesting perspective. I am not sure I entirely accept Ricardo's premise. However, the salience of full employment, or at least something approaching it, is clearly important. Ultimately, you need something approaching wage parity before globalism becomes hyperlocalism. So, full employment will come well before that.

I did some quick googling and found an unemployment rate of 4% for China which is about equal to the US. I found underemployment rate at 12% for China and 14% for US.

Are these reliable figures is my first question?

Second assuming incongruities, and assuming that they drain the more fully employed economy, what would you (or Ricardo) do about that?
 

managing

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,262
I think Peat is excercising caution in relation to specific opinions on Trump,Peat seems to comment on the current consciousness of the public,what in "general" they currently believe,the zeitgeist.

Is it not a massive bait and switch the topic of trade or the topic of Mexicans? America may have issues in these departments but the real problem is the financial system,the level of fraud is astounding.
I don't follow Trump or American politics religiously but it seems he is not talking about the financial system as much as the above ,this would have me worried,also when you look at his team.

Global trade is back on when they peg currencies of the countries who wish to partake in global trade,the ability of China and Japan to devalue will always "trump" the USA, whatever is produced in USA will be mimicked if not bettered in China,no intellectual property rights will exist in a protectionist styled world.
Keep in mind the Chinese are living their lives on low salaries for what they produce,they are socially adjusted in many areas for this salary, what will you guys do in the USA if your asked to work for similar pay in a factory producing iPhones say?
I believe Trump is behind global trade with currencies pegged?
Your pretty much spot on. Its why I am pretty clear that, although RP may like seeing things "shaken up" he clearly isn't saying that Trump will decentralize or humanize control systems.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Its an interesting perspective. I am not sure I entirely accept Ricardo's premise. However, the salience of full employment, or at least something approaching it, is clearly important. Ultimately, you need something approaching wage parity before globalism becomes hyperlocalism. So, full employment will come well before that.

I did some quick googling and found an unemployment rate of 4% for China which is about equal to the US. I found underemployment rate at 12% for China and 14% for US.

Are these reliable figures is my first question?

Second assuming incongruities, and assuming that they drain the more fully employed economy, what would you (or Ricardo) do about that?
That is the problem for US workers. They are put into direct competition for jobs with developing countries and therefore see their wages drop dramatically. I am sure the US citizens would never have supported NAFTA or any other free trade deal if they knew the end result would be wage parity with China.

Unemployment numbers from China, like our numbers, are highly suspect. They have been at 4% for thirty years despite ups and downs in their economy. Also they don't count the 100s of millions of peasants that are not looking for work now but are planned to be moved into the cities over the next few decades.

I dont think I understand your last question? If you mean what should America do in light of this, I think as a first step we need to insist on equal access to Chinese markets or else close them out of our market. Other steps need to be thought through carefully as a trade war is not good for anyone but somehow you have to address the huge advantage China and the rest of developing countries have in terms of labor rates and huge numbers of underutilized workers. Otherwise free trade will continue to hollow out our working class.
 
Last edited:

john3333

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Messages
71
Not only are some Trump voters LGBTphobic, antisemitist, sexist, and racist, but they are also ageist. They said Clinton was too old to run for office even though she's healthier than Trump, who is taking several medications to treat his diseases. Hillary Clinton is tragically one of the best examples of the objectification of women. She was the best and most experienced presidential candidates, but she wasn't sexy enough to win the election.
Hillary Clinton Isn’t Sick. You Are.
 

pboy

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
1,681
i could have come in and within a few days or immediately in most areas done a better job than her, her intentions are no good so whatever experience or whatever is useless, she doesn't really have any clue about true humanitarianism or let alone doing the basic right thing for a small community or group, shes a squrrirely arrogant selfish shadowy person, sorry to say. I think shes sensitive and shows some bit of something, probably she has issues surrounding being violated boundary wise in youth, wasn't necessarily a terrible person, but now has a somewhat get mind at hwoever cost self protective mechanism...you can see something there like shes not all rotten but still does behind the scenes a lot of bad things apparently, or rather puts little to no time or effort into standing out to do the right basic thing, whenever asked about serious flaws or issues she does the Obama thing but in a different way, they get like slow and lulling and depressing like a serotonin we're all victims way of speaking and hope to like pacify the person out instead of showing that they basically are rich and have plenty of energy and awareness of whats really going on and have all these behind the scenes plans and deals and all that
 

zztr

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
295
That is the problem for US workers. They are put into direct competition for jobs with developing countries and therefore see their wages drop dramatically.

The trade problem America has is mainly anti-competitive behavior from other industrialized nations, not cheap labor competition. Most of the stuff about low wage labor competition from China and Mexico is a smoke screen. We can easily afford to lose the low margin industries and jobs that are at play. China primarily *assembles* products. The parts and machinery are generally made elsewhere and China doesn't capture very much of the profit margin. What is killing the US is the loss of the high skill, high margin jobs in industries making the parts and machines, and it's not due to wage gaps. It's due to dirty tricks. The real naughty list on this is countries like Germany, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. We lay out the red carpet in terms of trade for them but in turn they systematically exclude American products and use extra-legal measures to strip America of technology and markets. Japan is a huge problem here. For one specific example, over the years they've used all kinds of arm twisting to take over the high end carbon fiber manufacturing market which was previously American and mostly invented in America. They'd use political arm twisting to get Boeing, for example, to do technology and production transfers to Japan. So now a huge fraction of a Boeing 777 including the carbon fiber wings are made in Japan, because the Japanese government plays hard ball. They colluded with JAL and ANA to threaten to drop Boeing and twist their arms. This works OK for shareholders for a little while, but the end result is no jobs in America and then eventually the loss of entire high margin industries to Asia. Similar patterns played out with the relocation of silicon wafer and chip fab operations to Asia. The issue was never wages. It was organized predation of American industry.

China also pulls a lot of crap to exclude American businesses from China, and steal American intellectual property. Read about how they recently railroaded Uber out of the country after Uber had spent a billion dollars. We don't do anything like that to their companies. (Not that I'm a fan of Uber, but this stuff happens all the time.)

The problem we have is America mostly plays "fair" and maintains an open market, but nobody else does and we get screwed. We need to start twisting arms and playing tit-for-tat. Europe and Asia need to face consequences for screwing American companies, which they do constantly. This happens mostly because so many American politicians are too busy playing global empire to pay attention to things like businesses and trade.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
The trade problem America has is mainly anti-competitive behavior from other industrialized nations, not cheap labor competition. Most of the stuff about low wage labor competition from China and Mexico is a smoke screen. We can easily afford to lose the low margin industries and jobs that are at play. China primarily *assembles* products. The parts and machinery are generally made elsewhere and China doesn't capture very much of the profit margin. What is killing the US is the loss of the high skill, high margin jobs in industries making the parts and machines, and it's not due to wage gaps. It's due to dirty tricks. The real naughty list on this is countries like Germany, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. We lay out the red carpet in terms of trade for them but in turn they systematically exclude American products and use extra-legal measures to strip America of technology and markets. Japan is a huge problem here. For one specific example, over the years they've used all kinds of arm twisting to take over the high end carbon fiber manufacturing market which was previously American and mostly invented in America. They'd use political arm twisting to get Boeing, for example, to do technology and production transfers to Japan. So now a huge fraction of a Boeing 777 including the carbon fiber wings are made in Japan, because the Japanese government plays hard ball. They colluded with JAL and ANA to threaten to drop Boeing and twist their arms. This works OK for shareholders for a little while, but the end result is no jobs in America and then eventually the loss of entire high margin industries to Asia. Similar patterns played out with the relocation of silicon wafer and chip fab operations to Asia. The issue was never wages. It was organized predation of American industry.

China also pulls a lot of crap to exclude American businesses from China, and steal American intellectual property. Read about how they recently railroaded Uber out of the country after Uber had spent a billion dollars. We don't do anything like that to their companies. (Not that I'm a fan of Uber, but this stuff happens all the time.)

The problem we have is America mostly plays "fair" and maintains an open market, but nobody else does and we get screwed. We need to start twisting arms and playing tit-for-tat. Europe and Asia need to face consequences for screwing American companies, which they do constantly. This happens mostly because so many American politicians are too busy playing global empire to pay attention to things like businesses and trade.
I think you are being a bit too reductionist. Its not either/or but both issues and many more. Yes China engages in extremely unfair trade practices and I have said the same, but even if that were solved American workers would still be forced to compete against low wage countries and will have there wages lowered or lose their jobs. You are also describing the China of 20 years ago. They do a lot of high value highly complex manufacturing and are continually moving up the value chain. Much of that technology of course is stolen or coerced from the west but the fact remains is that if things continue we will not have much of a manufacturing base left.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
Last time I checked it was the West that funded the oil wells in the Middle East. Also through their illegal cartel we are paying a much higher price than we should for that "stolen" oil.

Our phones and trinkets should be made in the US. The fact that they are not is what is hurting us

Funny. Last I checked the US was funding terrorists and Dictators or creating them out of thin air to justify attacking middle eastern countries so they could steal their oil and drugs then give the contracts to rebuild the infastructures to their friends in halliburton and in non government NGOs.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
The trade problem America has is mainly anti-competitive behavior from other industrialized nations, not cheap labor competition. Most of the stuff about low wage labor competition from China and Mexico is a smoke screen. We can easily afford to lose the low margin industries and jobs that are at play. China primarily *assembles* products. The parts and machinery are generally made elsewhere and China doesn't capture very much of the profit margin. What is killing the US is the loss of the high skill, high margin jobs in industries making the parts and machines, and it's not due to wage gaps. It's due to dirty tricks. The real naughty list on this is countries like Germany, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. We lay out the red carpet in terms of trade for them but in turn they systematically exclude American products and use extra-legal measures to strip America of technology and markets. Japan is a huge problem here. For one specific example, over the years they've used all kinds of arm twisting to take over the high end carbon fiber manufacturing market which was previously American and mostly invented in America. They'd use political arm twisting to get Boeing, for example, to do technology and production transfers to Japan. So now a huge fraction of a Boeing 777 including the carbon fiber wings are made in Japan, because the Japanese government plays hard ball. They colluded with JAL and ANA to threaten to drop Boeing and twist their arms. This works OK for shareholders for a little while, but the end result is no jobs in America and then eventually the loss of entire high margin industries to Asia. Similar patterns played out with the relocation of silicon wafer and chip fab operations to Asia. The issue was never wages. It was organized predation of American industry.

China also pulls a lot of crap to exclude American businesses from China, and steal American intellectual property. Read about how they recently railroaded Uber out of the country after Uber had spent a billion dollars. We don't do anything like that to their companies. (Not that I'm a fan of Uber, but this stuff happens all the time.)

The problem we have is America mostly plays "fair" and maintains an open market, but nobody else does and we get screwed. We need to start twisting arms and playing tit-for-tat. Europe and Asia need to face consequences for screwing American companies, which they do constantly. This happens mostly because so many American politicians are too busy playing global empire to pay attention to things like businesses and trade.

Why would china allow uber to go there and ruin their taxi business?

Are you kidding when you say America plays fair and other countries play dirty? America is the dirtiest country in the world and yes I'm including south America and corrupt African nations.

How do these countries play dirty? By providing cheap labor that your corporations take advantage off?

The problem is that American corporations and oligarchs have no problem completely screwing over the little guy to increase their profit margin. In fact they're rewarded for it. American wealth hasn't gone down it's been redistributed upwards.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Funny. Last I checked the US was funding terrorists and Dictators or creating them out of thin air to justify attacking middle eastern countries so they could steal their oil and drugs then give the contracts to rebuild the infastructures to their friends in halliburton and in non government NGOs.
That’s quite a truth bomb. But in reality those things you say were not done for the benefit of Americans or our corporations but rather for the goal of elite directed globalization. They know no border. If you doubt it explain why after all the money the US spent first destroying Iraq and then rebuilding it, why is it that China is dominating the oil industry there, Iran is running Iraq as a puppet, and Russia’s influence in the area has never been greater? Who benefited from the wars? Certainly not the US and certainly not Israel. Iran is on its way to a bomb and has sworn to destroy both countries.

“We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

China Reaps Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
That’s quite a truth bomb. But in reality those things you say were not done for the benefit of Americans or our corporations but rather for the goal of elite directed globalization. They know no border. If you doubt it explain why after all the money the US spent first destroying Iraq and then rebuilding it, why is it that China is dominating the oil industry there, Iran is running Iraq as a puppet, and Russia’s influence in the area has never been greater? Who benefited from the wars? Certainly not the US and certainly not Israel. Iran is on its way to a bomb and has sworn to destroy both countries.

“We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

China Reaps Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom

All smoke and mirrors.

If the wars weren't done for the benefits of corporations then why did corporations benefit from it?

"explain why after all the money the US spent first destroying Iraq and then rebuilding it"

"why is it that China is dominating the oil industry there"

War in itself is a moneymaking venture. War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935

The tax money the US spends on wars goes to corporations. The tax money the US spends on rebuilding goes to corporations. Sometimes the same ones. Whether China is benefiting from the Iraq war is irrelevant. What currency are they buying the petrol in? Dollars?

Buying Petrol in dollars I wonder if there's a name for that.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
All smoke and mirrors.

If the wars weren't done for the benefits of corporations then why did corporations benefit from it?

"explain why after all the money the US spent first destroying Iraq and then rebuilding it"

"why is it that China is dominating the oil industry there"

War in itself is a moneymaking venture. War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935

The tax money the US spends on wars goes to corporations. The tax money the US spends on rebuilding goes to corporations. Sometimes the same ones. Whether China is benefiting from the Iraq war is irrelevant. What currency are they buying the petrol in? Dollars?

Buying Petrol in dollars I wonder if there's a name for that.
You originally claimed we went into Iraq to steal their oil. That is clearly not true. We went into Iraq to steal their oil for China. You just don't seem to understand why. The US, after Iraq, was the big loser in the war.

If you only get your news from MSNBC or any other mainstream source you will never understand what is really going on.
China’s Currency on Track to Challenge the U.S.’ Dollar in Oil Markets
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
You originally claimed we went into Iraq to steal their oil. That is clearly not true. We went into Iraq to steal their oil for China. You just don't seem to understand why. The US, after Iraq, was the big loser in the war.

If you only get your news from MSNBC or any other mainstream source you will never understand what is really going on.
China’s Currency on Track to Challenge the U.S.’ Dollar in Oil Markets

It is true. As are the other things I said. We did not go into Iraq to steal their oil for china.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
It is true. As are the other things I said. We did not go into Iraq to steal their oil for china.
It's true because you say it's true. Hmm OK I guess you must be right then.
 

Waynish

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
2,206
@Simonsays @x-ray peat You guys are being too easy on Peat or you misread or misunderstood when he said this:

"Presidents, including Clinton and Obama, have been saying that the US is a post-racist society, and that no remedial federal activity is needed. Now the Democrats have the partisan stimulus to start advocating concrete measures to improve the situation for blacks and other minorities, things that they opposed when they had opportunities."

“Identity politics” has been a powerful way to distract people from their economic interests. As soon as M.L. King made the issue class, rather than race, he was killed. Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion."

"Slavery and the annihilation of the native population were part of the context of their understanding of liberty."

"The Occupy movement was manipulated away from making any demands that would have had the possibility to turn it into a party and gain broad support—much of the 99%, maybe half of the voters—could have seen it as their representative, leaving the other parties to divide the other half. The requirement for consensus allowed many special issues to be heard, but it kept the essential mass demands from being made. The FBI papers that were released under FOIA showed that the powers had identified the leaders at the beginning of the demonstrations, and had snipers ready to eliminate them if they became a threat, but the government organized the police to suppress the movement without having to kill the leaders, and the lack of specific political demands kept it from spreading. Organized action is essential, but I think it has to work like an organism, with learning and thinking integrated with action. Dissent has to be accepted within the movement, to permit the bulk of it to take action, while the dissenters keep working on their issues. Several groups with several demands wouldn’t keep the larger group from succeeding with the goals they have in common, such things as eliminating the absolute power of the ruling class. Julian Assange said “Parties should be fun. They should put the word party back into politics.” The political party should be something integral to life."

I'm very disappointed to read that Peat wrote those things. He's out of touch with what's really going on with the left today. I wonder if he supports the vitriol and violence coming from the left right now. Sigh. Oh well. I like Peat for his views on natural health, not politics.

.

He must be out of touch to some degree based on his age - but these quotes show me more about how not out of touch he is...
For each of the quotes here is why:
1) It's true they've been pushing some racial agenda. Slightly off though... They've been pushing that we should be different than the way we are - which isn't true. People are behaving within their cultures - and the establishment has been pushing an agenda that ignores that. A bit off, but he's right that the rhetoric has been the same through Obama and Clinton (and even Bush to a large degree).
2) This is more in line of what's been happening with "race" -- it has been a useful detractor from the true issues, just like gender politics.
3) I don't see how this isn't a factual statement on its own...
4) We know the government uses its counter-intelligence to manipulate any possibly powerful movement by the people to discredit them. He even followed Assange here!

I was happy to see his politics were more obviously in line with the truth than even his nutrition (because it isn't obvious that any nutritional advice is always true - since the truth there is so complex).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom