Rethinking is very much needed. Confused thinking and obfuscation will only retard solidarity and cause more pain.

The media, academics, and politicians often speak and act as if government economic policies can or will “solve” or “end” or “overcome” capitalism’s crises. They don’t. They never have. The often-cited counter-example, FDR’s New Deal program in the 1930s, failed to get the US out of the Great Depression. World War 2 finally did that. Government economic policies targeted at crises are mostly secondary, weak sideshows. The main event is the intrinsic relationship between capitalism and its crises. Public attention is directed to the sideshows; we are distracted from the main event.

Crises are internal mechanisms of capitalism as a system. Capitalism is prone to recurring “bubbles” (uncontrolled speculations in real assets or financial instruments, excessive investment in productive capacity, etc.) that can threaten its survival. Thus, it has evolved crises (rising unemployment, bankruptcies, foreclosures) to “correct” its bubbles. Today, for example, after years of out-of-control lending and an unsustainable housing industry bubble, a crisis corrects those excesses by wiping out billions in debts, collapsing home prices, and so on. In the late 1990s, after years of out-of-control stock market speculations and unsustainable stock prices, a crisis in 2000 corrected those excesses by collapsing stock prices. In both examples, the corrections entailed the mass suffering associated with unemployment, bankruptcies (especially of small and medium-sized businesses), fiscal crises that cut public services, reduced pension and other social funds, and so on.

The capitalist system’s method of self-healing is crisis. When one of its recurring bubbles bursts, wealth is destroyed, people are fired, and production facilities are closed in a downward spiral of contraction. Eventually, the increasingly desperate unemployed, underemployed, and the still employed who fear job loss accept lower wages and fewer benefits. Likewise, bankrupt or downsized enterprises dump idle machinery onto the second-hand market, rent less space, buy fewer inputs, do less advertising, etc. The costs of equipment, space, materials, and ads then drop alongside the falling wages and reduced benefits. Costs will fall until businesses see profits in once again hiring workers and resuming production. The crisis has then done its job. The recovery starts, and capitalism begins its climb to the next bubble when the whole cycle repeats.

Government policies over the last two centuries of capitalism’s ascendancy have neither ended nor replaced crises as the system’s method for correcting capitalist excesses. Nor have government policies prevented such excesses from recurring. The two most recent excesses (the 1990s stock market bubble and the 2004-7 real estate/credit bubble) and resulting two crises prove that. Capitalism keeps generating excesses followed by crises followed by excesses. That is how the system works.

Government activities during crises typically serve three major purposes. Social welfare policies ease or at least make a show of easing mass suffering while the crisis proceeds to correct the previous excesses. Second, financial policies stimulate and regulate private enterprises and also bail out those firms whose imminent failure could jeopardize the system; such policies may lessen the extremes of the crisis as it proceeds to correct the previous excesses. Third, government statements blame the excesses, the crisis, and the suffering on “causes” other than the internal, routine workings of the capitalist system. Conservative officials stress that (1) mass suffering is the price “we must pay” to correct past excesses that they blame on workers or government or both and (2) “we should rely” on private business (freed of government- or worker-imposed constraints) to overcome those excesses. Liberal officials press to alleviate mass suffering associated with the crisis while insisting that (1) past excesses were caused by “greedy bad apples” and “unregulated” markets and (2) government interventions will overcome the current crisis and prevent future crises. Criticism of capitalism as a system is impossible — literally unthinkable — for either side.

Government policies are mostly window-dressing for the painful cycles of capitalism’s inherent instability. At best, they soften the sharper edges of crises. Because capitalists oppose changing or even questioning the system, recurring crises are left as the main instrument to correct recurring excesses. Capitalists render government policies impotent by using the profits they take from their enterprises directly (lobbying, bribes, etc.) or indirectly (public relations). Politicians dependent on the support of capitalists show “concern” for mass suffering in crises while they limit what the government actually does to the three side shows listed above. Predictably, government policies never get to the root problem of crises.

That problem is the capitalist system with its profound, built-in tensions. Inside all enterprises, endless struggles between workers and capitalists provoke decisions (e.g., over wages and benefits) leading to crises. Conflicts between boards of directors and shareholders provoke decisions (e.g., over investments) that contribute to crises. Market competition among enterprises provoke decisions (e.g., over outsourcing to sweatshops) that shape crises. Capitalism as an economic system structures internal conflicts among its participants that repeatedly generate excesses and crises.

One obvious response to crises would be to question the capitalist system that produces and reproduces them. That leads logically to evaluating alternative economic systems. Might reorganizing enterprises so workers became their own collective employers help to overcome the instability imposed by capitalism? Might local, regional, and/or national economic planning by democratically accountable agencies end the ways market competition produces bubbles and busts? Might replacing private property (contesting corporations and their shareholders) with a system of collective, socially accountable property help reduce economic excesses and crises?

Far from answering these key questions, most crisis discussions ignore them. They remain taboo because (and so long as) capitalists have the incentive and the resources to sustain their ban on questioning the system. Thus, pundits, politicians, and professors keep acting as if these were long-settled matters, as if no alternative to capitalism exists or is worth considering. Lacking the courage to question the system, they keep government policies from becoming more than impotent window-dressing.

Yet capitalism’s own crisis undermines its taboos. The numbers and social influence of capitalism’s critics are again growing. The system’s injustices, material wastes, and immense human costs provoke the questioning and the criticism that can identify changes needed finally to break the cycle of excess and crisis. The dialectic of contradiction, that old mole, besets capitalism anew.

Rick Wolff is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. He is the author of New Departures in Marxian Theory (Routledge, 2006) among many other publications. Be sure to check out Rick Wolff’s new documentary film on the current economic crisis, Capitalism Hits the Fan, at http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com.

What we have is a blended for of economics which is primarily the result of laws which have been placed over time to favor corporations and the class of people we refer to as plutocrats. This is not capitalism and it could readily be called socialism or anything you feel catches your fancy.

Look at Wall Street. The purpose of investment is to provide capital or funding for capital investment to for entrepreneural ventures. So far so good. But that’s not what it is. It is a Ponzi scheme of derivatives and the like which are not meant to invest in new ideas which produce jobs, but to simply exploit the loop holes that the law has provided to capture on unearned wealth from people and resources that actually produce wealth.

Is that capitalism? Again, I don’t think capitalism is an ideology because there are no believers (and without believers there is no ideology). One who truly believes in free markets would not need laws to favor them over all others.

Running to another “ism” doesn’t correct this. That’s why the problem must be understood. What we have is ending. It will be a long, in some cases, journey to a time which pre-dates fossil but it is on its way.

Re-thinking, rather than rehashing phony ideologies, is called for if we, humans, are to weather this massive “storm”.

With your closed minded dogmatism the World-Left won’t go anywhere.

So yes !! We need Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Alexander The Great, Greek Philosophy, Roman Philosophy and all the knowledge that we can use in order to work within reality (An evil world, full of evil people) in order to help the world transcend from capitalism toward the next stage in political systems (Socialism)

Dogma, and closed-mindedness is a thing of right wing conservatives, and not a thing of Lenin, Hugo Chavez, Trotsky and the great social-reformers of this world.

Even Hugo Chavez claimed to be a reader of Fredrich Nietzsche, i saw him on an interview praising the book “Beyond Good and Evil” from F. Nietzsche.

And Bob Avakian (The president of the Revolutionary Party of USA) said that we should not be dogmatic, dictatorial but open minded and democratic and we should let capitalists give us advises and we should even read capitalist books and capitalist thinkers like Ayn Rand, John Stuart Mill, John Locke etc.

So don’t be dogmatic, dogma leads to dictatorship and to Stalinism. Besides if you are socialist and you read a capitalist book and you wear a John Mccain T-shirt nobody is gonna point a gun at you. So be free to read, do and say whatever you want, that the essence of socialism is freedom, not dogma, dictatorship and Stalinist-authoritarianism.

.

To reach the right ovary you need a golden penis. I’m sorry to tell you that you are too late and a Saudi Businessman has already purchased the golden penis with his $$$:

[A Saudi businessman has purchased what is being described by the Canadian seller as the world's most expensive adult novelty item -- a solid 18-carat gold penis enlarger worth nearly 50,000 dollars.
X4 Labs, a Canadian manufacturer of medical devices, received the unorthodox request and recruited a Montreal custom jeweler to help with its design and construction.
"This male health accessory is the most expensive traction device ever produced and will likely become a historical benchmark for the adult novelty industry," the company said in a statement. His glitzy new penis enlarger, however, is being encrusted at his request with 40 diamonds and several rubies and is to be delivered by armored car in October, said Rick Oh, X4 Labs co-owner.]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/277131

Stop the nonsense. Do something more productive. Why don’t you go into the street and demonstrate day and night to bring your killers, the soldiers, home? This can be achieved by demonstration and not working one day per week until the goal is achieved. They may produce more ‘genius’ when they are not under pressure. The United States – Israel – Britain, Canada and NATO with Barak Obama supervision are killing Muslims every day in large numbers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine and elsewhere in order to speed up the establishment of ‘world government’, according to protocol.

STOP THE NONSENSE AND ACT NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

what we become belies the premise that wigglers are equal. I postualate that no wiggler is edentical with any other; some [perhaps only 000001%] being of superior quality; engendering, let’s say, pasteur, aristotle, bethoven, galileo, newton, einstein, bohr, fermi, sakharov, faraday, et al.

unfortunately for us, better or best wigglers among hundreds in just one ejaculation [sperm] seldom reach the ovaries, because they are so few in numbers or the ‘stupid/bad’ majority gangs up on the brightest minute minority or whatever.
some other ‘idiots’ get there first and we obtain bush, manson, madoff, yabotinsky, ribbentropf, stalin, et al.

now a new important q. arises, Cld an ‘idiot’ possess the best wiggler ever and if reaches an ovary or just the right ovary and, voila, we obtain a new mozart or liszt?
cld a wiggler of a genius in wrong ovum produce an ‘idiot’. I guess it cld!
in any case wigglers produce short[er], tall[er], smart[er] clazi[er], sicker, healthier people.
and healthy, wise, famous, talented people can produce a ‘stupid’, ‘sick’, ‘lazy’, etc., child.

conclusion: So, since we all swim in one genetic pool, which causes [largely] all that befalls us, why are we excluded from swimming in one living pool?
the words undr single quotes denote human categories and not nature’s.
that’s the best nature cld do for us. The problem is in the main that man is the worst enemy of man. And had been for at least 10K yrs. Person was not enemy of person before that time. tnx

We’ve been over this before, but…

Nietzsche, like Marx, recognizes that the individual inherits particular things from the historical moment of the culture (e.g., the prevailing ideas and, particularly, the language and ruling metaphors). Thus for Nietzsche the individual is not totally free of all context. However, the appropriate response to this is not, as in Marx, the development of a class consciousness, a solidarity with other citizens and an imperative to help history along by committing oneself to the class war alongside other proletarians, but rather, in the best and brightest spirits, a call for a heightened sense of individuality, of one’s radical separation from the herd, of one’s final responsibility to one’s own most fecund creativity.

Nietzsche’s thought represents the fullest nineteenth-century European affirmation of a Romantic vision of the self as radically individualistic, and is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Marx’s views of the self as socially and economically determined.

Cheers

So in this sense Marx even supported the capitalist-class in their overthrowing of Feudalism, besides no system is “evil” perse its just that humans and whole societies evolve thru time toward more humane and rational systems as a result of evolution.

Our Representative-Republican (Capitalist) systems is better than Feudalism, we should support capitalism and this real-reality as part of evolution, and not negate it or emotionally fight it. We should live within this capitalist system, take part in it, and at the same time push with our Nietzschean Will to Power to the spreading of new values more advanced values and to destroy with our will (Will to Power) the current capitalist values.

So that the lower-class of today (Workers) will become the Masters and Superman class of tomorrow.

So don’t negate Nietzsche, and don’t take Marx as a dogma, and don’t be Marxist, because even Marx said that he was not Marxist.

.

.

The green party, Ralph Nader, Socialist Party of USA, Socialist equality party, workers party, The Labor Party, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, green party, Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Zinn, Ray Mcgovern, David Ray Griffin, Noam Chomsky bob bar, Cynthia Mckinney, James Petras, Michael Hudson, Bill Van Auken (President of the Socialist Equality Party), Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, Juan Cole, Seymor Hersh, Chalmers Johnson, Alan Maass, Michael Parenti, Alexander Cockburn, Paul Craig Roberts, Tariq Ali, Jimmy Carter, Chris Hedges, and many other americans who are moralists, humanists, altruists, and rational human beings.

However this is just an idea in my mind, a work in progress, its is still a utopia and a dream, not realized and materialized yet. I still have to propose this idea to some of the leaders in the US progressive and humanist anti-zionism, fascism, anti-war movement. It will be a United Front in solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution, The Iraqui Revolution, The Palestinian Revolution, The Iran government, The Evo Morales Revolution, the Cuban anti-Imperialist revolution and all movements, liberation churches, and just anybody who has good intentions and morality in this world.

.

Though I concur with your interest in Nietzche, he aint no Marxist.

Shabnam, some day, soon, we’ll all realize that these “isms” and contributed in untold ways to what is about to happen, but the damage is done and it will be sheer survival that will be before us. Think about drinkable water, massive epidemics due to climate change, food shortages due to reduced transporation, and fossil for agribusinesses.

This is on the near horizon. As cities such as Detroit right-size (contract) as more “tent” cities are created, as unemployment reaches 30/40% and continues upwards…

The old enemies of the people will be historical data points, and little more.

http://www.payvand.com/news/09/aug/1093.html

STOP FIGHTING OVER PETTY THINGS. EVERYONE MUST BE UNITED AGAINST THE COMMON ENEMIES OF ALL.

Down with Zionism
Down with Rothschilds
Down with Soros
Down with Adelsons
Down with Imperilaism

This is why i think that it is necessary for a political leaders to be active-nihilists, tragic heroes, and to have the enough will to power, and strength of independence like Nietzsche talked about “Free spirits” to crush and destroy the racist values of this society in order to transcend toward a leftist paradigm like Rafael Correa is doing in Ecuador.

So i think that one of the major problems of most political leaders in both the right and the left is that they don’t have the necessary strength of courage and will to power to confront the real government (Corporations and rich people). Even Bush. Bush was not really evil, but weak to confront the real rulers of USA, and that’s why he did all that he did (The illegal wars, 9-11, Patriot Act, torture, etc.)

Here is a review of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” which is a manifesto to gain strength and courage:

A superman doesn’t have any thing to do with political, military and abusive power, like the Nazis. Nazism and Fascism are elements of capitalism, of corporate exploitation, abuse, racism, chauvinism and evil, they twisted Nietzsches writtings (Specially Nietzsche’s sister who was a Nazi).

But really, a great man, a Superman (Ubermensch) is this type of revolutionary, rebel, anarchist, totally free individual who has no laws, and authorities over him, he also doesn’t accept the morality and conservative laws of the current regimen, in fact he tries to influence others by breaking the old values in order to teach to other members of his society his new values. A superman would be a revolutionary reformer of new laws, new values.

My friend, you can find out more about Nietzsche’s superman in the book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” which even could be used in today’s United States, a country oppressed by 2 corporate capitalist parties (Democrats and Republicans) and where US citizens feel that there is literally no hope, no liberation out of this hell of our kleptocratic Democrat-Republican 1 party monster.

The main thesis of Thus Spoke Zarathustra is the fact that humans have literally 2 options in this existance, either to accept the current reality and values and succumb to a state of passive-nihilist resignation, or to be an architect of our own destiny, inserted in this reality as a active-tragic nihilist (A destroyer of old values, and creators of new values)

Here is a short review of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, one of Nietzsche’s best works about the superman:

http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/zara.htm

Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra is probably his most famous work as well as being the work least popular among readers. This is probably partially because it is written in fictional form. Zarathustra is well designed to frustrate twentieth century conservative bourgeoise philosophy of the analytic tradition, which seeks conceptual clarity at the expense of rhetorical form, indeed often insisting on the separation between a concept and the vehicle of its expression. Moreover, the utilization of the work by the Nazi war effort did little to improve the books reception in the Anglo-American world.

The book is philosophically interesting, in part because it does employ literary tropes and genres to philosophical effect. Zarathustra makes frequent use of parody, particularly of the Platonic dialogues and the New Testament. This strategy immediately places Zarathustra on a par with Socrates and Christ–and as a clear alternative to them. The erudite allusions to works spanning the Western philosophical and literary traditions also play a philosophical role, for they both reveal Nietzsche’s construct of the tradition he inherited and flag points at which he views it as problematic.

Much of the book consists of Zarathustra’s speeches on philosophical themes. These often obscure the plotline of the book. The book does involve a plot, however, which includes sections in which Zarathustra is “off-stage,” in private reflection, and some in which he seems extremely distressed about the way his teaching and his life are going. Zarathustra attempts to instruct the crowds and the occasional higher independent man that he encounters in the book; but his most important teaching is his education of the reader, accomplished through demonstrative means. Zarathustra teaches by showing.

Zarathustra stands in he tradition of the German Bildungsroman, in which a character’s development toward spiritual maturity is chronicled. Zarathustra can be seen as a paradigm for the modern, spiritually sensitive individual, one who grapples with nihilism, the contemporary crisis in values in the wake of the collapse of the Christian worldview that assigned humanity a clear place in the world.

In the popular imagination, Nietzsche’s idea of the Ubermensch is one of his most memorable and significant ideals. However, the concept of the Ubermensch is actually discussed little in the book. The topic is the theme of the first speech in “Zarathustra’s Prologue,” which he presents to a crowd gathered for a circus. The audience interprets Zarathustra as a circus barker and the speech as an introduction to a performance by a tightrope walker. The concept is mentioned recurrently in Part I as something of a refrain to Zarathustra’s speeches. But the word Ubermensch rarely occurs after that.

Additionally, the notion of the Ubermensch is presented in more imagistic than explanatory terms. The Ubermensch, according to Zarathustra, is continually experimental, willing to risk all for the enhancement of humanity. The Ubermensch aspires to greatness, but Zarathustra does not formulate any more specific characterization of what constitutes the enhancement of humanity or greatness. He does, however, contrast the Ubermensch to the last man, the human type whose sole desire is personal comfort and happiness. Such a person is the “last man” quite literally, incapable of the desire that is required to create beyond oneself in any form, including that of having children.

Zarathustra’s opening speech, besides proposing the Ubermensch as the ideal for humanity also places emphasis on this world as opposed to any future world. In particular, Zarathustra urges that human beings reassess the value of their own bodies, indeed their embodiment. For too long, dreaming of the afterlife, Western humanity has treated the body as a source of sin and error. Zarathustra, in contrast, insists that the body is the ground of all meaning and knowledge, and that health and strength should be recognized and sought as virtues which is related to Marxism and Feuerbarch’s slogan of “You are what you eat” (Remember how right-wingers despise reality, economics, and physiology)

Another prominent theme in Zarathustra is its emphasis on the relative importance of will. In part, this emphasis follows Schopenhauer in claiming that will is more fundamental to human beings than knowledge. However, Nietzsche stresses the will’s attempt to enhance its power, whereas he views Schopenhauer as placing greater stress on the will’s efforts at self preservation. Nietzsche’s famous conception of will to power makes one of its few published appearances in Zarathustra.

Much of the plot of Zarathustra concerns his efforts to formulate his idea of eternal recurrence. At times, the idea possesses him in the form of visions and dreams. At others, he seems reluctant to state it categorically or to accept its implications. During a particularly despairing moment, he shudders at the implication of his doctrine that “the rabble,” the bourgeoise people who comprise most of the human race, will also recur. The fact that Zarathustra objects to the recurrence of the rabble is indicative of Nietzsche’s preference of a system in which we would be architects of our own destiny. Consistently, Nietzsche and Zarathustra contend that human beings are not equal and clones. Nietzsche objects to the bourgeoise conservative movements of his era in favor of more participative, libertarian and democratic forms of social organization that would place economic-control in the hands of each individual, instead of a few corrupt corporate crooks and burocrats like representative bourgeoise democracies (our current system).

The problem is control over scarce resources.

You have such little concern over the fagility of this planet, the life that exists, and the rather inconsequentiality of human life to the larger interdependency, I can only conclude that YOU represent the PROBLEM.

Because all of this is happening in fits and starts (diminishing availability of fossil) it affords those of your ilk, DB, to ignore the facts and to go after your hatred, not of Zionists – agreement for that poisonous ideology and their preditory creation – Israel – with Jews. And so there is no other issue for you, and you will turn all else into this one personal discourse.

Aren’t we all a little sick and tired of going on and on about Judaism and Judeoism or whatever the f*ck you want to dissect. It’s sick. Peole are dying and starving and we, American taxpayers are responsible and the chickens are coming home to roost in spades and what do you have to say about this Deadbeat – it’s all about Zionism.

What could tragically pass for intelligence is a glorification of a personal hatred….

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/
The list doesn’t even cover a complete month.

and

U.S. commander says Taliban have Afghan momentum
Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:19pm

* Violence reaches record levels since Taliban’s ousting
* Attacks becoming increasingly brazen

KABUL, Aug 10 (Reuters) – The Taliban have advanced out of traditional strongholds in Afghanistan’s south and east, gaining momentum as they moved into the north and west, the top U.S. and NATO commander said in an interview on Monday.

U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, who will soon present an assessment of the war, said the resurgent Taliban have forced a change of tactics on foreign forces and warned that record casualty figures would remain high for some months.

“It’s a very aggressive enemy right now,” McChrystal told The Wall Street Journal newspaper (online.wsj.com/) in an interview in Kabul. “We’ve got to stop their momentum, stop their initiative. It’s hard work.”

Violence across Afghanistan this year had already reached its worst levels since the Taliban were ousted by U.S.-led Afghan forces in 2001 and escalated dramatically after major offensives were launched in southern Helmand province in July.

Attacks have also become increasingly brazen, with suicide bombers and gunmen attacking government buildings and Afghan and foreign military targets in the east and south.

At least three Afghan police and two civilians were killed in a strike by gunmen and suicide bombers on government buildings near Kabul on Monday, 10 days before a presidential election.

With thousands of U.S. Marines and British soldiers aiming to push Taliban fighters out of populated areas in Helmand, July quickly became the war’s deadliest month for foreign troops.

At least 41 U.S. troops were killed, easily surpassing the previous highest monthly toll of 26 in September last year. At least 71 foreign troops in total were killed in July.

Britain has suffered its worst ground combat casualties in a generation, with 22 killed in July, raising questions about whether its troops are adequately supplied, how long they will be in Afghanistan, or whether they should be there at all.

The Journal said McChrystal’s remarks showed he believed the Taliban were “winning” and had gained “the upper hand”, but McChrystal’s aides said the paper overstated the general’s views, and he believed the insurgents had difficulties of their own.

“He did say that NATO forces are facing an aggressive enemy employing complex tactics, but during the course of the interview he also observed that insurgents in Afghanistan face their own problems in terms of popularity, cohesiveness and ability to sustain morale and fighting capacity,” said McChrystal’s spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Edward Sholtis.

There are now about 101,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, with U.S. numbers at about 62,000. Washington has been pouring in thousands of extra troops this year, in part to help secure Aug. 20 presidential and provincial council elections.

Washington plans to increase the number of its troops to about 68,000 by year’s end, more than double the 32,000 it had stationed in Afghanistan at the end of 2008. McChrystal may ask for more after he submits a review of strategy in coming weeks.

McChrystal wants a “very significant expansion” of the Afghan army and police, the Journal said.

He planned to push more troops into Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban adjacent to Helmand, and to send troops from sparsely populated areas to more densely settled areas.

(Writing by Paul Tait; Editing by David Fox)

and as I said here earlier, one of our mad generals stated that the UK will be in Afghaistan for the next 40 years. No lessons have been learnt. Last man standing…….

Here is where Lester Brown is wrong and once again falls prey to the “dwindling supply” canard. The dwindling supply canard was also being promoted by the “War for Oil” faction who desired obscure the influence Zionism played in the current Iraqi quagmire.

The real cause of the price rise was SPECULATION in the commodities markets and NOT due to a lack of supply. In fact the Saudi were INCREASING their productions in an environment where oil prices were rising. The fact that price was not in sync with supply indicates that there were other factor driving up the price. The major factor for the price rise in addition to speculation was the WAR IN IRAQ.

The “Environmentalist”, neo-Mathusians like YOU, and apologist for domestic Zionism looking to blame the oil companies jumped on the Peak Oil bandwagon. Brown’s explanation is clearly unconvincing. Which is why I requested you to support your position.

Also Max the problem as I stated in not “Peak Oil” which at best is a weak attempt SCARE people into action. The problem is as always… CONTROL of the resources and HOW those resource are used. I agree there should be a reduction of carbon emission but that is not going to happen until the biggest polluters — which is capitalist production — is brought under control. The best way for that to happen is conversation techniques and Max you are the one who is living in a fantasy. If India and China chooses to improve their living standards they will and you CANNOT deny them. What is needed is production that is democratized whereby then concerns of waste and pollution can be brought under control because said production will meet the needs of the people rather than Capitalist.

Thus the problem is not LACK or dwindling resources or SCARCITY. the problem is CONTROL.