Who will be the next world power?

Hey Oni
I see that you have responded to my last post whilst I was in the process of responding to Dronester. Thus making my final comments to him redundant.I have not read your post yet I have simply clicked on "Reply". Rather than read through and then write a "strategic" response I am instead going to take a reactive approach and respond to each paragraph in turn.Let's see how much you and I really do disagree (and how much I can contradict myself with this "freestyle" response tactic....) Fair enough. I think it would have been exceptionally difficult for virtually any "normal" Republican politician to have won the last US presidential election. In my view all but the most outrageously personally charismatic megastar would have been too tarnished by the failings of the previous Republican administration. But that is, as you have stated previously, speculation and opinion on my part.I think that the absolute ideal situation for most large global corporations would have been a competent and successful ideologically minimalist-regulation, low tax, free-market-fundamentalist (inevitably Republican) candidate who had the full popular support of the American people.However given the harsh realities of the situation "they" were probably happy to be rid of the failed and incompetent Bush administration and willing to compromise from the aforementioned ideal by jumping on the Democrat bandwagon. At the time I probably would have gone down the "safer" Clinton route if I had that sort of money, influence and desire for power and profit.But I am not sure how this argument equates to getting a specific 'bad' Republican presidential candidate (i.e. McCain-Palin) nominated so that they will eventually lose to the preferred Democratic candidate.Nor am I convinced that at the presidential nominee stage there is a candidate that is universally preferred by enough corporations to justify the idea that this is the "big business" candidate in the way that you seem to be implying. The interests of different companies and industries are too dispirate and conflicting. All valid points. BUT.....Given the economic climate and the reasoning for the "fiscal stimulus" response, drastically cutting government spending in any area that would result in a major loss of jobs is not going to be very politically intelligent.Also politically Democrats are always going to be in the position of having to prove that they are "tough" in the whole area of national defence as, for whatever reason, this is seen as a Republican stronghold and a Democrat weak point.Obama's hands are tied for equally cynical but far more direct reasons than you are proposing. But I don't doubt that the arms industry is quite happy to support and encourage this situation.......On that we can agree. Just to be clear - You are saying that the defence industry were united in their support not just for a change to a Democrat administration for PR purposes but for Obama specifically? At the presidential nominee stage of proceedings? That he was the "chosen" candidate of the defence industry? For global PR reasons?Is that what you are saying? I can certainly see how once Obama became a realistic candidate, how once he had quite evidently demonstrated his political adeptness at persuading people to vote for him in large numbers, that every corporation and industry would be falling over themselves to react to this by jumping on the bandwagon and hoping to achieve whatever influence they could.I also don't doubt that a defence industry fearful of waning influence under a new less "obviously" compatible administration (i.e. one that did not have senior members also on the board of major defence contractors) would be delighted to point out the strategic, "moral" and political benefits of switching military emphasis in preference to military cuts.But that is very different in terms of the proposed balance of power. Even if we agree that the practical result is the same. No? I don't know. I am not sure you have tackled the main question directly. My emphasis.It is that "thus" that specifically still sounds conspiratorial. And I don't think you have explained what that "thus" means.Are you saying that Mitt Romney was somehow intentionally denied the presidential nomination in favour of McCain because the defence industry specifically (or "big business" generally?) wanted a crap Republican candidate to lose the eventual presidential election to a Democrat?Are you saying that the defence industry as a united whole identified Obama at the presidential nominee stage of proceedings as the best global public relations option and that his eventual success was, to a large extent, a direct result of this?If so - Then yes that does potentially still sound pretty conspiratorial. But I guess it depends exactly how you are proposing this actually took place........?If not - Then I can only continue to apologise for my ongoing misapprehension.Could you clarify?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As one who is usually able to find a "lot of words" regardless of requirement let me just say the following:Guys I can feel the love emanating from my screen.For what it is worth I reckon that if I, Oni and Kuresu were to hook up and hang out for a few beers we would have more in common than we would have to argue about. But that wouldn't stop us anyway.......If ever either of you happen to visit London I would be delighted to meet up and show you around.

Oh for fucks sake. The "silly" comment was applied to you claiming that I am claiming that Onifre is claiming......etc. This ridiculous chain reaction of false claims is the thing being referred to as "silly". No.But what exactly are you saying? That the Bush administration was shit? That under the Bush administration in particular the distinction between government and "big business" was blurred because the same individuals were in charge of large sections of both? That the right wing fundamentalist politics of "economic freedom" is actually the very opposite in social and practical terms for the vast majority of people? That the Bush administration, despite it's obvious failings, was deeply successful in it's efforts to crap all over various rights and freedoms in the name of "national security"? That wealthy corporations have influence over politicians?No disagreement from me there. Frankly you would be hard pressed to find someone more cynical about the Bush administration and it's aims than me. And who do you think is disagreeing with any of this? I honestly don't think I have ever been accused of having blind faith in government before.The thing I take issue with as regards to Onifre's comments (and your expressed support of them) is the sweeping generalisation, vagueness of terms and implied convulutedness of it all. At face value it is just undeniably conspiratorial.Again let's consider the main comment under consideration: Now Oni has said he is not being conspiratorial BUT he has also not yet told us exactly what he actually did mean by this comment. Nor has he denied that it's most obvious meaning is not actually specifically what he intended.So Dronester I am asking you - Do you think that "big business" somehow manipulated events such that a weaker Republican candidate was nominated for the presidential election because big business had decided that a Democrat president would be more expedient from a global and domestic public relations point of view?Do you think that Obama is president because the CEO of Halliburton desired that outcome? Do you think that the individual CEO's of the other major defence contractors also (near unanimously but apparently independently) came to the conclusion that Obama was "their man" and thus independently used their financial muscle to meet this end?Or if this is not what you think occurred could you please elaborate as to what exactly you do think occurred? When. Who. How. Specifically.When - When did the defence industry decide which party they would unanimously prefer? When did the defence industry decide which person they wanted to be president?Who - Who precisely decided that "the defence industry" wanted this person as president? The CEO of Halliburton? The CEO of some other defence contractor? All of the CEO's of the numerous defence companies? At the same time?How - How did the defence industry meet this aim? By getting useless Republicans nominated so that a Democrat win was ensured? I am fond of specifics. Here is your platform. Be vigilant. Tell us exactly how the present US administration and the arms industry of America are linked. When precisely. Who precisely. How precisely.No vague terms like "big business", "the defence industry" or "obvious influence". Be specific. Tell us what you think.............Over to you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. If you could more obviously aim your general comments at someone else other than me that would avoid confusion. Hopefully Onifre will have made his position clear before then. So let's see what he says.....................

I get what you are saying and agree with much but I still think that you are adding two and two and coming up with five and a half. Taking a dive? Like a boxer fixing a fight? The difference here is that we are talking about the government of the most powerful country in the world.That is pretty conspiratorial dude...... And who would you suggest was "in" on this plan? Who was in on the conspiracy. Again this sounds pretty conspiratorial. Fond of logic........ Oh if only you knew me in real life.I think that you are taking the desires that some might have and deriving a reasonably logical reason for a situation that you know to have occurred based on hindsight. In doing so I think you are ignoring all of the competing desires of all of the other individuals, industrial sectors and other components that could have decided things differently. Thus you convince yourself that the hindsight knowledge you now have was always an inevitable situation.In truth you could have made a similar argument that would describe any of the other possible outcomes.Fitting the evidence to the facts with the benefit of hindsight.More to you and Dronester later.

Yep I am with Britney on that one.Only kiddin..... Well I would class myself as more cynical than average on such a scale. Probably a six. But to be honest having read Oni's posts I think he (and therefore you by proxy agreement) are higher than seven. More like 8 and a half.If Britney is "trust everything" you two defintely seem to be on the "Trust no-one. Trust nothing. All is not as it seems" tip.

Abso-fucking-lutely.So how come women, blacks and non-property owners have got the vote now? Because the ruling classes felt guilty? Because they wanted to spread the power? Were they suddently overcome with feelings of fairplay, honour, dignity and desire to give the masses their rightful say?Fat chance.The reason that the masses now have the right to vote is because piece by piece and bit by bit they fought for that right. The very fact that it is not just the ruling classes that decide the government is testament to the fact that if enough people collectively give enough of a shit they can force change on the ruling classes against their will to dramatic effect.The rich and powerful obviously do not want the poor and downtrodden to have the vote because democracy is a numbers game and the masses have the potential of voting for the things that will benefit the poor and downtrodden majority rather than the wealthy and powerful minority.It may not be perfect. It may sometimes be compromised beyond all recognition. But democracy is the only thing that forces the "ruling classes" or "big business" to make any compromises at all. It is important. And the fact that this power has had to be devolved to the masses despite this aim is testamenat to the fact that the slow rumbling power of colective will works. It is also testamant to the fact that democracy matters.

Hmmm. Arguably yes.But it could arguably mean that it is not actually known who will win any given election. That the plans and chenanigans of small undefinable groups of elite individuals don't actually have the power to decide and ensure that their own party will intentionally lose an election for global PR reasons.It could actually indicate that "big business" is hedging it's bets because in fact even "big business" might end up having to deal with a president not of it's choosing.Radical suggestion I know.....................

I am not sure that I dispute that it is "corrupt" in the sense of money grabbing. What I dispute is that the collective will of those providing the funds that oil this machine are as single purposed, focussed and able to collectively assert their will as is required for the intricate level of planning that you suggest.If you did get all of the CEO's of all of the biggest corporations in one room and got them to vote on who they wanted to be in power and what policies they wanted them to have I think it would end in a dispirate brawl of non-agreement.What is good for one industry is not necessarily good for another. What is important to one sector is not to another. What benefits one company in one sector of industry causes a competitor in that same sector to lose market share etc. etc.It is a hugely complex interweaving of shared, dispirate and downright conflicting interests.That is whay I keep asking "who" exactly?Because I don't believe that these guys can all seperately but unanimously come to the same conclusion as to how their interests are best served and this renders phrases like "big business wants" or "the defence industry decides" almost meaningless.Who exactly wants and who exactly decides? Simply stating that some undefined collection of individuals makes and executes these plans from behind the scenes in the interests of "big business" is too vague. Good God no. And doesn't yours fall apart if in fact "big business" doesn't and cannot collectively have a unified plan of action? Not really. Suggesting that "big business" does not have a unified will that can predetermine candidates and elections months if not years in advance, suggesting that the vast sums of money given to even the losing party were actually intended to help them win OR at least gain favour IF they win and suggesting that individual politicians, their advisors, staff and supporters have quite a lot of say in deciding who actually wins...........I am not sure that this is exactly fittting evidence to facts?Here is a bit of subjective evidence for you (): I remember watching a Channel 4 news programme very early on in the whole US nominee election thing when they went through all of the potential candidates on both sides. I obvioulsy knew of Clinton. I had heard of Giuliani from his NYC "zero tolerance" days. Huckabee I took note of straight away because of the creationist angle. None of the others had I heard of previoulsy.By the end of that short programme I had concluded that Obama seemed the best but that 'they would never vote for the black guy' and that Clinton was a dead cert (the most money, the most suport, political aristocracy etc. etc.). Romney, McCain etc. didn't even register on my radar. I would have put money on Clinton to win at that point.Now is that media manipulation? Or could it be that Obama is just pretty good at his job? (and you can be as cynical as you like about what the "job" of a modern politician is in the television age - all style and no substance etc. etc. - and I am unlikley to disagree) I'l take that as a compliment. I have a domestic situation that is not conducive to EvC participation this week.
So this and other posts are rushed and relatively unthought out.

So the civil rights movement was just a secret plot by white big business owners to get blacks to play baseball.....?Could they not have done this without giving them the vote?I am being faececious. Obviously.But c'mon Oni - It has reached the point where everything that seems corrupt and conspiratorial is obviously corrupt and conspiratorial.And anything that seems like it might counter such claims is just an example of something that is really really corrupt and conspiratorial designed to look like a concession such that it will appease the suckered masses. If you just look at it in the right way.....Literally anything can be viewed as supporting such a position. Unless we can get into the specifics of "who", "when" and "how" (which apparently we cannot because it is too high level, well co-ordinated and secret) then you have created an unassailable position.I was going to ask why various big businesses contributed so much to the doomed campaigns of the other candidates? Particularly Clinton's campaign. Presumably these big businesses were not in on the Obama decision? Presumably those who contributed to Romney were not in on the plans devised by the Republican's higher echalons to intentionally lose the election?But I am sure if I just view it in the right way I will be able to see how it all makes sense in the context you have previously outlined.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yep. Count me in. 7.5 leaning towards 8? I think you are being modest...........I have coated myself in tin foil and await my hat with eager anticipation.

Oh as do we all. As do we all.We have to keep ourselves amused somehow huh.That offer of meeting up for a beer (and possibly a hair cut for Keresu) should you tour London next year stands.

I disagree with your above assessment only in terms of the degree to which I would say these things occur. The actuality that they do occur to some degree is undeniable in my view.Where I disagree most with you in this thread is where you seem to be suggesting that "big business" is able to find a united purpose and long term consensus such that the undisputed influence individual companies and industrial sectors have can be realistically thought to plan and action the detailed manipulaton of whole elections and policies to the extent that a shady elite decide the desired outcome of "big business" as a whole months if not years in advance.The current battle over Obama's green energy policy is a case in point. The "dirty" energy indstry have started spending vast amounts of money on lobbying and media PR to thwart the bill. The "green" industry are complaining that they cannot match the financial muscle of the energy industry but are themselves spending a fortune on lobbying and media manipulation. Meanwhile Obama has set about trying to persuade congress that some tough targets need to be set in the name of using the fiscal stimulus to implement the "green inrastructure of the future".Now I cynically predict that the industry with the most cash will ulimately "win". Most likely in the form of a bill so watered down that it will have little effect on reduced dirty energy use in terms of green tax incentives or meaningful carbon reduction targets.Media manipulation? Certainly.
Big Business lobbying for it's own financial gain? Certainly
Eventual outcome decided largely on the basis of the above? Very probably.But the fact that there are these dispirate interests, the fact that the competing industries are having to spend vast sums of money on PR, the fact that the opinions of the masses matter enough to require such money to be spent on PR, the fact that the government is attempting to get this through and may even yet do so in some form that has some negative effect on even the powerful and wealthy energy industry.......All of this suggests to me that an elite few representatives of "big business" cannot be deciding elections, governments and key policies from behind the scenes because there is no such thing as "big business" in terms of united common interests on such things.Essentially it is all much too dispirate and competetive to be anything other than largely reactive and unplanned. Which, thankfully, means that the voting public do still get to have some small say in matters. Even if it is on the basis of largely biased infomation and even if it is only once every few years.Democracy matters. Even when heavily compromied it can still count for a great deal. We lose it, or give up on it, at our peril./END RANTStay happy

You are as bad as me with my "final" posts. Indeed I am not sure I have resources to "battle" on two fronts at the moment.I just wanted to acknowledge you video and let you know I had not ignored it. Interesting. The report made the "secret organisation" sound really sinister. I looked it up here Skull and Bones - Wikipedia and it sounded like anyone who went to Yale and looked destined for anything (like the oportunity to become president of the US) would probably end up being a member. It didn't sound as sinisetr to me as described by Wiki. But I accept your point about an "elite". The question I would ask is how many "elites" are there? And do they all want the same things? Or are their interests "dispirate and conflicting"?But who knows. Just because something sounds conspiratorial and paranoid does of course not mean that there is not actually a conspiracy to be justifiably paranoid about. The truth is out there.Beers (note plural form) and shaggy blonde wigs all round then? Edited by Straggler, : Add "The question I would ask is how many "elites" are there? And do they all want the same things? Or are their interests "dispirate and conflicting"?"