Richard1366

Imperialism involves territorial acquisition, certainly you don't believe we want to acquire Iraq. On the other hand, Saddam did have imperial desires when he invaded Kuwait. The only territorial acquisition that the US was involved in was when we gave back the Canal Zone to Panama .. is that "anti-imperial desires?"

I would certainly be interested in your source for determining that our military plans involve carpet bombing the entire country.

I won't bother to respond to the rest of your other ramblings, you string together so many conspiracy theories, that I was amazed that somewhere in your litany the Trilateral commission wasn't mentioned. Your references to Bush, Inc. and the "un-elected, court appointed" president certainly give light to your political leanings ... It's been over a year now.. get over it.

I wonder, if the rest of the UN thought that a war with Iraq was justifiable and the US didn't... who do you think would go there to fight??

HaysooChreesto!

If you're as upset about the thread drifting from the OP's points, then how about a little reprimand for the nutty conspiracy theories being set forth.

Will the U.S. crumble any time soon? To believe that takes more wishful thinking than a Jehovah's Witness convention setting a return trip for Jebus' great round trip vacation.
BTW, for those who don't know, Bush isn't a king. He can be voted out of office in 18 months. At the most he can serve 8 years. Maybe by that time the Majestic12 will have lost their grip on power and world control will shift back to an even keel between them and the Freemasons-and the Jews of course. We can't forget about the Jews.

If the U.S. were to somehow "fall", consider what would happen to the world economy and the resulting wars. That gets off topic, but undoubtedly, the fundies would have their Armaggeddon---sans You Know Who though.

Ruy Lopez

Celsus:

The discussion about the wave has started to join, IMO, but the one about oil is still far apart. Did you do some work on th K-wave but not enough on oil? Let's get rid of the oil first.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ruy Lopez
US: 10 years (notice that this means the US should technically be run out by now, but it has not!)

Japan has zero years just like my country, but these two will continue burning oil. Countries with hundred years are EXPORTERS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't understand you point. The US economy, being extremely globalised, and 5-6 times the size of its nearest European counterparts, will have to be affected by aggregate production, globally. See my discussion with Zar on oil, since I wasn't very clear when I first stated my point.

Oil is traded internationally. The M.East is the region with the greatest amount of surplus for export; there are much lesser amounts from Central and South America and from North and Central Africa. When oil production peaks, only the M.E., Kazahkstan, Russia and Uzbehks would have substantial exports. It is not exactly correct that the US won't need Mideast oil. Some ten years from now, it is quite possible the US will import 40% from the M.E. . This and control of supply for other powers is the main reason for the M. E. and Central Asia adventures.

Oil poor countries like France, Japan ,Germany, India, and many others import almost everything; they can function as long as there is export oil.

It is suggested that you download to your disc the "BP Statistical Review" which can be easily located at Google. It is the best statistics source I know. Use "barrels per day" for oil and "tons coal equivalent" for primary energy. It seems you are still fixated to the idea that oil could suddenly disappear to the last drop yet wonder how this can be when the M.E. has 150 years supply.

From Celsus:
When oil peak production happens, the impact will be UNIVERSAL AND AT THE SAME TIME for everybody because oil is TRADED INTERNATIONALLY. If producers with exportable supplies refuse to export, THERE WILL BE A WORLD WAR. Three studies done by geologists and earth scientists agree that 5 to 10 years is the time left before peak oil. I was the one who extended this time frame to 15 years, ON THIS BOARD, because of the economic turmoil I anticipate on account of the K-wave. Demand would fall and the price will CRASH FIRST.

I don't have time now to hunt for my previous posts but these are the relevant points I made:

1)Current world production is 75-76 million bpd. Peak production would likely be between 80-85 million bpd and no more.

2)The K-wave downmove has already started 5 years ago for most of the world and may have 10 years to go. World economies will reduce oil consumption.

3)Oil prices would crash 2 years from now and stay there for a while.

4)When economic recovery begins and oil consumption grows by about 3% per year for 5 successive years, peak production would be reached. Thus we will never see sustained economic prosperity for a very long time.

The Kondratieff Long Wave

Joel, I have to run now but will finish this part tonight (Manila Time). I can add a long post here under EDIT, can't I?

Zar

Lamma,

I was upset that the thread was turning into another hair-splitting Iraq debate, which simply isn't needed here -- it smothers this board already. This other stuff, whether convincing or not, is at least an attempt to talk about the actual subject. I find it very easy to distinguish between the two. If you don't see it that way, I'm sorry.

EDIT: Also, I wasn't asking posters to "please justify a U.S. emprie," I was talking about sustainability. Some of your comments basically saying that we should line up behind American Empire or suffer a world of chaos are worth discussing, but isn't quite addressing whether such a thing can actually be sustained, especially in the terms of using mainly military force as the tool. Maybe it can be. That is the question. I'm sure you could think of lots to say on that matter.

Celsus

Hi Ruy Lopez,

Just post a new one on the K-wave when you get back. This oil discussion may be a little off-topic, but I think it's relevant. I hope I'll address your main points even though it isn't point-by-point. Yes, the US needs MENA oil--its reluctance to seek alternative energy sources as Europe is doing will definitely harm it in the long term. As for the oil importers, I think that's not really want I'm trying to aim at. What I'm saying is that oil production peaks are hard to forecast, but there is some leeway--250 years from substantial Kuwaiti fields are hardly insignificant.

Some conflicting estimates:
Firstly, the OPEC figures I gave vastly differ from the following:
Plausible scenarios for future global oil production quotes various estimates as:
Notice, firstly that the estimates for global reserves is far higher than the OPEC 1992 estimates that I was using: 1 trillion is now between 1,750 and 2,400 billion barrels. New sources may yet be found, and the decline in production does not have immediate severe economic side effects.

See also this critique of Hubbert, who is among main proponent of the rapid oil depletion scenarios:
Locating the Summit of the Oil Peak: New Book entitled Hubbert's Peak
Now on to your post:
I think your world war prediction is a little far fetched. OPEC has already done this twice and it hasn't triggered a world war. I'd like to see the evidence by these geologists, if you can be more specific. Secondly, I don't see how demand falling will occur. The OECD countries are having trouble cutting consumption, and the non-OECD countries are rapidly increasing consumption. If anything, demand for oil is going to be on the rise for the forseeable future, and this is more worrying than running over the peak of oil production. Which of course explains why the more farsighted Western European countries are pursuing renewable sources.
This contradicts the estimates in the link above. Production is estimated as lower than that--in the 60 millions of bbl/d.
How exactly are economies going to reduce oil consumption?
Hm... I don't see how oil prices will crash. Oil prices are going to constantly increase, as long as alternative sources are not discovered/implemented/commercialised. And then your last point does not follow: Global oil consumption is increasing, and it is requiring artificial constraints to be halted. This is another weakness in identifying trends without explaining causal processes. You need to work on the "why?" much more.

Joel

Koyaanisqatsi

Not anymore it doesn't. Wake up and smell the new millenium. Territorial acquisition is now equivalent to economic acquisition.

It doesn't matter how the controls are put in place; either by a sustained military presence (as it used to be) or through a sustained control over the nation's economy after our military has done their job and left, acquisition is the name of the game.

Economically (i.e., to control their oil production and influence their oil sales), absolutely.

And since Kuwait was considered part of our empire, we came to their aid (and insured, in the process, their allegiance). Just like we came to Hussein's aid way back when along with the Taliban and members of al-Queada, and Marcos, and Noriega, and Lol Nol, and even Baby Doc Duvalier (or however it's spelled), etc., etc., etc.

And why did we come to the aid of all of those Hitlers? For economically imperial reasons.

See anything political about any of that, by any chance? You know, like, historically consistent?

That would depend upon who controls Panama. Or, shall I say, who controls the people that control Panama? You don't dig very deeply, do you?

It is standard military proceedure to bomb first and then send troops in after, yes? In this instance, as our military has informed us and the UN, the war will be an urban one, with rumors that Hussein plans to surround himself with a human shield. In other words, packing the stadium.

The stadium we're talking about, for example, is a large city, where schools, hospitals and orphanages will most likely be hiding the majority of their troops, along with children, the sick and more children.

If you want specific sources on any of this, just pick up your daily newspaper or watch CNN.

So, let's make you the military leader in charge. Intel tells you that a huge area is packed with millions of people and amongst those people are the enemy.

If you don't carpet bomb the area before sending your troops in, then what? Three or four days of "surgical" bombs? Smart bombs that target what? Schools, hospitals and orphanages?

How is that going to look on the nightly news? How's that going to insure that the most enemy killed possible has been attained before you feel you can risk the safety of your foot soldiers? How much hell is enough hell from above, when you've got a tightly packed, but huge areas, where the enemy could be and most likely will be everywhere and how do you make it sell to the American voters?

You carpet bomb in the night, that's how. Inflict as much general damage as you possibly can in the first ten or twelve hours, laying waste to as much of the enemy as possible without the need for justifying "smart" bombs that targeted pharmacies and the like, and then you send in the ground troups and make the focus of the "rest" of the war on hand-to-hand, down and dirty "combat."

No one, either in the press or reading the press, is going to comprehend the devastation of a carpet bombing enough in order to raise dissent, but they sure as shit will cry out if they read that "surgical" strikes using our most advanced "smart bombs" have hit grammar schools filled with children.

The military's job is to kill the enemy as efficiently as possible while saving as many American soldier's lives as possible in the offing. No one disputes that. In this instance, the enemy will most likely be standing side-by-side to a civilian (i.e., non-combatant), throughout the entire country.

So you tell me. You're the leader, what do you do? Target certain areas where you think the most amount of the enemy will be hiding and risk being completely wrong at the detriment of thousands of your own troops (if not hundreds of thousands due to the possible WMD that will be hidden with them), or send in one or two night's worth of general carpet bombing to wipe out anywhere the enemy could be hiding?

Most likely, both will happen. First night(s), general hell from above interspersed with as many surgical strikes as possible; wiping out both the Intel directed "most likely" caches of WMD's and, in general, destroying as many of the various "cells" they most likely place throughout the country.

One thing's for sure. We sure as shit aren't going to just send foot soldiers in to root out the enemy soldier-to-soldier without some sort of massive bombing, so if your only objection is to my use of the term "carpet bombing" then just replace "carpet" with "massive."

Makes no difference to me. The effect will be the same.

And if you have an alternative military strategy than the one I outlined, then by all means, please present it. Oh, that's right, you're not interested in actually presenting any counter arguments; just in sophomorically attempting to marginallize my points with childish dismissal.

Oh, hey, what a shock! More sophomoric marginallization attempts! How convenient it must be for you to think that you can just wave away all of these legitimate, cogent observations as "ramblings" and "conspiracy theories." You must be the afterbirth of Rush Limbaugh!

Meaning what? That my political leanings, being contrary to who is now in control by being an un-elected, court appointed President as was precisely the case, means that you don't have to address any of my arguments?

So I take it you only preach to your own choir?

Brilliant counter-argument.

You're right. All Americans should just "get over" the fact that the Supreme Court knowingly and admittedly trampled their supremacy by unconstitutionally intervening in a Presidential election to declare Bush President, when the actual vote proved Gore had won, both the popular vote and the electoral college.

What a comfort it must be to think you backed the "winner" at the expense of the integrity of the highest court in the land and all of our rights that they protect. Good on you, mate!

Here. Try reading The Betrayal of America: How The Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President by Vincent Bugliosi.

In case you're wondering, Mr. Bugliosi is more right wing than Guilliani. He was the Prosecuting Attorney in the Tate-LoBianca murder trials that put Charles Manson away.

Enjoy. He's even more right wing than you apparently are.

Not the US. We rarely if ever go anywhere they want us to go, or has the whole "empire conspiracy theory" got you so thrown you just can't read history right?

Ruy Lopez

Celsus; On oil, we still have problems with data. We, or you, do not have it straight. Its difficult to see each other's point. But I'm glad you're on the board as there are benefits in it for me and for you as well if you are willing to hang on until we finish the K-wave. You'll probably come out smarter. Not trying to patronize you nor bloat my own importance. It's a fact that these two topics, oil and the Wave are my staples. See if you can put me to shame.

More on Oil

The 1 trillion bbls reserves you quoted is the current official figure recognized by OPEC and the oil companies. Zar pointed out more than once that this number is questionable. I agree with that and I know why. For 18 years I was in the petroleum and energy industry proven reserves of oil ranged from 650 to 700 billion bbls only. When I saw recently the 1 trllion figure at the BP Statistical Review, I was floored. The oil producers changed the definition of proven reserves for quota and loan purposes without doing much work underground.

The other nos, 1790 or 2400 billion, you brought up are ultimate or potential reserves. They have no practical bearing. Oil reserves are classed into three groups: Proven, Probable and Potential.

You implied I use dated information. Your link of Jean Laherrere is quite dated. The numbers he used are from the late 70s and 80s.
Global production of oil hardly increased between 1998 to 2002; 73.4 to 75 in 5 years (K-wave effect). I cannot produce the BP link now because of three other things stored below. It's in the BP Stat. Review page 8.

There was only one real embargo in 1974, after the Yom Kippur war. It was a 30% cut on the average with many exceptions and lasting only for 2 months. But you can see what would happen if exports are toally curtailed indefinitely. I'm not saying OPEC will do that and not predicting a world war. I said that because you seem to be unaware that oil is traded globally; was exaggerating.

http://www.geologie.tu-clausthal.de/...l/lecture.html
The above link seems to be the best on peak oil. Another:

http://www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/road2olduvai.pdf

I think if you read carefully the first, by Campbell, you'll get a lot out of it.

Check the following stats and tell me how strong oil demand is.
http://www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/

It's on page 8.
Oil consumption hardly increased since 1998. It is the effect of the K-wave which started in 1998 for most of the world except for Japan (1991) and the US(2000). The K-wave has not yet accelerated downwards. In my wave analysis, 2004, 2005 and worst of all 2006 will be dramatic. Oil demand would fall and prices would collapse to $15. In wave analysis, 2002 was a bottom of a 4-yr Kitchin cycle. Thus 2003 should be a rebound year to form the upward arc of a 4 yr wave. Did you see a strong rebound since Oct. 2002? Hardly. If we do not see one by this summer, the next three years would put us through a wringer.

Let's agree to use British Petroleum data. It is what oilmen prefer to use.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Current world production is 75-76 million bpd. Peak production would likely be between 80-85 million bpd and no more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This contradicts the estimates in the link above. Production is estimated as lower than that--in the 60 millions of bbl/d.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what I mean by 1970s data.

Oil prices fluctuated between $22-26 NYMEX WTI basis for quite a long time. This indicates an equilibrium point. Last Oct. 2002, with Iraq on the air, the price broke resistance and climbed gradually to the present $35-37/bbl. What does this say? IT'S A SET UP!!!

When you say "oil prices are going to constantly increase", that is linear thinking. Natural and human affairs move in pulses, cycles and waves. You'll be wrong more than half the time; given enough time. It is a SET-UP because there is a 5 million bpd excess capacity OPEC is not using (reduced somewhat by Venezuela). Second, there is a paranoia pretext, Iraq war, which the "manipulators" of the NYMEX market are counting on to snare stupid rich money. Third, the equilibrium price is clearly in the mid-$20s.

When recession or depression returns (because we are not even out of the pit of the first one), demand could fall drastically and increase spare capacity by another 3-5 million bpd. Opec would be competing for buyers then.

I will comment more on your favorite topic "causality" in the K-wave post. I will end this on oil now.

Celsus

Hi Ruy,

I think the discussion on oil isn't going anywhere, and we probably should just drop it. Just a few notes:

1) The paper linked is from 1996.
2) Laherrere's data was published in 1995.
3) The rest of the quotes are not of Laherrere.
The references for the link are listed here. I wished you'd at least checked my link before saying all that stuff about the 1970s.

What I am criticising is not your data, but your theory, which seems extremely dated (although it's interesting that the BP statistical review explains the lack of growth in demand for oil as due to the East Asian crisis, which is directly a fault of reckless financial liberalisation, and that is not part of a cyclical phenomena--again we see the weaknesses of failure to establish causal processes: patterns where there are specific historical events that account for data). Nevertheless, I'm happy to leave this discussion till you have explained your analysis of the Kondratieff cycle.

Joel

Ruy Lopez

Celsus:
This post would be devoted to the K-wave, a major timing factor going against the maintenance of the US empire. This is the reply to your post which ended:

This is not an indictment on you, but I'm beginning to suspect that you are using very dated sources.

You do care about me. You don't have to worry about upsetting me, the way you discuss.

quote: Ruy Lopez
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was mentioned earlier that neither Kondratieff nor Joseph Schumpeter could offer definite causative principles for the trend observed. Neither would I offer one. It is like hurricanes or typhoons hundreds of years ago. People can feel one is coming and are familiar with its effects but they could not explain the drastic change in the weather. The body of mainstream economists, like natural scientists, have strict norms for accepting entries into the general body of knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Celsus replies:
Well best of luck to you then. I don't think anyone in academia is hunting for these waves though--perhaps a Nobel prize is in the offering?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said earlier, I'd rather that the academe keep out of the K-wave in case they prove it valid; they'll just render it ineffective. I am convinced of it for my own selfish purpose and I don't mind sharing it with you or the Board. Later in this post I will explain its validity. You judge. Meanwhile I'll leave you with what Kondratieff is quoted to have written:

Two things you brought up. First, the great inflation of the 70s was not largely due to oil. Surprised? In the 70s, inflation was general.Almost everything in the economy at least doubled in price in 10 years; others more. This is what the K-wave says happens in the SUMMER phase. Oil rose from $3.50 to a peak of $38; sugar from 4 cents to 60 cents; copper from .25 to 1.30; gold from $35 to $850; silver from $3 to $60 and the Hunt brother were history. US general inflation and interest rates went past 20 %. Oil was not responsible for more than 5-6 % of the total inflation rate. I was still working at that time and when oil was at $12, a computer model INPUT-OUTPUT of the Philippine economy showed that oil prices accounted for only 6% of inflation rate of probably 18 %. Oil prices accounted for barely 1.2 points of a national annual rate of 18%. That was just media hype blaming greedy Arabs while your and our rich elite were raking it in unnoticed.

Your second point about oil prices and the CRB was already answered in my oil post just previous to this. Oil prices will crash first due to demand plunging and oversupply and go up towards peak oil levels when the K-wave turns upwards, 10 years from now maybe.

I do not understand your problem here. Stagflation was brought about by all commodities rising in multiples not only oil. US as well as most economies were not in ascent. True. Although prices were. Also true. THAT'S THE EXACT MEANING OF STAGFLATION --rising prices during a recession. This is exactly what the K-wave is saying. Near the top of this inflation phase, the economy suffers a primary recession. Inflation continues at a reduced pace because its momentum is too strong. Here is some backgrounder.
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Kondratieff identified four distinct phases the economy goes through. They are a period of inflationary growth, followed by stagflation, then deflationary growth and finally depression. Some characteristics are as follows:

Inflationary Growth (expansion): - stable to slow rising prices, low commodity prices, low and stable interest rates, rising stock prices. The period might also be characterized by strong and growing corporate profits and technological innovations.

Stagflation (recession): - rising prices, rising commodity prices, rising interest rates, stagnant to falling stock prices. Stagnant profits, rising debt. This period usually sees a major war that contributes to the commodity and price inflation, and to the rising debt and misdirects business resources.

Deflationary Growth (plateau): - stable to falling prices, falling commodity prices, falling interest rates, sharply rising stock prices, profit growth but probably not as good as in the inflationary growth phase. Sharply rising debt. Possible period of considerable technological innovation. Excess debt contributes to speculative bubbles.

Depression (depression): - falling prices, rising commodity prices (particularly gold), stable interest rates, falling stock prices, falling profits, debt collapse. As the stock market collapses numerous scandals will emerge. A major war occurs that helps contribute to end of the depression phase and the start of the new expansion period.

With four distinct phases in the K-wave a number of analysts have compared them to the seasons:

Spring (inflationary growth, expansion)
Summer (stagflation, recession)
Autumn (deflationary growthplateau) and
Winter (depression).

Our chart below summarizes the generally accepted phases since 1784 in the United States. We have noted the significant wars that accompanied the recession (price peak) and
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
If you want to read more;
http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~rroberge/berryk.htm

So, the K-wave is correct.

Let's bring back the chart.

http://www.financialsense.com/transc...raWithCRB4.pdf

Most of us have not experienced the winter, downwave phase of the Kondratieff while the much older ones were too young to understand. The last experience was the "Great Depression". This last example confuses some writers(but not our link) because it was a great depression.

Both the physical economy and the financial bourses crashed so hard from 1929 to 1933 that the indicators overshot their equilibrium points at the bottom giving the impression (chartwise) that the bottom was 1933, merely 43 years into the wave. This duration is about 13 years too early a bottom for the usual 56 yrs K-wave duration. The US gov't and private orgs reacted to the shock and trauma (the usual rebound reaction) with new deal measures and most of all embraced the medecine prescribed by J.M. Keynes; "spend your way out of a recession". The mindless employment spending and WWII spending brought up the CRB earlier than usual. But long-term bond yields, another K-wave indicator, did not bottom until 1945-49. If 1949 was the K-wave bottom, the duration was 59 years.

So the effect of WWII was to increase gov't spending duly reflected in the CRB early inflation. The massive crash distorted the chart bottom. This happens often and does not faze perceptive chart readers. Ten years from now, if the Japanese bourse and property markets were charted, it is quite possible the same distortion will appear.

For the rest of your commentary, some are agreeable and others grudgingly hesitant. I'll answer the latter later. I'd like to fulfill my earlier promise; explain why I think the K-wave is valid and why I do not need the blessing of a body of economists.

Why the K-wave is Valid

Before I learned to use cycles or waves in stock and futures trading, I won and lost evenly getting away with it only because of my propensity to spend my profits. I received a large amount of money for the first time when I applied for early retirement which the company offered to volunteers. I lost more than half of this large amount in a bear market after a stock bubble. That was when I got the motivation to learn; I had no job and never entertained the thought of getting another one. My freedom and adventure were more valuable to me. In short I think I learned enough and never lost significant amounts again and instead won handsomely.

Short selling is illegal in Manila and we have had a savage bear market since 1997. I was never caught and trapped in a declining market and instead won sizable amounts "three times" only-- during sharp rebounds after the sharp plunges of 12 month cycles. Knowledge of the 12 month cycle made it possible.

Why should the K-wave be different when it is even more reliable. Wave analysts say "the longer the duration, the more reliable is the cycle." I'll demonstrate the 4 yr US presidential cycle and its higher grouping, the 8 yr Juglar cycle.

http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html

Do not expect perfection or the accuracy of planetary revolutions . Charts appear to give off doubts to throw off the weak at heart. However this example is quite clear. Scroll down to the 1974-2003 chart of the Dow. Note the prominent troughs. The 8-yr cycle lows are 1974, 1982, 1991 and 1998. The 4 yr lows in between touched down in 1978, 1987, 1995 and 2002. The notable exception is 1987 which should have been 1986.

How do I know 2006 will be particularly bad? There were recessions in 1974, 1981-82, 1991 and 1998(mostly inAsia/South Amer.). These are 8 yr intervals, the Juglar cycle at work. 2006 would be particularly bad for the US because it is the next 8 yr cycle bottom and WORSE, it is going to take place at a time WHEN THE k-WAVE IS HEADED HARD DOWN. Both the US economy and the US stock market had already made the great reversal south. That is why the stock market is three years down and 2.5 yr recession has not really ended yet. This never happened during the previous 50 years. Other countries are worse off.

I have more to say but we can do that later. fire away with your questions and disagreements. This is why I say the empire cannot hold its position. Further decline is inevitable especially when China is just sitting quietly growing at 8-10% a year, taking advantage of US trade deficits, and refusing to get involved in politics.

Celsus

Ruy,

I give up. Kondratieff was refuted for a similar reason to Hegel's "spirit." After all these words, I still have yet to see any evidence why the wave is cyclical--in fact your refusal to approach causality makes it hard to have a discussion. You also seem to misunderstand some basic economic concepts: The oil price rise was directly responsible for the inflation of other commodities because of the ubiquity of oil as a energy source that is used (either directly or indirectly) in the production of everything else. I hope you will go and ground your theories with some causality, otherwise it is speculation.

You also get basic facts wrong: There were two oil shocks--'73 and '79, not just one. You don't need absolute "embargoes," you just need to reduce supply. Things like the Juglar cycle can't stand: Since the '97 Asian Crisis, Southeast Asia never fully recovered, and is currently in the middle of another stagnant period. As for Latin America, you just have to look at Argentina now (and compare with Mexico '96(?) and Brazil '92--the business cycles were a matter of self-fulfilling prophecy until external circumstances pulled the rug from under all the cycles).

Joel