The Colder War
question
This book's premise seems unbalanced. What do you think?
Richard
Dec 05, 2014 07:37PM
Marin Katusa makes a convincing argument that Russia dominates the world energy supplies and that it is bent on the overthrow of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. He seems quite the expert in his background and in his arguments. However, I can't help but feel that he is an apologist for Putin, and that he is not giving the whole story. For example, surely the USA has experts working to mitigate foreign attempts to destabilize the US economy and dethrone the dollar. True that they may not be successful, but they also may be! It hasn't been overthrown yet! So my question is, what's the other side of the story?
What do you think? Does this book seem biased and one-sided (anti-USA), or does the picture Marin paints seem realistic to you?
What do you think? Does this book seem biased and one-sided (anti-USA), or does the picture Marin paints seem realistic to you?
reply
flag
I don't think he's biased against the U.S government. I believe he depicts The U.S.A as self-destructive and Russia as merely more succesful when undermining her competitors or combating terrorism.
For instance he mentions what Putin did in Chechnya and other parts of the country. Using the KGB to instigate revolts and terrorist attacks for his own political benefit. How is it any different to when the U.S.A instigated similar incidents such as the Bay of Tonkin or the funding of Al-qaeda or ISIS? The difference being that Putin was more successful. That is the other side of the story in my opinion.
In all honesty if ever a nation on this planet required a sinister dictator ... it was Russia.
For instance he mentions what Putin did in Chechnya and other parts of the country. Using the KGB to instigate revolts and terrorist attacks for his own political benefit. How is it any different to when the U.S.A instigated similar incidents such as the Bay of Tonkin or the funding of Al-qaeda or ISIS? The difference being that Putin was more successful. That is the other side of the story in my opinion.
In all honesty if ever a nation on this planet required a sinister dictator ... it was Russia.
Richard, I agree with your general sentiment. I think it only takes a quick read of the last two chapters of this book to understand the ulterior motive of this publication, which seems to be amping up the deficit hawk base. Katusa discusses in his “key points” to solve the “crisis” that the US government should reign in spending and that consumers should invest in gold and foreign currencies. I think both conclusions are false. Debt financing is deflationary, not inflationary (as evidenced by the nearly decade long precipice of dollar deflation rather than inflation (core CPI much closer to 0% than what deficit hawks continuously warn of, say 10%+)). Gold prices (and other commodity prices) have fallen since the mini-bubble of the post-recession era. The US dollar value has swelled and foreign currency values (namely the Russian ruble and the Chinese yuan) have dropped precipitously.
I think it is also very telling that Katusa calls for reduced US regulations in energy markets. His being a fund manager of the energy market variety clearly highlights the conflict of interest and emphasizes the ulterior motive of this publication.
Katusa’s overall analysis of the energy markets is well and good (as it should be, as it is his field of expertise). I think his analysis of commodity markets and foreign currency markets is less so, and in actuality very much in keeping with an ultra-wealthy, ultra-conservative deficit hawk outlook (i.e. reign in government spending, advance de-regulation agendas, and boost commodity and foreign currency trading).
In all, I think most of the book is fine as a history primer on the subject of energy, but I think the underlying motive is a bit of propaganda for the conservative base (and no, I don’t say that very often).
I think it is also very telling that Katusa calls for reduced US regulations in energy markets. His being a fund manager of the energy market variety clearly highlights the conflict of interest and emphasizes the ulterior motive of this publication.
Katusa’s overall analysis of the energy markets is well and good (as it should be, as it is his field of expertise). I think his analysis of commodity markets and foreign currency markets is less so, and in actuality very much in keeping with an ultra-wealthy, ultra-conservative deficit hawk outlook (i.e. reign in government spending, advance de-regulation agendas, and boost commodity and foreign currency trading).
In all, I think most of the book is fine as a history primer on the subject of energy, but I think the underlying motive is a bit of propaganda for the conservative base (and no, I don’t say that very often).
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
