The current crisis in the finance sector emphasizes the theory of trade cycle. But is there anything more to it? Are there some other cycles as well? What about the technology evolution cycle ? There are phases when the collective grey matter on the earth suddenly seems to brighten up. Similarly, there are energy cycles as well. The social energy in whatever form also follows a cycle. Yes. Let us see the chronology of wars across the globe since the time we have the benefit of recorded history. Leaving aside the reason of these wars or the fate of the victor and the vanquished, just focus on the pattern. Wars invariable follow a period of seeming prosperity in any geography. Prosperity expands and tends to spill over geographical boundaries as well, although we see and understand that as a benefit of trade. Similarly the crisis and penury in geography also attempts to exhibit the same pattern, and collective psyche of people of a land tends to trade their misery with their prosperous neighbours. Here the relativity works best. This perhaps is the simplest definition of a war. I could call it a trade of miseries. So we had two prosperous entities who fought proxy wars through front end partners who had aspirations as an offer. Direct wars can happen only between the miserable and the mighty, each trying to secure their turf. Let us work it backwards. As per this site there are 42 conflicts globally that are current. These conflicts range from civil war to insurgency to uprisings all involving armed conflicts. But what is the root cause? It is economic disparity in two pieces of land or between two communities in the same land, which leads to conflicts. Now the issue to be deliberated would be whether there is any threshold or a trigger point which can be identified. Whereas aspirations may be fuelled on comparison, but the decision which would lead to loss of life itself may not be a blind slave to this instinct. Thus ordinary people would not go to war for the butter, but for bread. The desire to live is very strong, and this is the live force, in fact a force so strong that it leads to a decision of ending another life in the name of survival. Pride, ego, honour are all secondary to hunger. If this be the reason, why does America go to war ? It is directly involved in four of the 42 global armed conflicts at the moment. The reason is survival again. Does it really feel at risk with the Islamic world? Does it actually acknowledge Afghanistan as an adversary ? Are the Afghans fighting the Americans so that they (Afghans) can walk the streets of NY City ! No, its America's war, because their prosperity has pitted them in a cultural conflict with half the world. Global resources are consumed by Americans far in excess of what they actually possess. Wars are equalizers, and isolated attempts of groups of humans to redistribute the global assets. Anything that is limited in supply is an asset. This definition makes this earth an asset, because there is only one unit of this commodity. My fears are that just as the second world war had followed the great depression, the current scenario may also lead to the same. The trade cycle went on the upswing, as the war time manufacturing capacities were effectively commercialized. Since then, the manufacturing capacity has been distributed across the globe, and US faces a very real situation where it is likely to lose the position as a fulcrum. The slowdown is definitely expected to impact the lifestyle in USA, and this may mean vanishing investor incomes and jobs, and dwindling productivity. The bubble in capital market has burst, and the remainder may not be sufficient to maintain the equilibrium. The question is :First, Does America have any incentive to let the world be without any armed conflicts in a world where its arms exports provide the most stable investment in the current scenario. Second: Will there be any restraint on the US not to perpetrate more conflicts globally, to ensure its own economic survival. The cost that it occasionally pays in terms of lives of its men on the battlefront may seem too insignificant in the wake of insuring a continued prosperity !
Its time now for the $ to be called GLOBAL.
Its time now for an international government, something much more effective than the UN.
Geographical boundaries benefit only less than 100,000 parliamentarians or people comprising the political stakeholders. All others, including the defence forces and civil servants are after all workers, and would functions as well in an alternate setup. So is it feasible that 6.72 billion people be denied global citizenship, because some 100,000 people are trying to assume leadership, and would have us believe so?
