Dollar Hegemony (You want the Truth about the way the world works? You can't HANDLE the Truth!) (1338 hits)
Category: Business & FinancialLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary
Rating: 0.38 on 81 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-02-17 14:27:13 EST
This is the most important ETS post you will ever read.
This is a speech by Texas Republican Representative Ron Paul, which goes a long way toward explaining the state of the American and world economy, the reasons for our current military operations in Iraq, as well as the reasons we're currently going after countries like Venezuela and Iran. It is something I've said myself in much less eloquent terms on this website...our economy is fake and is only based on military muscle.
And here is a REPUBLICAN Congressman agreeing with me!
His speech, which I was fortunate enough to catch in full on C-SPAN, is educational and immediately relevant to the state of our world. This is why you should watch C-SPAN instead of CNN or Fox or MSNBC, because they only give you news that is selected and filtered and censored so that it takes out 90% of the relevant and potentially damaging information, choosing instead to divert viewer attention with bullshit stories like the Cheney shooting.
(It turns out, by the way, Cheney didn't even have the proper hunting tags to be hunting quail, which for you and me would mean our guns, vehicle, and hunting lisence would all be confiscated, plus we'd get a massive fine out of the ordeal...but not the VP! OH NO! And as newsworthy as that might be, it's not really being reported on in the mainstream media! IMAGINE THAT!!! I fucking wonder why?)
Anyway, back on the subject of dollar hegemony...I know this speech is kinda long, but it's also EXTREMELY important.
If you have BROADBAND and had rather watch the speech, click here (http://www.house.gov/paul/ ), then click "Play".
I feel it is important that people understand the content of this speech if you wish to understand past, current, and future events.
-------------------
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
February 15, 2006
The End of Dollar Hegemony
A hundred years ago it was called "dollar diplomacy." After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into "dollar hegemony." But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.
It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.
First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.
Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn't long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin-- always hoping their subjects wouldn't discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.
This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.
That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations-- those with powerful armies and gold-- strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.
Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: "He who prints the money makes the rules"-- at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.
Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation's people-- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.
The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one's actions is rejected.
When paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules-- rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.
"Dollar Diplomacy," a policy instituted by William Howard Taft and his Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, was designed to enhance U.S. commercial investments in Latin America and the Far East. McKinley concocted a war against Spain in 1898, and (Teddy) Roosevelt's corollary to the Monroe Doctrine preceded Taft's aggressive approach to using the U.S. dollar and diplomatic influence to secure U.S. investments abroad. This earned the popular title of "Dollar Diplomacy." The significance of Roosevelt's change was that our intervention now could be justified by the mere "appearance" that a country of interest to us was politically or fiscally vulnerable to European control. Not only did we claim a right, but even an official U.S. government "obligation" to protect our commercial interests from Europeans.
This new policy came on the heels of the "gunboat" diplomacy of the late 19th century, and it meant we could buy influence before resorting to the threat of force. By the time the "dollar diplomacy" of William Howard Taft was clearly articulated, the seeds of American empire were planted. And they were destined to grow in the fertile political soil of a country that lost its love and respect for the republic bequeathed to us by the authors of the Constitution. And indeed they did. It wasn't too long before dollar "diplomacy" became dollar "hegemony" in the second half of the 20th century.
This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself.
Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Between then and 1971 the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress-- while benefiting the special interests that influence government.
Dollar dominance got a huge boost after World War II. We were spared the destruction that so many other nations suffered, and our coffers were filled with the world's gold. But the world chose not to return to the discipline of the gold standard, and the politicians applauded. Printing money to pay the bills was a lot more popular than taxing or restraining unnecessary spending. In spite of the short-term benefits, imbalances were institutionalized for decades to come.
The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement solidified the dollar as the preeminent world reserve currency, replacing the British pound. Due to our political and military muscle, and because we had a huge amount of physical gold, the world readily accepted our dollar (defined as 1/35th of an ounce of gold) as the world's reserve currency. The dollar was said to be "as good as gold," and convertible to all foreign central banks at that rate. For American citizens, however, it remained illegal to own. This was a gold-exchange standard that from inception was doomed to fail.
The U.S. did exactly what many predicted she would do. She printed more dollars for which there was no gold backing. But the world was content to accept those dollars for more than 25 years with little question-- until the French and others in the late 1960s demanded we fulfill our promise to pay one ounce of gold for each $35 they delivered to the U.S. Treasury. This resulted in a huge gold drain that brought an end to a very poorly devised pseudo-gold standard.
It all ended on August 15, 1971, when Nixon closed the gold window and refused to pay out any of our remaining 280 million ounces of gold. In essence, we declared our insolvency and everyone recognized some other monetary system had to be devised in order to bring stability to the markets.
Amazingly, a new system was devised which allowed the U.S. to operate the printing presses for the world reserve currency with no restraints placed on it-- not even a pretense of gold convertibility, none whatsoever! Though the new policy was even more deeply flawed, it nevertheless opened the door for dollar hegemony to spread.
Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence "backed" the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.
This post-Bretton Woods system was much more fragile than the system that existed between 1945 and 1971. Though the dollar/oil arrangement was helpful, it was not nearly as stable as the pseudo gold standard under Bretton Woods. It certainly was less stable than the gold standard of the late 19th century.
During the 1970s the dollar nearly collapsed, as oil prices surged and gold skyrocketed to $800 an ounce. By 1979 interest rates of 21% were required to rescue the system. The pressure on the dollar in the 1970s, in spite of the benefits accrued to it, reflected reckless budget deficits and monetary inflation during the 1960s. The markets were not fooled by LBJ's claim that we could afford both "guns and butter."
Once again the dollar was rescued, and this ushered in the age of true dollar hegemony lasting from the early 1980s to the present. With tremendous cooperation coming from the central banks and international commercial banks, the dollar was accepted as if it were gold.
Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, on several occasions before the House Banking Committee, answered my challenges to him about his previously held favorable views on gold by claiming that he and other central bankers had gotten paper money-- i.e. the dollar system-- to respond as if it were gold. Each time I strongly disagreed, and pointed out that if they had achieved such a feat they would have defied centuries of economic history regarding the need for money to be something of real value. He smugly and confidently concurred with this.
In recent years central banks and various financial institutions, all with vested interests in maintaining a workable fiat dollar standard, were not secretive about selling and loaning large amounts of gold to the market even while decreasing gold prices raised serious questions about the wisdom of such a policy. They never admitted to gold price fixing, but the evidence is abundant that they believed if the gold price fell it would convey a sense of confidence to the market, confidence that they indeed had achieved amazing success in turning paper into gold.
Increasing gold prices historically are viewed as an indicator of distrust in paper currency. This recent effort was not a whole lot different than the U.S. Treasury selling gold at $35 an ounce in the 1960s, in an attempt to convince the world the dollar was sound and as good as gold. Even during the Depression, one of Roosevelt's first acts was to remove free market gold pricing as an indication of a flawed monetary system by making it illegal for American citizens to own gold. Economic law eventually limited that effort, as it did in the early 1970s when our Treasury and the IMF tried to fix the price of gold by dumping tons into the market to dampen the enthusiasm of those seeking a safe haven for a falling dollar after gold ownership was re-legalized.
Once again the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50%. You just can't fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and money creating system of the Federal Reserve.
Even with all the shortcomings of the fiat monetary system, dollar influence thrived. The results seemed beneficial, but gross distortions built into the system remained. And true to form, Washington politicians are only too anxious to solve the problems cropping up with window dressing, while failing to understand and deal with the underlying flawed policy. Protectionism, fixing exchange rates, punitive tariffs, politically motivated sanctions, corporate subsidies, international trade management, price controls, interest rate and wage controls, super-nationalist sentiments, threats of force, and even war are resorted to—all to solve the problems artificially created by deeply flawed monetary and economic systems.
In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that's the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead. This is a benefit many in Congress fail to recognize, as they bash China for maintaining a positive trade balance with us. But this leads to a loss of manufacturing jobs to overseas markets, as we become more dependent on others and less self-sufficient. Foreign countries accumulate our dollars due to their high savings rates, and graciously loan them back to us at low interest rates to finance our excessive consumption.
It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars-- due to their depreciation-- will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.
The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.
The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to "rule" the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can't last.
Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble-- generated by easy money-- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world's rejection of the dollar. It's bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.
Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.
Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been.
In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein-- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O'Neill.
It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.
In 2001, Venezuela's ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.
After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.
It's become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.
Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the "axis of evil," has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.
Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn't do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn't seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there's little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn't stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she's made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.
It's not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar's importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel's influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting "our" oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.
But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That's not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony-- it's dominance as the world reserve currency-- is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.
For the most part the true victims aren't aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the "tax" that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world's reserve currency.
It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar's value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy "bread and circuses" just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.
The same thing will happen to us if we don't change our ways. Though we don't occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don't declare direct ownership of the natural resources-- we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.
Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.
Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the "backing" of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today's "gold." This is why countries that challenge the system-- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela-- become targets of our plans for regime change.
Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.
But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That's why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.
It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It's only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.
The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.
But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.
Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.
And once again there's this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.
Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.
The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.
User Reviews
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2006-02-22 18:30:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
"This is the most important ETS post you will ever read."
ACTUALLY, it's the most important Ron Paul speech you'll ever read. LIAR!
And I knew all of that anyway!
SAAAAARRRRSS-GAAAAARRRRD!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-19 01:25:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-02-18 20:33:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:12:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:56:56 (#)
Ranking: 2
This is why I bury me gold in the YARRRRRD.
---------------------
Aye...yer a swashbucklin' lad, aren't ye?
Anyone have any suggestions for investments? If you had $10,000 to invest for retirement, what would you invest it in right now? What would you invest it in right now? What's the long-term winner?
Would you convert your dollars to euros?
----------------------
Long term winners--natural resources, developing technology, health care, military.
--------------------------
Thanks for chimbing in.
Those were my thoughts pretty much to a T.
Military is out as far as I'm concerned for personal ethical reasons. I'd like to put my money where my mouth is and get whatever I can scrape together in a company developing hydrogen fuel cells. Now is the time. Over the next 10 years, that stock should soar - especially if the next few years bring similar hurricane seasons as 2005. FUCK terrorism! Mother nature is more terrible than anything man's got going, and I think people are, and will continue to, wisen up to the fact of global warming and demand solutions ASAP.
This will certainly speed up the 20-25 year projected arrival of hydrogen fuel cells on showroom floors. We should also see these companies getting increasing subsidies as the scientific evidence mounts. This will further encourage development, particularly if we get a democratically controlled Congress and a green-minded president in '08.
This should also extend to soy beans, corn, and sugar as ethanol, soy oil, and other alternates ease into ready acceptance.
I'm not a big fan of healthcare, at least not right now, because I can definitely forsee a time when more and more states in the US allow importing cheap drugs from Canada to offset the rising prescription drug costs. Although, you are correct, it's always one of the big winners year after year. However, if the US ever wisens up, gets the budget back in balance, and conceives of a way to overcome its preconceptions enough to move toward a more centralized heathcare system, or at the very LEAST, creates legislation to put cost caps on various common procedures, that stock will take a bit of a dive. Of course, one might enjoy DECADES of positive gains in healthcare.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-02-18 20:50:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ETS if you want to look into a really interesting economic disaster, google Tulip Economics.
As for this post, I read it, read all the replies.
I think it's sad. Only because it's true.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-02-18 20:38:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by the_mysterious_stranger (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:49:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
Why Euros? Why not the swissy? CHF/USD has a -0.96 correlation with EUR/USD. By the way, GBP is positively correlated to EUR, therefore Pound wins when the dollar tanks. At least know what the fuck you are talking about before you go and make assumptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stranger are you a technician?
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-02-18 20:33:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:12:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:56:56 (#)
Ranking: 2
This is why I bury me gold in the YARRRRRD.
---------------------
Aye...yer a swashbucklin' lad, aren't ye?
Anyone have any suggestions for investments? If you had $10,000 to invest for retirement, what would you invest it in right now? What would you invest it in right now? What's the long-term winner?
Would you convert your dollars to euros?
----------------------
Long term winners--natural resources, developing technology, health care, military.
Ten grand isn't even close to what you need to start a retirement account. I would suggest you park the ten large in corporate paper or bonds secured by assets (limits risk), or buy iUnits or ETFs.
Just to give you an idea--for a client to register with the firm I work with he or she would need a minimum of a 100 grand for a cash/margin account.
Maybe you can find a whale putting together arbitrage agreements.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-02-18 19:59:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
One Dollar is 57 pence in real money.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-18 17:48:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/02/18/chavez.oil.ap/index.html
Condoleeza Rice is trying to turn Americans against Chavez.
Take a good look at how a propaganda war is waged, and how the media eats it up - playing right into the hands of our politicians!
They don't even seem to offer an opposing viewpoint! Our journalists are DROPPING THE BALL!
Submitted by simple_catalyst (user info) at 2006-02-18 15:19:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2006-02-18 13:22:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Here's a link that reminded me of the last discussion...
http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=2&guideContext=65.1171&pmmsid=1468097
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-18 01:55:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-02-18 01:53:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
*yawn*
-----------------
You're a dumbass.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-02-18 01:53:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
*yawn*
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-18 01:46:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Coyote:
You do make a valid case against looking to the Euro for a hedge against a falling dollar. Those are definitely things to keep in mind.
If you remember my WWIII post, I tried to make a shaky case for the layout of the war, and the sides the countries involved would choose. All bets could be off if the EU suddenly smelled blood coming from the gaping US wounds and decided they'd like to make a bid for the top spot. Of course, the wild card in that scenario is the good ol' nuclear bomb.
The EU countries seem to be content for now to let us implode and anger as much of the world as possible, while they sit back like a consoling uncle saying, "I know, I know... It's terrible what they're doing, but they'll get theirs in the end."
The long-term problem with the EU is that there are just too many countries with too many disparate agendas and histories and cultures to every truly get on the same page about anything. Perhaps if Iran were to truly succeed in cementing this new deal with China to sell their oil and do it in Euros, it might whet the EU's appetite for power enough to play a more active role in the US's inevitable demise.
All I know is this... We've backed ourselves into a corner from which there is no way out but a large scale war. Who knows if even our concept of wealth will survive? With so many countries atomically armed, it's like we're all sitting atop a powder keg, casually smoking a cigarette right now.
It's amazing to me how they keep people fooled - perpetrating this idea of artificial wealth. They provide great incentives for people to invest in 401k - knowing that it's a hoax - knowing that it will keep families' dollars in America - funneled back through the system once again.
It's amazing how people fail to comprehend how the value of their money can become worthless. They think it's safe in a bank. They buy into this idea of wealth unquestionably.
We've mistaken the ability to inflict pain around the world through military muscle so much, we've even managed to relabel it as "spreading the torch of freedom".
The Euro would be a risk, albeit a safer risk in my estimation as compared to the dollar right now.
Gold has been steadily falling lately. I've been watching the markets over the past couple weeks, and, as if on cue like Mr. Paul said, at a time when the dollar is most being questioned, gold is falling. This, of course, is a ruse designed to recapture people's faith in the dollar. I'd say wait till gold has hit an all-time low, then BUY!
Gold will hit a such a low, because the rich elite who run things will want to scoop up their share before the market collapses. This will secure their rule AFTER the shit hits the fan, and believe me, it's coming.
I don't care if everyone here thinks I'm crazy, I'm still gonna do as I've always done - I'm gonna call 'em as I see 'em.
My momma didn't raise no fool. Well, actually, she raised two of them, but my sisters don't really know any better. God bless 'em. ;)
You know, the worst part about all my raving lunacy is that if the events that I often warn about DO come to pass, I won't even have the pleasure of a "haha, told you so".
The economics part could end up being a moot point.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-02-17 23:57:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 23:33:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
I always liked saying "Flevoland", because it reminded me of Flavor Flav. It's like a Public Enemy theme park. Fuck tha Po-lice!
If riots start there they will simply flood Flevoland again. Bit like New Orleans.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 23:33:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
> Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-02-17 22:30:05 (#)
>
> On the side: Holland isn't a country.
I never said it was! Neither are Groningen, Friesland, Overijssel, Utrecht, Drenthe, or Flevoland. They still use the euro all those places. For now.
I always liked saying "Flevoland", because it reminded me of Flavor Flav. It's like a Public Enemy theme park. Fuck tha Po-lice!
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-02-17 22:30:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 19:38:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not arguing with you about the viability of the dollar, but the euro is in even worse shape. When I was living in Holland I was damn glad to be getting paid in euros instead of dollars, since the dollar dropped by 30% relative to the Euro when I was living there, but they took a jolt on that first no vote to the EU constitution, and it's unclear whether countries like Germany and France would stick with the Euro or pull out, when they get faced with ten new mostly poor countries coming into the eurozone. The EU is closer to terrorists and already has bird flu, plus the unity of their currency depends on them continuing to all be able to agree with each other, without a constitution.
-----------------------
On the side: Holland isn't a country.
There's a slight difference between EU and the Euro countries as Britain is in the EU but not in the Euro-zone, allthough they do take euro's. The EU has no birdflu, birds have birdflu and there will always be birdflu. EU being closer to terrorists (geographical) is not the issue as their foreign policies are not the same as the USA foreign policy. The euro is in a great shape as it's not depending on just 1 economy alone and it will remain stable and Asia will start focussing more on euro's within the next years also.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 22:28:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2006-02-17 21:43:00 (#)
Ranking: 2
I read it, my fault
------------------------
No probs.
Thank you for that, dude. It's rare to see someone who's willing to admit a mistake, especially online.
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2006-02-17 21:43:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2006-02-17 21:43:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I read it, my fault
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-02-17 21:31:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-17 17:17:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 17:09:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
As long as the United States is the super power and as long as the dollar is the 'Almightly Dollar' and world standard, the British do not want to change to the euro, because it would put them in a weaker position on the world stage.
====
Hah, no.
Britain has not joined the euro because we're as jingoistic as fuck and middle-aged Johnny Commoner still refers to the germans as Huns. The euro is a vote loser - simply because the old guard are still operating under the legacy of WWII.
A vote against the euro is a vote for british tradition (whatever the hell that is) not a vote for america. The reason that we have not already joined the euro has nothing to do with america.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Everything has EVERYTHING to do with America (U.S.). Bow to your superiors, Brit :-D
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-02-17 21:23:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Cheney didn't have a stamp? Oh fucking NO!!!
Remember the spirit of the law not the letter of it.
"Bush accepts Cheney's explanation." FUCK BUSH!!
I don't need validation from an idiot, nor should the VP...
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 19:38:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not arguing with you about the viability of the dollar, but the euro is in even worse shape. When I was living in Holland I was damn glad to be getting paid in euros instead of dollars, since the dollar dropped by 30% relative to the Euro when I was living there, but they took a jolt on that first no vote to the EU constitution, and it's unclear whether countries like Germany and France would stick with the Euro or pull out, when they get faced with ten new mostly poor countries coming into the eurozone. The EU is closer to terrorists and already has bird flu, plus the unity of their currency depends on them continuing to all be able to agree with each other, without a constitution.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2006-02-17 19:33:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You have achieved your goal. And I +2 any post with 'hegemony' in the title. Preach it.
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2006-02-17 19:18:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I stopped after the first sentence.
fuckin crybaby
Submitted by Drone_of_Industry (user info) at 2006-02-17 19:01:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This was much, much needed. And thank you for typing it all out so I could follow along. I'm gonna send it out to lots o people.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-17 17:17:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 17:09:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
As long as the United States is the super power and as long as the dollar is the 'Almightly Dollar' and world standard, the British do not want to change to the euro, because it would put them in a weaker position on the world stage.
====
Hah, no.
Britain has not joined the euro because we're as jingoistic as fuck and middle-aged Johnny Commoner still refers to the germans as Huns. The euro is a vote loser - simply because the old guard are still operating under the legacy of WWII.
A vote against the euro is a vote for british tradition (whatever the hell that is) not a vote for america. The reason that we have not already joined the euro has nothing to do with america.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 17:09:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:55:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
so wait. I know britain isn't on the euro yet. Whats keeping them backing the dollar? I mean, they must have a vested interest in it to go into Iraq with us, but what is it when the euro standard is waiting for them?
-----------------------
As long as the United States is the super power and as long as the dollar is the 'Almightly Dollar' and world standard, the British do not want to change to the euro, because it would put them in a weaker position on the world stage.
The question you asked is the wrong one... You asked what's keeping the British backing the dollar. The question you should have been asking is could they afford NOT to? What's the alternative for Britain? Second stage in the EU to France?
Fat chance.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 17:04:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by the_mysterious_stranger (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:49:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
Why Euros? Why not the swissy? CHF/USD has a -0.96 correlation with EUR/USD. By the way, GBP is positively correlated to EUR, therefore Pound wins when the dollar tanks. At least know what the fuck you are talking about before you go and make assumptions.
-------------------------
Be careful with assuming the pound will stand after the fall of the dollar. The British are in a similar situation as the US. They have no exports anymore. The strength of the pound is closely related to the strength or weakness of the dollar because of how closely our militaries are allied.
In short, the British and the US live and die together.
It doesn't MATTER how the currencies curently correlate! What matters is how they FLUCTUATE in the future with relation to each other. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn1651/dn1651-1_570.jpg
Read this: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/17/content_521449.htm
What currency do you think all that oil and gas is going to be traded in?
If you said "euros", you're probably going to be correct... That is, unless the US intervenes militarily, which is going to cost the American taxpayer TRILLIONS more dollars it doesn't have!
You figure it out.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-02-17 17:01:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Apparently I've alway pronounced hegemony wrong.
A bit like Arkansas.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:55:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
so wait. I know britain isn't on the euro yet. Whats keeping them backing the dollar? I mean, they must have a vested interest in it to go into Iraq with us, but what is it when the euro standard is waiting for them?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:54:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, Teeph, another thing I wanted to bring up about the oil standard...
The oil standard is what's holding back our movement into alternate fuels. It's why all our cars aren't running on mostly ethanol, or, god forbid, hydrogen fuel cells.
Care to rebut?
Submitted by the_mysterious_stranger (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:49:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Why Euros? Why not the swissy? CHF/USD has a -0.96 correlation with EUR/USD. By the way, GBP is positively correlated to EUR, therefore Pound wins when the dollar tanks. At least know what the fuck you are talking about before you go and make assumptions.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:41:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:25:24 (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS -
Let's take a moment, shall we, and examine what has recently transpired.
You posted this speach.
I said, "Okay, but the entire thing is based on some guy who's still carrying a torch for the gold standard, which is just as arbitrary as a paper money standard."
You said, "Liek, wow, never thought of it like that, heavy dude," but kind of missed the point that for the most part, the guy's entire concept of fiscal solvency is based on having a tangible backing for currency, (which, as we've just explored, isn't true) or military force.
Then, in your last three responses, you've encouraged:
- Removing what military force we have.
- Encouraging the devaluation of our non-tangibly backed currency by telling everyone you know to put their money in pounds or euros (way to help the cause, buddy!).
- The notion that another "sky is falling" story about how the United States is on the verge of complete economic colapse WOULD NOT get ratings for Murdoch, Turner, et al.
As I've alluded, you really did seem open minded when you started the discussion, but you've snapped right back to your Chicken Little conspiracies. That disappoints me some. But not too much, because it's time to go home.
-----------------------------
You're twisting my words again.... No surprise there.
-I didn't encourage removing our military force, I encouraged keeping our military at financially managable levels, which is going to naturally involve fewer $2 TRILLION skirmishes.
-I am not ENCOURAGING the devaluation of the currency by advising people that I LOVE to protect their life savings by getting them away from a dollar that's going to be in serious trouble very soon, which is based on the trade and budget deficits under the Bush administration. If you want to point fingers, try looking at Bush first. He wrote the budget, not me, and until it's made illegal for US citizens to invest overseas, there isn't a damned thing wrong with it. Certainly no more than sitting around waiting for the dollar to collapse and finding ourselves in complete poverty because of unwise decisions and misplaced trust in our leaders.
-I said that Murdoch and Turner won't expose this story, not because the ratings wouldn't be massive, but because they stand to lose MORE by exposing it. They have as much stock in the dollar as anyone. Their exposition would only serve to hurry the coming collapse.
Consider this a tip between internet friends...the dollar is in serious trouble. This is not just coming from crazy 'ol ETS - this is coming from Congressmen and economists on the level (not the ones paid to keep up comsumer spending by saying everything positive).
Take it for what you will. Then when the next depression hits, I'll sit here with my euros saying "I told you so".
Sorry to be an asshole, but that's just the way it is.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:39:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes average people CAN do a goddamn thing. They can vote and they can invest their money as they see fit. It's not being reported because those that own the huge corporate media conglomerates, Turner, Murdoch, etc. stand to LOSE MONEY if the public are really informed about the real state of the dollar.
Fascinating article. Too bad I have no money to invest.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:26:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:18:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
The future of the euro is kind of questionable. I'm just sayin'.
-------------------
ALL currencies are questionable. None moreso than the dollar.
Here's the thing... The kind of talk going on on capital hill is not going to go unnoticed. The kind of budget shortfalls under the Bush administration and the bogging down of the war in Iraq is going to hurt the dollar in a serious way.
At least until Bush is out of office and the budget shortfalls are brought under control, I would advise anyone to put their savings in euros.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:25:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS -
Let's take a moment, shall we, and examine what has recently transpired.
You posted this speach.
I said, "Okay, but the entire thing is based on some guy who's still carrying a torch for the gold standard, which is just as arbitrary as a paper money standard."
You said, "Liek, wow, never thought of it like that, heavy dude," but kind of missed the point that for the most part, the guy's entire concept of fiscal solvency is based on having a tangible backing for currency, (which, as we've just explored, isn't true) or military force.
Then, in your last three responses, you've encouraged:
- Removing what military force we have.
- Encouraging the devaluation of our non-tangibly backed currency by telling everyone you know to put their money in pounds or euros (way to help the cause, buddy!).
- The notion that another "sky is falling" story about how the United States is on the verge of complete economic colapse WOULD NOT get ratings for Murdoch, Turner, et al.
As I've alluded, you really did seem open minded when you started the discussion, but you've snapped right back to your Chicken Little conspiracies. That disappoints me some. But not too much, because it's time to go home.
Submitted by Kale (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:25:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:23:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:29:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
What's that, Sancho?
That's not a windmill, it's an enemy horseman, as plain as day!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is probably the best response on this post.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:21:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why can't you see reality for what it is? It isn't pretty, that's for sure. But it doesn't mean it isn't real.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:18:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Cuberat:
I meant to mention, it's probably a bad idea to put your money in the British pound too. If the dollar collapses, the pound will probably follow. If the pound doesn't collapse, it will still take a significant hit, and will probably force GB to accept the euro anyway.
Any thoughts?
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:18:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The future of the euro is kind of questionable. I'm just sayin'.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:15:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill,
Yes average people CAN do a goddamn thing. They can vote and they can invest their money as they see fit. It's not being reported because those that own the huge corporate media conglomerates, Turner, Murdoch, etc. stand to LOSE MONEY if the public are really informed about the real state of the dollar.
It's more profitable to them to keep people in the dark, don't you think?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:11:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:54:42 (#)
Ranking: 2
Take it from someone who is in the financial markets and deals with world currencies every day...this guy is dead on.
I realized this was a real possiblilty a couple years ago...thats why all my savings are denominated in British Pounds and Euros...only my cash for bills, spending, etc is in Dollars...
------------------------
This is what I've been telling everyone I know to do with their savings... Get it as far from the US dollar as possible.
The problem is, most people have their savings in 401k plans where the company matches their investments, and to remove money prematurely means a big loss. In this way, they have trapped themselves.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 16:08:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:44:32 (#)
Ranking: 1
Guess we'd better not cut our military spending then, eh?
-------------------------
Herein lies the crux of the problem. We obviously can't be a powerful nation if we can't defend ourselves, but we, likewise, can't be a powerful nation if we can't take care of our domestic problems. The Gulf Coast is still in utter ruins. We've had to spend about $200 billion to help restore it, but it's obviously not enough.
We can't spend $2 Trillion on a venture like Iraq to keep the oil market trading in dollars instead of euros at the expense of having that manpower at home when we most need it, as we have seen in the Katrina disaster.
I think it's important that we balance the budget, because the interest we're paying on the deficit alone is staggering, and as Rep. Paul says in the speech, we can't keep printing money forever without consequences.
The best way to prolong the current system and buy time to figure out a better way is to keep the national budget balanced. If we cannot balance the budget, I fear war will be the end result - a war like we've never seen in history.
It's not an easy answer. There are many things to consider. But, more defense spending is not the answer. Alternate technologies is a BIG part of the answer. The key is self-sufficiency.
A country that is self-sufficient doesn't have to worry so much about how its dollar is recieved around the world.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:55:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
It doesn't matter, ETS. The news can rattle off economic indicators and serious pieces all day long... but they still have to pay the bills at the end of the day and how will they when nobody advertises because nobody watches the program?
People not caring over those issues may not totally be a sign of stupidity, as I've alluded to, but it seems like their lack of caring is certainly a negative thing.
The majority of Americans don't give a fuck and deal with shit when it happens. That is good in certain circumstances, not good in others.
The fact is there are many experts that have hundreds, if not thousands, of man-years of experience working on our economic situation as we speak. I'm sure whatever news you think is news is old to them, and not only that...they are the only people who matter. Average citizens can't do a god damned thing.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:54:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Take it from someone who is in the financial markets and deals with world currencies every day...this guy is dead on.
I realized this was a real possiblilty a couple years ago...thats why all my savings are denominated in British Pounds and Euros...only my cash for bills, spending, etc is in Dollars...
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:48:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And you seemed so lucid there for a moment.
Shoulda known . . .
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:45:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Stabkill... That is like a question of what came first, the chicken or the egg.
Does the media not publish such information because the public is stupid...
...or is the public stupid because the media does not publish such information?
We see the same concept reflected in advertising, for instance. The public will only buy those things they know exist.
I feel that any reasonably intelligent person can grasp the general concept put forth in this speech if they were only informed about how important it is to them, and were made to thirst for such information. You don't have to have a genius IQ or an economics degree to understand it.
The problem is, since they are completely in the dark, they don't even know how something like this effects them... So they continue to put their money in 401k, they continue to put their money in the hands of money managers that are trained to buy high and sell low...at least just enough that their clients don't see it happening.
The average Joe has no idea about the real value of their money. There is a reason for that.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:45:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
history as told by the heros is never quite what it seems
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:44:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Guess we'd better not cut our military spending then, eh?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:34:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The aspect of all this that doesn't sit well with me is that it's our military might that keeps the dollar, and consequently us, afloat.
China trained 600,000 new engineers in 2005.
The US trained 70,000.
How can we possibly keep up with that figure? We're powerful solely because of the technological advancement of our military. That advancement is based on the education of our workforce. If we keep cutting funding for education, as the current administration has every year they've been in office, we cannot possibly keep up with future advancement. Of course China has a larger population, and no matter what we do we're not going to be able to keep up with a China that is economically and politically stable as well as technologically advanced.
But that is precisely the point I'm trying to make here; if the United States military is percieved to not live up to its own hype, and if we can no longer succeed in deterrring dissident nations with military force, what attributes do we have left that are redeeming in the eyes of the world?
This is a serious matter.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:29:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What's that, Sancho?
That's not a windmill, it's an enemy horseman, as plain as day!
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:26:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Jesus Christ, ETS. The reason why you "never hear about it" is that 99% of the people who watch the news would have that article fly right over their head.
That's why there are weekly magazines like the Economist and websites, etc. dedicated to those people who want to find out what is going on.
The news is dumbed down...I'm sure you should have noticed this by now, haven't you?
Submitted by digdug (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:22:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:01:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
So according to Ron Paul's website, he's never voted for any legislation unless it was explicitly approved of in the Constitution. Apparently he also believes the government should have essentially no power to regulate any land use, economic activity, or personal social behavior. In other words, he's a total fucking lunatic.
==============================================
Laissez-faire bitches. The government's job is to police criminals and stay the fuck out of my business.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:19:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Coyote sounds like he actually knows economics.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:19:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:13:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
I say that we steal all of the world's oxygen, and make it the new currency.
"What's that Chang? You need air? Well, then fork over the oil."
--------------
Hey, Bob, if we keep burning fossil fuels, you might one day have your wish. ;)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:18:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:01:10 (#)
Ranking: 2
So according to Ron Paul's website, he's never voted for any legislation unless it was explicitly approved of in the Constitution. Apparently he also believes the government should have essentially no power to regulate any land use, economic activity, or personal social behavior. In other words, he's a total fucking lunatic.
----------------------------
Non-regulation is dangerous - especially when it concerns things like foreign trade, immigration, and environment.
We simply can't have a zero regulation policy on all things. You're right, that is lunacy. I'm not promoting that sort of view here at all. But that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Paul here seems to have correctly diagnosed the current world situation with visionary accuracy, in my opinion.
And while he doesn't seem to offer any real long-term solutions, just knowing the current state of things is important to finding a solution.
What pisses me off about things like this is you'll NEVER see or hear ANY major news agency reporting on this because they fear they'll spark an all-out economic panic - at least that's what I ASSUME must be their motivation.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:17:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Actually, I think your food example helps explain a little bit of why gold has value. It's non-parishable. Gold doesn't rust, so if you have X amount of gold, you'll continue to have X amount of gold through time. Not so much with food, and in fact, oil, depending on its level of refinement, may have a "freshness date" . . . Indo? Little help?
It scares the hell out of me to see Llllllliberals looking to Rand. Or makes me very happy, I'm not sure you guys were understanding the point there . . . well, maybe you did, but that's a whole new tangent that would be huge and I feel like crap and don't want to get into it.
Anyway, massive inflation is a good thing for getting out of debt. Cheap dollars means that the relative value of your debt goes down (since it is measured in dollars). This is why the notion that the U.S. can go bankrupt is a falacy. Our debt is measured in dollars, and we can make as many as we need at any given time.
Sure, that could cause pre-WWII Germany amounts of poverty, where you need to truck a wheelbarrow full of cash to the bread store to buy a loaf . . . or a debit card.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:15:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
What I want to know is, if everyone agrees that we don't really need a gold standard, then what does it matter? Sure, everything is tied to the health of the U.S. economy and nation-state. That's good, isn't it? Kind of helps us out if a billion angry poor Chinese people have some incentive not to crush us.
Gold itself is only valuable by fiat, because it was popular for a long time as a decoration. It's not an irreplaceable part of any vital machinery that keeps society functioning. You can't eat it. You can't wear it. You can only trade it. In other words, it's just like a dollar, or a barrel of oil. I'd argue it's even less functional than oil, because at least oil makes your SUV go. Various countries and societies have used other standards, like salt, cocaine, rare seashells... whatever.
The perfect currency is something people like because its shiny, has no other use, and is in restricted or at least controlled supply. As long as people have the restraint to restrict the supply, tying it to some bright fetishistic thing is irrelevant. It's William Jennings Bryan and the bogus silver standard argument all over again.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:13:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The gold standard is kick ass! That's why there are so many nations in the world on it...
Wait... ZERO nations in the world are on a gold backed currency.
Although, if they went to a gold standard...try to beat them to it by buying as much gold as you can because I heard if that happens gold can fly up to $5K an ounce. If that happens, I'll be panning all summer long.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:13:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I say that we steal all of the world's oxygen, and make it the new currency.
"What's that Chang? You need air? Well, then fork over the oil."
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:12:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:56:56 (#)
Ranking: 2
This is why I bury me gold in the YARRRRRD.
---------------------
Aye...yer a swashbucklin' lad, aren't ye?
Anyone have any suggestions for investments? If you had $10,000 to invest for retirement, what would you invest it in right now? What would you invest it in right now? What's the long-term winner?
Would you convert your dollars to euros?
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:11:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
One thing I can say with certainty: the native Americans had a hell of a lot simpler lives, and economic system, with their bartering. One man's talents/goods for another man's. And no damn foreign exchange rate to fuck it up.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:08:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:03:18 (#)
Ranking: 1
The thing is, this whole argument hinges on the notion that gold has intrinsic value, when it really doesn't. The only reason everyone thinks it does is because it was the "money" before we had money. All it is is a pretty metal that's really too soft to do anything productive with. What's so valuable about that?
At least an oil standard makes sense.
-----------------------
You're right, an oil standard makes sense, but the problem is, it's based on the oil of OTHER NATIONS! The only reason the dollar is worth jack shit really is because countries need it to purchase oil.
What if the dollar were based on something more fundamental, like food? What effect would that have?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:06:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Coyote: We might as well start printing our own uber money...it would be worth about as much as the dollar!
CaptainThorns: It brings back the old question: does life imitate art or does art imitate life? Sure, truth can be stranger than fiction, but I do think there is much to be said about the genius of some people such as Rand and Orwell to see into the future as clearly as they appear to have seen. I am a firm believer that the future is the sum of the past, and by closely studying history, it is possible to see into the future with amazing accuracy. I think ANYONE can do this.
Teeph: Thanks for keeping an open mind. You've really hit on something else there too... How valuable is GOLD when we really think about it? Hell, what is 'value' anyway, if not a direct means to survive? It's really a deep question, and one that will always be relevant, but no more so than this moment in history. If we just look at our national debt here in the US, $8.2 TRILLION and growing, it's easy to see that the only way we could possibly ever pay that back is by a lot of hard work...
...or an all-out, debt-erasing war.
I've brought this up before on this website and was completely ridiculed by Indoninja and others for it. I just wish we could leave all the personal stuff aside and THINK about this stuff with an open mind. That's really all I want.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:04:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:45:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact remains, Stabby, if any of us went hunting without the proper tags, we'd have our guns, our vehicles, and our hunting lisence confiscated.
This is yet another example of how our politicians seem to think they're above the law.
And, so what? Even if I turn out to be wrong about that side comment, the rest of the post's significance and importance is NOT negated.
In this post, I am actually praising the viewpoint of a Republican Congressman, which should help some of you distinguish me as someone who is NOT just another typical 'leftist'.
STOP TRYING TO REDUCE EVERY ISSUE TO A PARTISAN ONE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you an expert on Texas law?
First of all..here is the comment by state game officials:
A department spokesman said warnings are being issued in most cases because the stamp requirement only went into effect five months ago and many hunters weren't aware of it.
*** And here is Texas law:
If you violate fish and wildlife laws, in addition to civil restitution you may:
-be fined (Class C - $25-$500; Class B - $200-$2000; Class A - $500-$4000; State Jail Felony, $1500-$10,000);
-be jailed (Class B and higher offenses);
face automatic suspension or revocation of licenses for up to 5 years;
-forfeit hunting gear, including firearms, used to commit a violation.
...NOTICE the "MAY" which means you "MAY" be fined, not "ARE AUTOMATICALLY" fined.
You are bringing up a minor issue that is fucking irrelevant to the main subject of your post.
The only people complaining about this license ARE the left-wing idiots, so why bother bringing it up? Why don't you also say stuff like "Any normal people would have been ARRESTED for a hunting accident!) like they do also. Which, by the way, is completely untrue as well...but doesn't stop idiots from saying it.
If you are going to talk about the petrodollar and the debt, next time keep your comments about Cheney's hunting accident to yourself. Did you hear what the "victim" said to the media? He felt REGRET that Cheney had to go through what he did. He doesn't sound like a poor little victim, does he? The fucking media is full of shit and you fall right into their trap.
Just like when Arnold smashed his bike into a car that PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF HIM...nobody mentioned the fact that the car backed out of the driveway without looking into the street for oncoming traffic but they sure as heck noted his lack of a motocycle permit. Fucking ridiculous.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:03:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Yeah sure. You try stuffing a 20 dollar gold piece down a hooker's g-string and see if you still feel that way.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:03:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
The thing is, this whole argument hinges on the notion that gold has intrinsic value, when it really doesn't. The only reason everyone thinks it does is because it was the "money" before we had money. All it is is a pretty metal that's really too soft to do anything productive with. What's so valuable about that?
At least an oil standard makes sense.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:02:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you NEED pot.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 15:01:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
So according to Ron Paul's website, he's never voted for any legislation unless it was explicitly approved of in the Constitution. Apparently he also believes the government should have essentially no power to regulate any land use, economic activity, or personal social behavior. In other words, he's a total fucking lunatic.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:56:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is why I bury me gold in the YARRRRRD.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:55:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If I can get just one person to either read or watch this speech, I will have achieved my goal.
Caul, the 'Truth' line was a joke directed squarely at you.
One day, I'd really like to meet some of you so you can see I'm not the person you seem to think I am.
I think it's unfortunate we have to quibble like this instead of productively debate some of these important issues in a respectful manner.
I take much of the responsibility for why we can't, as I understand that I have allowed myself to be caught up in my fair share of trash talking. For that, I'm sorry.
I just wish that we could discuss the content of the post and forget all the useless quibbling - but I can see that's probably not going to happen.
You know, just because you might not like me as a person (even though you don't really know me as a person) doesn't mean you can't engage in respectful debate on issues that concern all of us.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:54:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I've always been pissed that they abandoned the gold standard.
Well, actually, before that I was pissed that they stopped using pretty rocks and seashells, but, you know, same deal.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:54:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Read the whole thing. And I'll be passing on the broadband link to others.
You're right, it is a VERY important, undeniable issue that everyone needs to be aware of, but I doubt most of the Uber-population will care, much less read this. +2 for taking a stand on the topic.
The whole situation about the value of gold vs. paper currencies particularly makes me think of "Atlas Shrugged" and the outcome in THAT story. Perhaps fiction is on its way to becoming fact?
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:54:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
If only we could locate all the gold that the Nazis shipped out of Germany by U-Boat in 1945, then we'd have enough backing to establish our own Uber currency that could be traded electronically.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:45:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
A hard read, too droll. +1 For all that typing
Submitted by digdug (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:45:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
That was the last ETS post I will ever glibly skim over, much less read.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:45:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The fact remains, Stabby, if any of us went hunting without the proper tags, we'd have our guns, our vehicles, and our hunting lisence confiscated.
This is yet another example of how our politicians seem to think they're above the law.
And, so what? Even if I turn out to be wrong about that side comment, the rest of the post's significance and importance is NOT negated.
In this post, I am actually praising the viewpoint of a Republican Congressman, which should help some of you distinguish me as someone who is NOT just another typical 'leftist'.
STOP TRYING TO REDUCE EVERY ISSUE TO A PARTISAN ONE.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:44:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
..........
Submitted by Snowynorth (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:43:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Most important ETS post I ever read
http://www.ubersite.com/m/78779
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:42:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You and your Truth...you sound like a religious person.
Eat shit and die you pompous little faggot.
p.s. I didn't read your post.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-02-17 14:36:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
(It turns out, by the way, Cheney didn't even have the proper hunting tags to be hunting quail, which for you and me would mean our guns, vehicle, and hunting lisence would all be confiscated, plus we'd get a massive fine out of the ordeal...but not the VP! OH NO! And as newsworthy as that might be, it's not really being reported on in the mainstream media! IMAGINE THAT!!! I fucking wonder why?)
Do your research, tool. Cheney doesn't get his own licenses, he has people do that for him. TEXAS didn't inform them of a new permit needed ($7) for the particular hunting he was doing and because it is new, the "fine" was a warning. But, hey...go ahead and ignore the truth and join the camp of liberal sacks of shit whining about a fucking $7 permit.
You ruined your post with this side comment.