• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you consider the USA a good country?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Do you consider the USA a good country?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
LegendKiller said:
Whats going to replace it? Certainly not the Euro, nor the Yuan, nor the Yen, nor the Pound.

There isn't a single currency on the planet that will replace the dollar for quite some time.
Click to expand...

It won't last because the economy is weakening considerably:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-03/how-petrodollar-quietly-died-and-nobody-noticed

and whatever replaces it will experience the same problem because of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

But these problems will be a walk in the park compared to the effects of peak oil coupled with global warming.
 
ralfy said:
It won't last because the economy is weakening considerably:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-03/how-petrodollar-quietly-died-and-nobody-noticed

and whatever replaces it will experience the same problem because of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

But these problems will be a walk in the park compared to the effects of peak oil coupled with global warming.
Click to expand...

Ohh noes - Petrodollar volumes going back down to where they were pre-crisis. Gawd no, that's just a portent of doom!
 
Remobz said:
Trust me it is much more complicated than that.

I will say this though. The insatiable DEMAND for drugs from Canada and USA has helped a lot in fueling the corruption in Mexico and neighboring Countries for example. It is not the only reason but it is still a contributing factor.

The US is one of the leading arms producers in the world. Where do you think these guns end up?

What country has the BIGGEST environmental footprint in the Americas? Take a good guess.

The cold weather Countries sure have their act together indeed.
Click to expand...
Well, my point was that the sometimes very cold weather forces them to not have as big homelessness issues. That forces a level of organization on people that doesn't necessarily exist in places like Mexico and Brazil.

Also, a casual observation here -- The USA and Canada don't have armed cartels completely running amok. In fact, AFAIK there's nothing like that going on north of the Mexican border. The most egregious internal terrorism have been mostly lone gunmen running amok for a few minutes or the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. Maybe a few cult incidents with multiple people, but they are isolated and sporadic, not an endemic problem.

Yes, the drug trade is largely involved, at least, with Mexico. That and the manufacture and trade of guns, and I blame the USA for that.
 
Last edited:
ralfy said:
Feel free to mention them, then see how they are connected to the petrodollar.
Click to expand...

Military sales? That alone provides a near infinite hedge against the dollar's decline. Between the absolute size of our military and our military exports, and the presence of more supercarrier power than the entire world has, combined, means that it won't go away in my lifetime.

Durable goods? How much cheaper do they become when the dollar declines?

People who say the death of the dollar is imminent do not understand that there isn't a single other currency that can take its place as a large reserve holding. It won't die because it cannot die without a replacement.

You also misunderstand peak oil. There are plenty of reserves around, just cost matters and even with the decline of the ME, doesn't mean that the USD is sunk as a "petrodollar".
 
Last edited:
LegendKiller said:
Military sales? That alone provides a near infinite hedge against the dollar's decline. Between the absolute size of our military and our military exports, and the presence of more supercarrier power than the entire world has, combined, means that it won't go away in my lifetime.

Durable goods? How much cheaper do they become when the dollar declines?

People who say the death of the dollar is imminent do not understand that there isn't a single other currency that can take its place as a large reserve holding. It won't die because it cannot die without a replacement.

You also misunderstand peak oil. There are plenty of reserves around, just cost matters and even with the decline of the ME, doesn't mean that the USD is sunk as a "petrodollar".
Click to expand...

I probably also disagree with whoever you were arguing with, but the petro dollar and the reserve currency are two completely different things. To a degree I think the petrodollar is already dying in that many countries are trading oil without using USD such as China and Iran and we've done jack shit about it really. In terms of the reserve currency its a total joke that anybody would trust China over the US because they fudge all their economic data. The Euro is decent but in even worse shape than the dollar. Ditto for Yen. So that covers just about all the large economies.
 
LegendKiller said:
Military sales? That alone provides a near infinite hedge against the dollar's decline. Between the absolute size of our military and our military exports, and the presence of more supercarrier power than the entire world has, combined, means that it won't go away in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Ironically, military sales are used hand-in-hand with the petrodollar. How do you think the petrodollar started in the first place?

The only reason why military spending grew to such an extent is because the dollar is the world reserve currency. Why do you think the gold standard was replaced by the petrodollar?

Durable goods? How much cheaper do they become when the dollar declines?
Click to expand...

Exactly. The U.S. economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending. That's why it needs the petrodollar propped up to keep imports cheap.

People who say the death of the dollar is imminent do not understand that there isn't a single other currency that can take its place as a large reserve holding. It won't die because it cannot die without a replacement.
Click to expand...

That's because the one who holds the reserve currency eventually pays for it. Read the ff. for more details:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36931117&postcount=77

You also misunderstand peak oil. There are plenty of reserves around, just cost matters and even with the decline of the ME, doesn't mean that the USD is sunk as a "petrodollar".
Click to expand...

Peak oil isn't about reserves.
 
OverVolt said:
I probably also disagree with whoever you were arguing with, but the petro dollar and the reserve currency are two completely different things. To a degree I think the petrodollar is already dying in that many countries are trading oil without using USD such as China and Iran and we've done jack shit about it really. In terms of the reserve currency its a total joke that anybody would trust China over the US because they fudge all their economic data. The Euro is decent but in even worse shape than the dollar. Ditto for Yen. So that covers just about all the large economies.
Click to expand...

They are actually the same. The petrodollar is the U.S. dollar. The global reserve currency is the U.S. dollar. You actually showed that in the second sentence of your paragraph.

I don't think other countries are looking at China to hold the world currency, as it would become as big a joke as the U.S. And I don't think China is interested in being entrusted with it for reasons given in the second link in this post:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36931117&postcount=77

In the end, the country that holds the reserve currency loses. That's why with the drop of the gold standard, the U.S. had to set up the petrodollar in place through military agreements with Saudi Arabia.
 
Old Peak Oil: how much is in the ground?

New Peak Oil: How much of what's in the ground can we afford to take out and use without causing too much damage to the atmosphere?

(Hint: the figure I see mentioned is 20%).
 
It's not so much pollution that's considered but energy return. That's why even with large reserves of crude oil, crude oil production peaked.

This also explains why the world is now resorting to shale oil and other sources of unconventional production, even if several of these sources also pollute as much, if not more.
 
ralfy said:
It's not so much pollution that's considered but energy return. That's why even with large reserves of crude oil, crude oil production peaked.

This also explains why the world is now resorting to shale oil and other sources of unconventional production, even if several of these sources also pollute as much, if not more.
Click to expand...

So, energy is being used without regard to the impact on the climate.
 
America is a great country and it started out as one, but the people are fucking stupid, well at least half and they vote the same cock sucker in office and you wonder why Congress has the lowest poll numbers. This country is by the people for the people and it's the people that chose the direction this country will lead.

Keep watching the MSM, reading that garbage on the net and voting with what you hear from talk sluts on TV and this country will go to shit. Low information voters are a huge problem of why this country has problems today.

We need to stick to our Constitutional roots and we will continue to be the greatest country on earth!
 
John, the country is supposed to be by the people and for the people, but when the wealthy interests can propagandize the public and buy opinions for decades, it breaks.

And when even more money is allowed to buy elections, and even worse most of that money can be given secretly so you can't even see who it is, it's worse and worse.

Our founding fathers didn't think a democracy could last - they never had. We're at a point now that it's awfully dysfunctional, with the wealthy interests this powerful.
 
Kill lobbying. Simple. Create term limits. Simple. This country allows you to get rich. The rich create jobs. When was the last time someone poor gave a man a job? The fundamentals of capitalism.

If the Koch brothers or George Soros is buying up votes than guess who's at fault? The voter!
 
John Connor said:
Kill lobbying. Simple. Create term limits. Simple. This country allows you to get rich. The rich create jobs. When was the last time someone poor gave a man a job? The fundamentals of capitalism.

If the Koch brothers or George Soros is buying up votes than guess who's at fault? The voter!
Click to expand...

Well, we disagree on most of that.

Kill lobbying... well, yes in a way, but it's a lot more complicated. Remember that idea that government represents the people? Not just do what they want?

That requires the 'right of the people to petition their government'. Which the powerful interests are able to pervert into their getting 99% of the influence.

So you have to figure out how to get the people heard, while not allowing that to be monopolized by the powerful interests.

There are little details that happen when you have to raise $10 million or lose. You are forced to care more about the guy who can donate $100,000 than the non-donor.

There are complications. Over half the Congress and staff leave to become lobbyists - meaning that while in office, they know they better serve those lobbyists.

How do you fix that? Ban them from working for lobbying firms? You better come up with something if you want to fix the problem.

It's admirable how well the progressive Democrats are able to keep that balance in favor of the people as much as they are, and is a big reason they deserve the voters' support.

Term limits are not the answer, and would make things worse.

Think about it. The next election, the powerful interests pick someone they want to run to represent them and give him the backing to run. Anyone else is also a nobody but lacks that backing. Who are you going to vote for? Fact is, most voters are going to vote for the guy with the big ad campaign making him look good and his opponents look bad. Over 90% of the time that's what happens.

And under you system, the guy elected doesn't even have to care about your vote for re-election - just screw you. You have no influence, even less than now.

It would rig the system to let the power brokers be more powerful than ever, getting people who owe loyalty only to them elected.

Our best politicians, who serve for decades and learn how to govern, are out. The Henry Waxman's, the Bernie Sanders. In are people who don't know what they're doing.

And that gives more power to the permanent bureaucracy, for whom the politicians just come and go even more than now. You are going to be a victim of unintended consequences.

The rich do NOT create jobs in the way you mean. They take advantage of business opportunities that require employees - they're not some benefactors doing charity.

They deserve some respect - but not the sort of total freedom to do things that are in their interest but against the public interest you seem to want to allow.

They ultimately are a threat to democracy, if allowed to get too much unrestrained power. They're the biggest threat to the things you say you want.

What you're asking for in voters not listening to billions in advertising DOES NOT WORK.

That's not how people work, it's not how advertising works, it's not how politics works.

You're in fantasyland. You know how it's commonly said that communism is a bad failure because it's trying to force something against human nature? You're doing that just as much.

Advertising DOES work. And you can't change that.

You're in some fantasyland where no one needs to advertise because everyone goes and gets informed on everything and advertising has no effect.

That's not how people work. There's a reason billions are spent on advertising. Andyou wagging your finger at voters and blaming them does zero as a solution.

The only solution is not to spout theories about blaming voters - it's to attack the advertising.

What SHOULD have happened is that the people should have been allowed to restrict money in politics, but because five radical right-wing people were allowed on the Supreme Court, the power of the people to do that has been removed as long as we can determine with no way to address it, since a constitutional amendment is all but impossible on it.

That leaves very few options. One is public financing. One variation of that is a $50 tax credit for each citizen to donate.

It's a serious problem, and you should recognize that the Republican Party is very much in favor of the problem. They want those Koch and Addleston huge donations.
 
Don't want to sound cynical, but the almighty dollar still rules in the USA.

A first step would be to make donations to political causes or candidates completely transparent so that anyone, including the media, of course, can find out where the money is coming from that's pushing for issues or candidate politicians.
 
Muse said:
Don't want to sound cynical, but the almighty dollar still rules in the USA.

A first step would be to make donations to political causes or candidates completely transparent so that anyone, including the media, of course, can find out where the money is coming from that's pushing for issues or candidate politicians.
Click to expand...


Transparency would be a good thing, I agree. Should actully have a federal website where all contributions are posted during elections and henceforth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top