I Have A French Economics Question

[Jimbo]

Would it be possible for France to sell goods to Iraq on credit but through a process of "cooking the books" be able to use that tho prop up their economy artificially by showing a larger than reality income to pay for the trade?

Does anybody know how this type of accounting would work or even be possible?

This is going to sound totally loony, as I am usually not a fan of dark conspiracy theories, but bare with me.

What if France was able to balance their trade with Iraq by showing on their "books" income from Iraq that was expected in the future but had not yet materialized yet.

Is that possible?

 

[Chris A]

That is done all the time all over the place.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Chris A
That is done all the time all over the place.

Based on your scenario France is going to lose a LOT of money.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Jimbo
Would it be possible for France to sell goods to Iraq on credit but through a process of "cooking the books" be able to use that tho prop up their economy artificially by showing a larger than reality income to pay for the trade?

Does anybody know how this type of accounting would work or even be possible?

This is going to sound totally loony, as I am usually not a fan of dark conspiracy theories, but bare with me.

What if France was able to balance their trade with Iraq by showing on their "books" income from Iraq that was expected in the future but had not yet materialized yet.

Is that possible?

Use Letters of Credit.. but, don't forget the matching principal.... Revenue and Cost at the same time.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Chris A
That is done all the time all over the place.

Based on your scenario France is going to lose a LOT of money.

If France's EVIL master plan for world domination is correct, it won't be just France and it wont be just a budget tightening hit either.

Depending if I am even in the ballpark of reality, if France has booked a bunch of phantom profits that will now never materialize, we are talking major economic damage.

Since all of The EU countries are joined at hip, I would think a major catastrophe in one country would screw up the Euro big-time.

I am doing some quick figuring and I am coming up with about 100 - 200 BILLION one-time hit to France alone.

This might get real spooky, really quick.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Jimbo
Would it be possible for France to sell goods to Iraq on credit but through a process of "cooking the books" be able to use that tho prop up their economy artificially by showing a larger than reality income to pay for the trade?

Does anybody know how this type of accounting would work or even be possible?

This is going to sound totally loony, as I am usually not a fan of dark conspiracy theories, but bare with me.

What if France was able to balance their trade with Iraq by showing on their "books" income from Iraq that was expected in the future but had not yet materialized yet.

Is that possible?

Use Letters of Credit.. but, don't forget the matching principal.... Revenue and Cost at the same time.

Please explain.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Chris A
That is done all the time all over the place.

Based on your scenario France is going to lose a LOT of money.

If France's EVIL master plan for world domination is correct, it won't be just France and it wont be just a budget tightening hit either.

Depending if I am even in the ballpark of reality, if France has booked a bunch of phantom profits that will now never materialize, we are talking major economic damage.

Since all of The EU countries are joined at hip, I would think a major catastrophe in one country would screw up the Euro big-time.

I am doing some quick figuring and I am coming up with about 100 - 200 BILLION one-time hit to France alone.

This might get real spooky, really quick.

How do you figure 100-200Billion?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Jimbo

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Jimbo
Would it be possible for France to sell goods to Iraq on credit but through a process of "cooking the books" be able to use that tho prop up their economy artificially by showing a larger than reality income to pay for the trade?

Does anybody know how this type of accounting would work or even be possible?

This is going to sound totally loony, as I am usually not a fan of dark conspiracy theories, but bare with me.

What if France was able to balance their trade with Iraq by showing on their "books" income from Iraq that was expected in the future but had not yet materialized yet.

Is that possible?

Use Letters of Credit.. but, don't forget the matching principal.... Revenue and Cost at the same time.

Please explain.

Well... in international trade a letter of credit is used. Which is a negotiable document that is drawn up by a third party (bank) that when the terms or the document are met by the seller the document can be cashed. (basically)
So.. French company sells an item to Iraq sets it up as an Account Receivable guaranteed by the LOC. The offest goes as a credit to revenue. (an increase) but, the item sold has yet to ship (a no no). They record the unit sold = reduce inventory debit cost of sales and the differnce flows to the bottom line. (hence my statement of Matching Revenue and Cost is GAAP even in Europe) if they really want to get creative they inventory the sold item back out of cost and have no cost of revenue.... this will catch up in time but in the short term it is possible. This is a gross example but doable.

Edit::: Balance of trade has not to do with my above. BOT is the net of goods sold and goods bought and is historical and between commercial entities not governments - generally. the money owed is not really owed but a barometer of commerce. Any funds actually owed relating to the BOT are un cashed LOC - generally.

 

[zephyrprime]

The stuff you talk about is the stuff that they were doing in enron, worldcom, and cisco and such. But why would a nation bother doing that? A company does that sort of nefarious stuff so it's execs can give themselves a big raise and then cash out their stock options at a high price only to then jumpship and leave the shareholders holding the bag. If a nation inflated the trade balance, that would make their exports more expensive becuase the value of their currency would rise. This isn't to say that there may not be some deals done under the table to make extra $$ for Frech military and civilian companies but if such things were done, they would try to hide them from their books so no one found out.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
The stuff you talk about is the stuff that they were doing in enron, worldcom, and cisco and such. But why would a nation bother doing that? A company does that sort of nefarious stuff so it's execs can give themselves a big raise and then cash out their stock options at a high price only to then jumpship and leave the shareholders holding the bag. If a nation inflated the trade balance, that would make their exports more expensive becuase the value of their currency would rise. This isn't to say that there may not be some deals done under the table to make extra $$ for Frech military and civilian companies but if such things were done, they would try to hide them from their books so no one found out.

Balance of trade or trade surplus or deficit is just the differnce between imports and exports nothing more. If the TD between US and Japan was 50b USD and the dollar gained double versus the yen and the same dynamics occured in the next measured period the TD would be 25b.
The dynamics that affect the value of one currency versus another are many. Inflation delta, national debt (inferred economic health) world events and likely outcome for each of the currency nations etc. etc. who holds what.. remember when the bundesbank sold to uplift the dollar so their auto would be cheaper her than otherwise...

 

[freegeeks]

Americans seem to have a strange obsession about France

Go seek some medical help for it

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Jimbo
Would it be possible for France to sell goods to Iraq on credit but through a process of "cooking the books" be able to use that tho prop up their economy artificially by showing a larger than reality income to pay for the trade?

Does anybody know how this type of accounting would work or even be possible?

This is going to sound totally loony, as I am usually not a fan of dark conspiracy theories, but bare with me.

What if France was able to balance their trade with Iraq by showing on their "books" income from Iraq that was expected in the future but had not yet materialized yet.

Is that possible?

What if this war really IS about the oil, the US want's oil, the US get's oil, is my argument really any less deranged than yours?

If stupidity was an excuse, you would be excused...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Americans seem to have a strange obsession about France

Go seek some medical help for it

Ah, but you forget, medical help is not free in the US...

Man, do you understand what that means? NOW i see the reason...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Jimbo
Would it be possible for France to sell goods to Iraq on credit but through a process of "cooking the books" be able to use that tho prop up their economy artificially by showing a larger than reality income to pay for the trade?

Does anybody know how this type of accounting would work or even be possible?

This is going to sound totally loony, as I am usually not a fan of dark conspiracy theories, but bare with me.

What if France was able to balance their trade with Iraq by showing on their "books" income from Iraq that was expected in the future but had not yet materialized yet.

Is that possible?

What if this war really IS about the oil, the US want's oil, the US get's oil, is my argument really any less deranged than yours?

If stupidity was an excuse, you would be excused...

Come on over to the US and use our Haitin, Bosnian, Afghani oil, we have plenty since we colonized Kuwait.

You are excused.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Americans seem to have a strange obsession about France

Go seek some medical help for it

No we don't give a sh*t about the French. But we don't like people who attempt to make us look like the bad guy while they are engaged in criminal activity (arms sales) and have made deals with our nemesis in exchange for support. We see through the BS and condemn them for their lack of morals. Pretty soon we will go back to our normal thoughts on France, which is none and never.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Americans seem to have a strange obsession about France

Go seek some medical help for it

No we don't give a sh*t about the French. But we don't like people who attempt to make us look like the bad guy while they are engaged in criminal activity (arms sales) and have made deals with our nemesis in exchange for support. We see through the BS and condemn them for their lack of morals. Pretty soon we will go back to our normal thoughts on France, which is none and never.

Did you ever respond to my last post in the thread you posted about France's immorality?

It can not be shown that France is any less moral than we are. If you don't like them because their interests conflict with ours, fine. But don't try to make it seem like we're morally superior to them.

Why is Iraq our nemesis? They haven't done any more to us than they've done to France. It's not like Iraq attacked us, and the French started defending them. If anything, Iraq is Kuwaits or Irans nemesis.

Proof of France's illegal activity?

 

[freegeeks]

No we don't give a sh*t about the French. But we don't like people who attempt to make us look like the bad guy while they are engaged in criminal activity (arms sales) and have made deals with our nemesis in exchange for support. We see through the BS and condemn them for their lack of morals. Pretty soon we will go back to our normal thoughts on France, which is none and never.

The French learned from the best -- the USA.
The USA has a nice history the last 50 years of supporting dictators and tyrans. Do I have to make a list????

You have a disease that a lot of Americans have -- selective memory

 

[etech]

freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: etech
freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we (The US)condemned Israel for attacking those nuclear reactors in Osirak, which they did to stop him from being able to build an atomic bomb. In 1984, we sold him anthrax. In 1988 Bush Sr. signed an order calling for closer ties to Iraq. If these can be excused because we didn't know, something that happened 10 years before that is more excusable.

Ripped from another thread

Because they didn't know, just like we didn't (Although, by 1988 we had a better idea).

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

No we don't give a sh*t about the French. But we don't like people who attempt to make us look like the bad guy while they are engaged in criminal activity (arms sales) and have made deals with our nemesis in exchange for support. We see through the BS and condemn them for their lack of morals. Pretty soon we will go back to our normal thoughts on France, which is none and never.

The French learned from the best -- the USA.
The USA has a nice history the last 50 years of supporting dictators and tyrans. Do I have to make a list????

You have a disease that a lot of Americans have -- selective memory

make your list, include Cuba, but don't forget the hundreds of years of civil war and fighting with Spain over being colonized. Maybe the EU should look at their OWN history, who conquered and occupied lands? Who starts world wars?

Make sure to talk about Pinochet too, but also be sure to prove to me you understand ALL of that story, including how the people themselves view him very differently than you believe, and the party who eventually drove him out is working to bring him back to the country WITHOUT fear of prosecution.

 

[freegeeks]

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

Etech

Why did the USA agreed to provide Iraq with the growcultures and tools to create biological and chemical weapons in the 80's. In the 80's, Saddam was just the same dictator you know

Like I said before -- selective memory

and to answer your question -- greed

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we (The US)condemned Israel for attacking those nuclear reactors in Osirak, which they did to stop him from being able to build an atomic bomb. In 1984, we sold him anthrax. In 1988 Bush Sr. signed an order calling for closer ties to Iraq. If these can be excused because we didn't know, something that happened 10 years before that is more excusable.

Ripped from another thread

Because they didn't know, just like we didn't (Although, by 1988 we had a better idea).

Has the US EVER denied it's invlovement with Saddam? nope. And we wer hardly the main suppliers for his arsenal. At least we are willing to accept our responsibility in the matter and correct the mistake. Maybe we should have sold out the IRaqi people and made deals with Saddam and sold him weapons we BANNED ourselves by signing UN resolutions?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we (The US)condemned Israel for attacking those nuclear reactors in Osirak, which they did to stop him from being able to build an atomic bomb. In 1984, we sold him anthrax. In 1988 Bush Sr. signed an order calling for closer ties to Iraq. If these can be excused because we didn't know, something that happened 10 years before that is more excusable.

Ripped from another thread

Because they didn't know, just like we didn't (Although, by 1988 we had a better idea).

They didn't know is a rather disingenuous argument. 3% uranium would have been sufficient for the nuclear reactor that France was selling to the country with so much oil and gas. There was only one use for weapons grade uranium.

Are there legitimate uses for anthrax spores? Is there any legitimate use for weapons grade uranium?

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we (The US)condemned Israel for attacking those nuclear reactors in Osirak, which they did to stop him from being able to build an atomic bomb. In 1984, we sold him anthrax. In 1988 Bush Sr. signed an order calling for closer ties to Iraq. If these can be excused because we didn't know, something that happened 10 years before that is more excusable.

Ripped from another thread

Because they didn't know, just like we didn't (Although, by 1988 we had a better idea).

Has the US EVER denied it's invlovement with Saddam? nope. And we wer hardly the main suppliers for his arsenal. At least we are willing to accept our responsibility in the matter and correct the mistake. Maybe we should have sold out the IRaqi people and made deals with Saddam and sold him weapons we BANNED ourselves by signing UN resolutions?

Has France denied they sold him reactors in the 70s? I wouldn't bring up the US activities in the 80s, if people who are against France would stop bringing stuff up from the 70s, like etechs post which mine was a reply to.

As far as being the main suppliers, who cares? If we felt it was okay to sell him anything at all, then we can't blame anyone else for selling him things. This relative morality stuff is pointless. We robbed a bank, but they robbed 20, so they're evil. Once we show that we're not above robbing a bank, we have no grounds to criticize others for the same action.

Selling out the Iraqi people is just rhetoric. Saddam was always a dictator. If selling weapons to a dictatorship or a country with human rights violations is evil, then yes, we have done that too.

Proof that France sold him weapons after the resolutions were passed and signed?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: etech
freegreeks,

Why did France agree to sell Iraq weapons grade uranium in the 70's?

France agreed to sell the nuclear reactors to Iraq in 1975. In 1981 we (The US)condemned Israel for attacking those nuclear reactors in Osirak, which they did to stop him from being able to build an atomic bomb. In 1984, we sold him anthrax. In 1988 Bush Sr. signed an order calling for closer ties to Iraq. If these can be excused because we didn't know, something that happened 10 years before that is more excusable.

Ripped from another thread

Because they didn't know, just like we didn't (Although, by 1988 we had a better idea).

Has the US EVER denied it's invlovement with Saddam? nope. And we wer hardly the main suppliers for his arsenal. At least we are willing to accept our responsibility in the matter and correct the mistake. Maybe we should have sold out the IRaqi people and made deals with Saddam and sold him weapons we BANNED ourselves by signing UN resolutions?

Has France denied they sold him reactors in the 70s? I wouldn't bring up the US activities in the 80s, if people who are against France would stop bringing stuff up from the 70s, like etechs post which mine was a reply to.

As far as being the main suppliers, who cares? If we felt it was okay to sell him anything at all, then we can't blame anyone else for selling him things. This relative morality stuff is pointless. We robbed a bank, but they robbed 20, so they're evil. Once we show that we're not above robbing a bank, we have no grounds to criticize others for the same action.

Selling out the Iraqi people is just rhetoric. Saddam was always a dictator. If selling weapons to a dictatorship or a country with human rights violations is evil, then yes, we have done that too.

Proof that France sold him weapons after the resolutions were passed and signed?

There is a link on one of threads, I will try to find it again, they found the charred remains of MODERN french launchers, anyone have that link handy?

We have never denied our involvement, and we certainly did not sell him weapons after we signed the resolutions.

What about the Russian anti-tank munitions and night vision, illegal and modern, the German GPS jamming equipment, illegal and modern, the Chineese Seersuckers, illegal and modern.

Don't forget we were fighting Soviet tanks, kali's on the ground, but thankfully the mirage jets were not in the air. Supposedly France was still supplying parts for those until 3 weeks before the war.

Here is that link

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. forces discovered 51 Roland-2 missiles, made by a partnership of French and German arms manufacturers, in two military compounds at Baghdad International Airport. One of the missiles he examined was labeled 05-11 KND 2002, which he took to mean that the missile was manufactured last year. The charred remains of a more modern Roland-3 launcher was found just down the road from the arms cache. According to a mortar specialist with the same unit, radios used by many Iraqi military trucks brandished MADE IN FRANCE labels and looked brand new. RPG night sights stamped with the number 2002 and French labels also turned up. And a new Nissan pickup truck driven by a surrendering Iraqi officer was manufactured in France as well.


I am EAGERLY awaiting your response to this.