NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Yeah we are such huge producers. If we are such producers as you say (neither of us has provided proof, yet) then why do we import 70%? Are we such a consumer nation to consume 70% and also the majority of our could be exports?
No one wants a declining dollar. I won't argue that. But those stocks/bonds (as you have alluded) are valued by the dollar, its decline effects many nations. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see those nations making moves to protect themselves.
I don't know about this, no comment.
I daresay that the only reason they need us is because they are so heavily invested in us. Is that to say there isn't a market throughout the rest of the world that cannot replace the U.S. as the consumer? Hardly. We are just one big oversized and over consuming nation, there are hundreds of nations that would do the consuming if our economy fell.
I don't doubt our ability to adapt and grow, or to innovate new things. The problem I see is that we are too much into borrowing and consumption and not into producing and saving. We have sold out our savings for credit (private sector), which removes capital for investments. By going the credit route more is paid then if it were saved for and paid in full. I think the reason for this is the inflation factor/fast easy credit. Way back in the early 80's you had to show earnings, savings and have a decent down payment for a house. This showed credit worthiness and good money management. What changed in the 90's through 2000's was the availability of easy credit.
Ahh the Morgans, Rockefellers and Warburgs have a huge impact on the early U.S. economy and the founding of the Federal Reserve. My next reading assignments contain books about those families by Ron Chernow. From what I've read so far Morgan "saved" the economy:
" by using a fund created by bankers and the Federal government to prop up threatened but basically sound financially institutions" - From Oxford companion to U.S. History (2001)
I think there is more to it than what was written in the Oxford companion account, which is why I'm going to read biographies on these men. Influential no doubt, but their intentions being benign isn't solidified yet. I think there is a possibility those "hard times" were stages for their benefit.
And by intrinsic, it simply means the value of the product alone. It doesn't imply other things such as economy. If the economy collapsed the paper dollar would be worth nothing. If the economy collapsed and the Gold was there, there would still be value because of what it is.
That may be true, but after WWII with the Bretton Woods Accord, things changed drastically. Gold was offered to nations in return for the debt we had (you have mentioned this). While this is good for us, it wasn't so good for them. Now they had to depend solely on the goodness of the U.S., that they would hold the value of the dollar on faith and not overprint. Many didn't like the agreement after that so others were made. Is there anything that holds the FED accountable? No. When a powerful man and seemingly ignorant man like the president we have now, says to the FED "We need to keep this economy going strong, print more money, delay the recession" (obviously not in exact words), you see a trend of each politician delaying the inevitable and therefore making the fall that much more steep.
This would be true if the U.S. actually had REAL growth, not the GDP bullshit. You say on one hand that we needed to supply more money, but the FED says they need to stop the report because it costs to much and the benefits aren't there. The population is growing but I see its more immigrants from Mexico than anything. Which is another part of the reason they don't close the border, but thats another topic all together. I will have to say though, your argument about M3 reports are weak. I brought out a graph and showed you the increases by percentages, and even how it could be explained, through the tech and housing bubbles. But like I stated before, those both are burst now. Now what? Do we assume that the FED is cutting interest rates (when all indications say would should be increasing them - national debt/guard against inflation) to spur more "growth" as they say? The more they cut interest rates the money is in the supply chain, the less the money is worth, the less people can do with said money's. In the early 80's they had a higher interest rate, was that because they didn't know how the economy worked? Or did they know that they needed to work on retaining the value of the dollar? Modern economists would say they were stupid, they should have decreased the interest rate to spur more credit and growth. As I stated before credit really costs us more in the long run. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know LK.
With the onset of technology (I think this is where the OP was headed) those gold coins wouldn't have to be carried in your pocket. Gold could be handled by credit companies only as transactions. Everyone is paid in gold and buys in gold, but it hardly changes hands in the literal sense. Say going to the super market you wanted to buy milk. You would slide your card and a gram of gold (or a fraction thereof) could be instantly removed from your account and into another. Its not like the old days, technology does help.
The fact that gold is scarce makes it a good reason to have it as currency. The scarcity isn't a problem, its what makes it valuable.
I think the problem here is that you see gold as not being elastic enough, but its mere value in percentage of gold can be adjusted to current market conditions. In an example, a gallon of milk is one gram of gold, the next day its half a gram of gold because the value went up.
After typing all this, I get to an ignorant part. Thanks you fucking ignorant prick. You need to stop this fucking "RPB" shit. Lack of history my ass you fucking twit. Having a decent intellectual conversation with you is impossible because you can't keep a lid on your fucking egotistical mouth. Yeah your modern economist mind "spend us into wealth", wtf ever.
They (other countries) only need us in the short term, long term they win, we lose.
As stated before I already have a list of books.
I answered this before I even read your last part.
All I ask is you keep this conversation away from personal attacks. There is no reason to continue with your snide "RPB" shit. I didn't insult you in my previous post in order to have a reasoned discussion.
