Guest Governor Swill Posted August 10, 2007 Posted August 10, 2007 On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:25:16 -0500, kT <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote: >>> Because a unified currency enhances trade. Before you can eliminate >>> poverty, you have to have a mechanism for sharing wealth. The dollar >>> is that. Put everybody on a single currency for international >>> transactions. >>> >> >> >> Aha, they have always used the dollar, therefore they will always use >> the dollar. I guess that's logical. > >Classic American ignorance. It's effective enough that no significant economy has made any effort to seriously challenge the dollar's supremacy. Swill -- Money isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money. Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Quote
Guest Balanced View Posted August 10, 2007 Posted August 10, 2007 Governor Swill wrote: > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:25:16 -0500, kT <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote: > > >>>> Because a unified currency enhances trade. Before you can eliminate >>>> poverty, you have to have a mechanism for sharing wealth. The dollar >>>> is that. Put everybody on a single currency for international >>>> transactions. >>>> >>>> >>> Aha, they have always used the dollar, therefore they will always use >>> the dollar. I guess that's logical. >>> >> Classic American ignorance. >> > > It's effective enough that no significant economy has made any effort > to seriously challenge the dollar's supremacy. > > Swill > Until now. Before the dollar it was Pounds Sterling, next it will likely be the Euro. The only reason the greenback is still a world currency is everyone is holding worthless paper and nobody wants to be the first to prick the balloon. Quote
Guest patmpowers@gmail.com Posted August 11, 2007 Posted August 11, 2007 On Aug 11, 6:41 am, Balanced View <N...@nill.net> wrote: > Governor Swill wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:25:16 -0500, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote: > > >>>> Because a unified currency enhances trade. Before you can eliminate > >>>> poverty, you have to have a mechanism for sharing wealth. The dollar > >>>> is that. Put everybody on a single currency for international > >>>> transactions. > > >>> Aha, they have always used the dollar, therefore they will always use > >>> the dollar. I guess that's logical. > > >> Classic American ignorance. > > > It's effective enough that no significant economy has made any effort > > to seriously challenge the dollar's supremacy. > > > Swill > > Until now. Before the dollar it was Pounds Sterling, next it will likely > be the Euro. The only reason the greenback > is still a world currency is everyone is holding worthless paper and > nobody wants to be the first to prick the balloon. Maybe. But consider this. USD and Euros are easily and cheaply convertable. There isn't much difference. What really matters are contracts with payment in the future. If you signed a contract in dollars five years ago, then you lucked out when you pay in dollars today. What keeps the dollar popular is contracts signed in the past. But it is easy as can be to write the contracts of today in Euros. Take out the word dollar and write in the word Euro. That's it. If you think about it, the future value of the currency has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter. If the buyer gains the seller loses, and vice versa, so it is zero sum and a wash. And if that isn't enough, it is easy to hedge to get rid of all currency risk. So it makes no difference at all. It is basically a beauty contest. Now consider the past 67 years. In this corner US has fought about 10 wars, has been at war about 40% of that time, and the President has promised twenty to thirty more years of war. In the other corner is the EU, which has fought maybe three wars and been at war 10% of the time. If we look at money spent on military, the US has outspent the EU by some huge margin. War or peace. War lovers, support the dollar. Peace lovers, go Euro. Quote
Guest Harold Burton Posted August 11, 2007 Posted August 11, 2007 In article <6cednaXKRvt9CyvbnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@comcast.com>, "robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote: > Naw, we were part of a group that got E-Bay to take gun auctions off their > cite Yep nothing like keeping gun auctions off your "cite". Snicker. Love you illiterate leftards. Snicker, and sorry for the redundancy. Snicker. Quote
Guest Balanced View Posted August 11, 2007 Posted August 11, 2007 patmpowers@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 11, 6:41 am, Balanced View <N...@nill.net> wrote: > >> Governor Swill wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:25:16 -0500, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Because a unified currency enhances trade. Before you can eliminate >>>>>> poverty, you have to have a mechanism for sharing wealth. The dollar >>>>>> is that. Put everybody on a single currency for international >>>>>> transactions. >>>>>> >>>>> Aha, they have always used the dollar, therefore they will always use >>>>> the dollar. I guess that's logical. >>>>> >>>> Classic American ignorance. >>>> >>> It's effective enough that no significant economy has made any effort >>> to seriously challenge the dollar's supremacy. >>> >>> Swill >>> >> Until now. Before the dollar it was Pounds Sterling, next it will likely >> be the Euro. The only reason the greenback >> is still a world currency is everyone is holding worthless paper and >> nobody wants to be the first to prick the balloon. >> > > > Maybe. But consider this. USD and Euros are easily and cheaply > convertable. There isn't much difference. Yes, there is 36 cents difference, it now takes almost a $1.37 for one Euro > What really matters are > contracts with payment in the future. If you signed a contract in > dollars five years ago, then you lucked out when you pay in dollars > today. What keeps the dollar popular is contracts signed in the > past. But it is easy as can be to write the contracts of today in > Euros. Take out the word dollar and write in the word Euro. That's > it. > And lose over a third of your money? > If you think about it, the future value of the currency has nothing to > do with it. It doesn't matter. If the buyer gains the seller loses, > and vice versa, so it is zero sum and a wash. And if that isn't > enough, it is easy to hedge to get rid of all currency risk. So it > makes no difference at all. > Gibberish > It is basically a beauty contest. Now consider the past 67 years. In > this corner US has fought about 10 wars, has been at war about 40% of > that time, and the President has promised twenty to thirty more years > of war. In the other corner is the EU, which has fought maybe three > wars and been at war 10% of the time. If we look at money spent on > military, the US has outspent the EU by some huge margin. War or > peace. War lovers, support the dollar. Peace lovers, go Euro. > No, it's lack of debt. Quote
Guest Charles the baby crusher Paisley Posted August 11, 2007 Posted August 11, 2007 On Aug 8, 12:29 am, Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:49:42 -0600, Hugh Gibbons > > <hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote: > >In article <3uvfb3l002nlno93vn571cnfsd8pqg2...@4ax.com>, > > Governor Swill <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:30:56 -0400, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >> >While our money declines in value hitting a fifteen year low today > >> >under the mismanagement of the Republican party. > > >> You see that as bad news do you? > > >Yeah. Inflation really sucks when you're trying to save. > > As the dollar drops in value, exports become more attractive abroad > and domestic production becomes more attractive at home. > > More production, more wages. Oh so very close! You almost made a point, after all that is exactly what has worked for such booming economies as China and India. If you actually want the same standard of living as those two keep on the path you are going.. only problem is that while they will be moving up you will be moving down. Oh By the way. . . Just what do you plan to export? You've already outsourced much of your manufacturing to China, Taiwan, India, Korea et al.. Even if you expect that manufacturing to return with a lower labor cost, most things produced require raw materials that are sold on international commodities markets, a lower dollar simply means that you will have to pay more for those raw materials, even as they become cheaper for your competitors. Still, if you are rich that wont be a problem, if the transition is orderly the upper middle class might even make out OK. The only thing keeping the transition orderly at this point is the fact that you are currently selling off or mortgaging your infrastructure. The issue is not nearly as simple as you make it sound be very careful what you wish for.. Quote
Guest Governor Swill Posted August 11, 2007 Posted August 11, 2007 On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 05:47:39 -0700, Charles the baby crusher Paisley <ajames54@hotmail.com> wrote: >> As the dollar drops in value, exports become more attractive abroad >> and domestic production becomes more attractive at home. >> >> More production, more wages. > > >Oh so very close! > >You almost made a point, after all that is exactly what has worked for >such booming economies as China and India. If you actually want the >same standard of living as those two keep on the path you are going.. >only problem is that while they will be moving up you will be moving >down. > >Oh By the way. . . Just what do you plan to export? That's the point. A dollar slide an global value increases American exports and export potential which results in investment in domestic production infrastructure. > You've already >outsourced much of your manufacturing to China, Taiwan, India, Korea >et al.. Even if you expect that manufacturing to return with a lower >labor cost, most things produced require raw materials that are sold >on international commodities markets, a lower dollar simply means that >you will have to pay more for those raw materials, even as they become >cheaper for your competitors. The American steel industry was destroyed by cheap imports. If imported steel (much of which comes from scrap) becomes too expensive, there will be motivation to produce domestic steel. You've either missed the point or made an assumption that such change is instantaneous. Petroleum is less affected by exchange rates. This was no doubt a reason for trading oil in dollars. It stabilizes American oil cost. >Still, if you are rich that wont be a problem, if the transition is >orderly the upper middle class might even make out OK. The only thing >keeping the transition orderly at this point is the fact that you are >currently selling off or mortgaging your infrastructure. "Orderly" is less important than "gradual". Gradual change allows people to cope. The destruction of our domestic auto industry is an example. The destruction of the generational household by Social Security is another. >The issue is not nearly as simple as you make it sound be very careful >what you wish for.. This is not a 500 page government report, thesis or white paper. It's a usenet post that was designed to point out how something so simple and distant as the fluctuation of the value of our currency on global financial markets can be good news, even when it's labeled bad. Water seeks it's own level. So do economies. All things in life have cycles. Including economies. Swill -- Money isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money. Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.