Author Topic: Not Worth a Camel  (Read 4917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Not Worth a Camel
« on: October 03, 2006, 04:09:11 PM »
Not Worth a Camel
by Charley Reese

A deluge of experts, attracted by government money, is drowning Washington. So many elected and appointed officials know even less than the phony experts that it's like a gold-rush town for the briefcase-toting fast-talkers.

You, however, don't need to be an expert – phony or genuine – to figure out the broad outlines of the problems in the world. A simple dose of common sense will do the job.

Let's take Iraq, for example. This is a country artificially created by the British in the heyday of their colonial empire. Arbitrarily included were Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. The British put the Sunnis in charge under various dictators who kept a lid on the aspirations of the majority Shiites and the independence-craving Kurds. The lid was kept on by brute force through a succession of dictators, ending with Saddam Hussein.

It was like a jack-in-the-box, and when the Bush administration took the lid off, out popped the factions. Are the Kurds going to give up their aspirations for independence? Not likely. Are the Sunnis going to go quietly into the sunset with nothing? Not likely. Are the Shiites, after decades of repression, going to come forth with kindness and forgiveness for their former oppressors? Not likely.

The conflict we see playing out has been there for decades. Didn't anybody in Washington ever wonder why Saddam Hussein killed so many people? He was always a thug and a killer, but even killers don't waste bullets and poison gas unless they have a reason to do so. Saddam, like his predecessors, was constantly trying to prevent the Kurds and Shiites from overthrowing him. Now, with no dictator to suppress them, they are killing each other.

I would say that when more than 6,000 people are killed in two months, it's about as close to a civil war as you can get. I cannot think of any logical reason why anyone in Washington thought that we could remove a dictatorship that had been in place in one form or another since the founding of the country and that a parliamentary democracy would bloom instantly like a lotus in a pond.

To further complicate matters, there are Kurds in eastern Syria, eastern Turkey and northwestern Iran. Do you think Syria or Iran, and most especially Turkey, will tolerate an independent Kurdistan on its borders? Not likely.

Discussion in Washington is usually carried on at the level of college freshmen after several rounds of beers. The Republican answer to its own fiasco is to say: "OK, you don't like the way the president is handling it. What's your solution?"

The proper answer to that is: "In the first place, bro, I didn't break it. You did, and the only solution is to recognize that there is no solution. Not everything that breaks can be repaired. Our choice is to leave now, with 2,700 dead and 20,000 wounded, or linger on until there are 5,000 dead and 35,000 wounded and then leave."

Eventually, after we leave, a new dictatorship will emerge, probably a Shiite version. The Shiites might keep the trappings of democracy like Egypt, but there will be no question about who runs the show. They will have a strong secret police and an army to shut down the dissidents.

Hopefully by then we will have elected some people who know the difference between con artists and real experts whose expertise is grounded on personal experience and a knowledge of the language, culture and history of the areas for which they claim knowledge.

Then, when we find a basket from which are coming the sounds of snakes, we won't be so foolish as to take the lid off and then be surprised when the snakes don't magically turn into bunny rabbits.

In the meantime, use your common sense. Ask yourself just what it is that America's young men and women are dying for. To make Iraq a happy place? To make Israel feel safer? To help corporations with insider connections get richer? Not one of those reasons is worth the life of a camel, much less a human being.



October 2, 2006
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese308.html
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2006, 07:17:34 PM »
<<In the meantime, use your common sense. Ask yourself just what it is that America's young men and women are dying for. To make Iraq a happy place? To make Israel feel safer? To help corporations with insider connections get richer? Not one of those reasons is worth the life of a camel, much less a human being. >>

True.  If those are the reasons.

How about this reason:  to nail down a major piece of the mid-East oil patch (either by itself or as Stage One in a two-step process where Stage Two is Iran) in anticipation of Indian and Chinese demand outstripping available supplies a few years down the road?

In which case, it's more than worth a camel PLUS the lives of a few thousand worthless (to the powers that be) punks a year.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2006, 05:30:45 AM »

"How about this reason:  to nail down a major piece of the mid-East oil patch (either by itself or as Stage One in a two-step process where Stage Two is Iran) in anticipation of Indian and Chinese demand outstripping available supplies a few years down the road?"




[][][][][][][][]


How would that work?
When the Indians and Chineese need more oil they will have to buy it , good news for all who have it to sell.
Or are you expecting the Indians and Chineese will want to just take it without paying?
As a reason for anything what this lacks is a connection to reality.


Kurdistan is getting near a defacto secession , this may not be President Bushes or Turkey favorite solution but it seems better than Saddams solution .

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2006, 10:41:05 AM »
Until the last few paragrpahs, I totally concur with the opinion expressed in this article. This Irqi incursion was ill-advised and the longer we stay there, the more Americans will die to no purpose. I am convinced that if we leave tomorrow or ten years from now, anarchy will shortly follow. That being said, I simply do not beleive in any of these conspiracy theries. I believe President Bush went in to Iraq, honestly believing they had WMD. This apparently was a false assumption.

I am also very concerned about the economic impact of this conflict. Even a nation as great as ours, simply cannot continue to take this financial drain without economic repercussions. And yet, no one in the Administration seems to see this problem. It is quite depressing, to say the least. Perhpas I am ore of a moderate than I beleived. If a conservative Repiblican like me is downtrodden over many actions of the Bush Administration, what must the coming November election results look like for my Party?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2006, 01:11:34 PM »

<<When the Indians and Chineese need more oil they will have to buy it , good news for all who have it to sell.>>

Yes, and what will happen if such a scarcity of supply exists that it might be nice to have the choice:  shall we sell this stuff to the Indians & Chinese at obscenely inflated prices, or should we keep some of it for ourselves?  You can't see a value in being able to decide questions like that?  It could decide life or death for the American economy.  You keep assuming normal market conditions and ignoring the potential supply crisis which could make control of those oil fields vital to US economic survival.

"good news for all who have it to sell>>

You got THAT right.  Very good news.  Extra-super-callifragilicious good news for those who own the wells.  Or are locked into sweetheart deals with the owners of the wells.  Who didn't exactly give away the sweetheart deal to American and British companies because they owed their position and their future to the invasion and to the dozens of permanent military bases of the occupation forces scattered all over the country, but still . . .  And how nice would it be if those lucky sellers just happen to be American or British oil companies, not that Bush actually KNOWS any of them, mind you, but it WOULD be pretty sweet, wouldn't it?



<<Or are you expecting the Indians and Chinese will want to just take it without paying?>>

No, but I think that with Arabs owning the wells, the Indians and Chinese might have some choice as to HOW they will pay for the stuff - - in euros, in rupees or renminbi, in domestic agricultural or industrial products, or in technical or military know-how or assistance.  Even in U.S. dollars.  With the US in control, those options narrow considerably.  And who better than the USA to decide what terms the oil will be sold for, and who gets how much at what price?  NOT that the Americans and English would, God forbid, take ADVANTAGE of anyone else for their own profit, mind you, but it's just right and proper that all decisions like that regarding Mid-East oil be made by them and not by any actual inhabitants of the region, don't you think?


<<As a reason for anything what this lacks is a connection to reality.>>

I really don't mind that you don't seem to have a grasp of how some things work, because I am certain that you could explain to me how other things work, and I wouldn't otherwise have a clue.  What is annying to me is that when I am telling you about something that is very real and would make a lot of sense - - if you stopped to think it through - - you DON'T stop to think it through, and instead you hasten to tell me that my thought "lacks . . . a connection to reality." 

You know what lacks a connection to reality?  The idea that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of non-existent WMD that they couldn't even wait to find out if they existed or not, as if Saddam were about to launch a completely suicidal strike on them at any second.  That the U.S. invaded Iraq to bring democracy to its election-deficient population, when they have never before invaded any dictatorship, no matter HOW tyrranical, to "bring democracy" to it people, unless they were first attacked by it.

If control of those oil fields meant absolutely nothing, the colonial powers would never have expended the energy they did in dividing the region into tiny mini-states, hand-picking the rulers, intervening militarily and/or by covert actions when their puppets were misbehaving, etc.  It's absolutely crazy to think that a commodity of such vital importance to America would be left in the hands of a weak, numerically insignificant and technically disadvantaged population with no particular ties to either America or England to set prices, regulate supply and distribution and make similar decisions of such crucial importance.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2006, 01:16:20 PM »

<<When the Indians and Chineese need more oil they will have to buy it , good news for all who have it to sell.>>

Yes, and what will happen if such a scarcity of supply exists that it might be nice to have the choice:  shall we sell this stuff to the Indians & Chinese at obscenely inflated prices, or should we keep some of it for ourselves?  You can't see a value in being able to decide questions like that?  It could decide life or death for the American economy.  You keep assuming normal market conditions and ignoring the potential supply crisis which could make control of those oil fields vital to US economic survival.

"good news for all who have it to sell>>

You got THAT right.  Very good news.  Extra-super-callifragilicious good news for those who own the wells.  Or are locked into sweetheart deals with the owners of the wells.  Who didn't exactly give away the sweetheart deal to American and British companies because they owed their position and their future to the invasion and to the dozens of permanent military bases of the occupation forces scattered all over the country, but still . . .  And how nice would it be if those lucky sellers just happen to be American or British oil companies, not that Bush actually KNOWS any of them, mind you, but it WOULD be pretty sweet, wouldn't it?



<<Or are you expecting the Indians and Chinese will want to just take it without paying?>>

No, but I think that with Arabs owning the wells, the Indians and Chinese might have some choice as to HOW they will pay for the stuff - - in euros, in rupees or renminbi, in domestic agricultural or industrial products, or in technical or military know-how or assistance.  Even in U.S. dollars.  With the US in control, those options narrow considerably.  And who better than the USA to decide what terms the oil will be sold for, and who gets how much at what price?  NOT that the Americans and English would, God forbid, take ADVANTAGE of anyone else for their own profit, mind you, but it's just right and proper that all decisions like that regarding Mid-East oil be made by them and not by any actual inhabitants of the region, don't you think?


<<As a reason for anything what this lacks is a connection to reality.>>

I really don't mind that you don't seem to have a grasp of how some things work, because I am certain that you could explain to me how other things work, and I wouldn't otherwise have a clue.  What is annying to me is that when I am telling you about something that is very real and would make a lot of sense - - if you stopped to think it through - - you DON'T stop to think it through, and instead you hasten to tell me that my thought "lacks . . . a connection to reality." 

You know what lacks a connection to reality?  The idea that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of non-existent WMD that they couldn't even wait to find out if they existed or not, as if Saddam were about to launch a completely suicidal strike on them at any second.  That the U.S. invaded Iraq to bring democracy to its election-deficient population, when they have never before invaded any dictatorship, no matter HOW tyrranical, to "bring democracy" to it people, unless they were first attacked by it.

If control of those oil fields meant absolutely nothing, the colonial powers would never have expended the energy they did in dividing the region into tiny mini-states, hand-picking the rulers, intervening militarily and/or by covert actions when their puppets were misbehaving, etc.  It's absolutely crazy to think that a commodity of such vital importance to America would be left in the hands of a weak, numerically insignificant and technically disadvantaged population with no particular ties to either America or England to set prices, regulate supply and distribution and make similar decisions of such crucial importance.



What is real is that oil prices are determined at auction.
That we have no sweetheart deals even with the Kuaitis .
And that nothing we have yet done can prevent a drop from heading east rather than west if there is more money offered for it east.

Can you name the guy you think "regulates prices"?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2006, 01:19:46 PM »
<< . . . I simply do not beleive in any of these conspiracy theries.   I believe President Bush went in to Iraq, honestly believing they had WMD. >>

Why is that?  Is Bush incapable of going to war to secure an oil supply now, if someone has convinced him that there won't be enough to go around once India and China are fully up and running?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2006, 01:28:03 PM »
Quote
<<Or are you expecting the Indians and Chinese will want to just take it without paying?>>

No, but I think that with Arabs owning the wells, the Indians and Chinese might have some choice as to HOW they will pay for the stuff - - in euros, in rupees or renminbi, in domestic agricultural or industrial products, or in technical or military know-how or assistance.  Even in U.S. dollars.  With the US in control, those options narrow considerably.  And who better than the USA to decide what terms the oil will be sold for, and who gets how much at what price?  NOT that the Americans and English would, God forbid, take ADVANTAGE of anyone else for their own profit, mind you, but it's just right and proper that all decisions like that regarding Mid-East oil be made by them and not by any actual inhabitants of the region, don't you think?


Have you ever seen an American corporation turn down payment in Euros?

Have you ever seen the US Government insist that payment between third partys be done in Dollars?

Half the Dollars that Iraq government has to spend are gifts from the US , if they were to find a good sorce of Euros, so that we didn't need to carry their payroll so much , we would benefit from discourageing this?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2006, 01:34:51 PM »
<<What is real is that oil prices are determined at auction.>>

Doesn't matter HOW they're set.   When there isn't enough to go around, the bidding will hit a natural ceiling.  Everyone will be willing to pay that ceiling price, but there won't be enough oil to satisfy all the bidders.  I'm not saying that's BOUND to happen, only that it might.  It is to protect against that eventuality that Bush might have decided to get his hand on the tap.

<<That we have no sweetheart deals even with the Kuaitis .>>

That's bullshit.  Total bullshit.  You have projected a lot of force in the Middle East and the result of that force - - either naked force or threat of force, or diplomacy backed by military force - - was obviously for oil because there is no other visible objective of comparable value.  Sweetheart deals are relative.  If it's a better deal than someone else would get in a purely market-driven process, I call it a sweetheart deal.  In a situation where your military might, or diplomacy have steered the deal to you and not to someone else who wants it just as bad and has just as much or more (usually, more) to offer, the deal that you got through your threats or violence is a sweetheart deal because it wasn't freely given.  One would assume, therefore that the threats or violence served some purpose because the deal your partner would have freely chosen would have been more advantageous to him.

<<And that nothing we have yet done can prevent a drop from heading east rather than west if there is more money offered for it east.>>

You're still talking relatively normal market conditions, no supply crisis.  If you own the wells in a time of inadequate supply, not enough to satisfy everyone even at top prices, you alone decide where the oil goes.  That's elementary.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2006, 01:43:58 PM »
<<Have you ever seen an American corporation turn down payment in Euros?>>

We aren't talking about US corporations.  We are talking about US government policy for transactions involving the sale of Mid-East oil.  EVERY sale is denominated in US dollars.  EVERY seller accepts only US dollars.  This is not a coincidence.  When Saddam announced that he would be selling Iraqi oil for euros, the US freaked out.  Some people believe that this alone was the main reason for the invasion - - to stop the setting of a precedent.

<<Have you ever seen the US Government insist that payment between third partys be done in Dollars?>>

The US government doesn't keep me in the loop.  It makes a lot of sense for them to insist on this, and so I am sure that they do.  In fact, they'd be derelict in their duty if they did not.

<<Half the Dollars that Iraq government has to spend are gifts from the US , if they were to find a good sorce of Euros, so that we didn't need to carry their payroll so much , we would benefit from discourageing this?>>

Get real.  They didn't need one cent from you in gifts before you invaded and destroyed their country.  They have enough oil to earn whatever they need in whatever form - - dollars or euros - - benefits them.   What you don't want is them and the others selling oil for euros - - because that would take a lot of upward pressure off the US dollar, at a time when US exports aren't supporting it either. 

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2006, 01:44:33 PM »



<<What is real is that oil prices are determined at auction.>>

"Doesn't matter HOW they're set.   When there isn't enough to go around, the bidding will hit a natural ceiling. "

Have you ever been to an auction?
What is a natural ceiling ?

When the best price a bidder is wiling to offer is offered the sale is made , this is not diffrent in any circumstance but war.

If we go to war with India we will have no difficulty in shutting down all of India oil production and imports by bombing .

If we go to war with China we would have even less problem disrupting their supply routes and pipelines internally and externally.

If anyone goes to war with Iran they could starve them by mineing the straight of Hormouz , Belgim could beat Iran .


But in any circumstance of shortage, that is not war , the high bidder wins , India and China are steadily more able to bid and this is what we are really talking about.

It will be good for my country and for the planet to learn to burn some cleaner fuels , higher gas prices are actually good for this as a process.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2006, 01:49:57 PM »
<<Have you ever seen the US Government insist that payment between third partys be done in Dollars?>>

"The US government doesn't keep me in the loop.  It makes a lot of sense for them to insist on this, and so I am sure that they do.  In fact, they'd be derelict in their duty if they did not."


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

?

How ?

It maskes no sense to insist on this and there is no duty to insist on this.

No one buys more oil than we do and we pay in Dollars, after that ,do we need to insist that our supplyers pay their debts in Dollars?  No, that happens naturally.
But ...

If they had a fire in the bank vault and a few billion dollars burnt to ash , wouldn't that benefit the US?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2006, 01:55:17 PM »
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/yuan-j29.shtml


Why would the US Congress be asking , nay , insisting, that another Government reduce tha official value of the Dollar vs their own currency?


Could it be that the US Government understands economics backwards?

Could it be that the US Congress doesn't understand economics at all?





Well yes , that could indeed be.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2006, 09:04:20 PM »
Wow.  Lots to respond to.

First of all, the cartoon.  It's just silly.  If the Iraq invasion were to secure oil supplies, it's - - as I said - - not for the current market conditions, but for a time when demand outstrips supply to the point that there isn't enough oil AT ANY PRICE for everyone who wants it.  That time clearly has not yet come, and in fact might not arrive at all.  The invasion could turn out to have been precautionary only.  The cartoon is dealing with relatively short-term fluctuations.  Moreover, it's entirely possible that prices are being kept down solely because of the coming elections.  We'll know better if they stay down till the elections and bounce up again a few months later, or less.

<<Have you ever been to an auction?  What is a natural ceiling ?>>

Once again, you are missing the point.  I have never been to an auction where the merchandise was essential to somebody's economic life and in such short supply that some of the bidders would have to go home empty-handed.   Whatever I've seen auctioned could be taken or left.

<<When the best price a bidder is wiling to offer is offered the sale is made , this is not diffrent in any circumstance but war.>>

Again, wrong paradigm.  The invasion foresees an auction where there won't be enough for every bidder to buy.  No matter WHAT they bid.

<<If we go to war with India  . . . If we go to war with China . . .  If anyone goes to war with Iran they could starve them by mineing the straight of Hormouz , Belgim could beat Iran.>>

You may wind up going to war with India AND China.  But if you went to war with China, and only with China, IMHO, it would be the end of the USA.  You will not survive a war with the Chinese.  I don't think you could survive a war with them tomorrow, but in a few years' time, there will be no doubt about this in anyone's mind.  If anyone goes to war with Iran and the straits of Hormuz were to be blocked, you would be fucked more than Iran would be fucked.  Your "allies" who are already losing their patience with you would be pushed that much closer into doing something about it, too. 

<<But in any circumstance of shortage, that is not war , the high bidder wins , India and China are steadily more able to bid and this is what we are really talking about.>>

Yes.  And the possibility that the high bidder will be China.  OR . . . that the cost of outbidding China will be ruinous.

<< will be good for my country and for the planet to learn to burn some cleaner fuels , higher gas prices are actually good for this as a process.>>

Oh, sure.  In theory, I would agree with that.  The problem is, there isn't a hope in hell of that ever happening.  In fact, your government is convinced that it WON'T ever happen.  That's why they need those oil wells.

<<How ?  It maskes no sense [for the U.S.] to insist on this [that third parties buying Middle East oil pay for all purchases in dollars] and there is no duty to insist on this.>>

plane, as you may have noticed, the U.S. is no longer a net exporting nation.  For a long time now, it has been a net importer.  To import, it needs a strong dollar.  Strong dollars are usually initially the free-market result of a strong export economy.  There are more people outside the US buying dollars to pay for made-in-USA goods than there are people inside the USA selling dollars to buy yen or euros to pay for foreign-made goods.  This keeps the price of the dollar relative to other currencies high.

As the nation loses its ability to export, there is less demand for its dollar - - at least in the foreign trade sector.  For awhile this can be masked by demand from other sectors for the US dollar.  From investors abroad, for example, who admire the security of US bonds or equities.  So the price of the dollar is more or less supported by these Taiwanese or Chinese investors, even though there is less and less demand for US dollars from the rest of the world to pay for American-made goods and services.

Now the US dollar has basically one price, which of course varies from day to day and hour to hour as a result of trading.  There isn't one price for currency speculators and another price for Japanese importers of US vehicles and another price for Korean purchasers of US T-bills.  The price of the dollar, day to day, hour to hour and minute to minute, reflects all of the demands from all of the people who for whatever reason wish to buy US dollars.

Mid-East oil makes up a huge portion of the world's trade.  If everyone who buys Mid-East oil has to pay for it in US dollars - - and today they do - - then that's a whole lot of people who have to find and buy a whole lot of US dollars every single fucking day.  This helps keep up the price of the US dollar as against other world currencies.  It's the simple law of supply and demand.  If the world were free to pay for Mid-East oil in other currencies, this would lessen the demand for US dollars world-wide.  Less demand means lower price.  A dollar which yesterday could buy a euro might tomorrow buy only 3/4 of a euro.  For the importers of the USA - - an ever-growing sector of the US economy - - this is a BAD thing.  In an economy ever more dependent on imports from abroad, a sinking dollar is bad news.  When it sinks too far, standards of living are adversely effected.  If it keeps sinking, your lifestyle comes more and more to resemble certain Third World countries.  A bad thing.

<<No one buys more oil than we do and we pay in Dollars, after that ,do we need to insist that our supplyers pay their debts in Dollars?  No, that happens naturally.
But ... If they had a fire in the bank vault and a few billion dollars burnt to ash , wouldn't that benefit the US?>>

You're not making sense, plane.  Your suppliers don't have debts to you.  They don't owe you anything, you owe them.  If they have debts to their suppliers - - e.g. to Middle-East oil producers - - then you do in fact insist that they pay those debts in dollars.  The vault fire question is bizarre and I'm just going to stay away from it, if you don't mind.  Apart from the fact that it never has happened and never will happen that a few billion dollars will be burned to ash, I really don't know that the owners of the bills couldn't just order up replacements upon sufficient proof of loss.


<<Why would the US Congress be asking , nay , insisting, that another Government reduce tha official value of the Dollar vs their own currency?>>

Because it benefits them, as I've said, by helping to keep up the value of a US dollar that has lost the support that used to come from world trade and because - - at least in the case of mid-east oil - - they can get away with it.


Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not Worth a Camel
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2006, 12:14:15 AM »
<<Why would the US Congress be asking , nay , insisting, that another Government reduce tha official value of the Dollar vs their own currency?>>

Because it benefits them, as I've said, by helping to keep up the value of a US dollar that has lost the support that used to come from world trade and because - - at least in the case of mid-east oil - - they can get away with it.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

You have this backwards, or Congress does , they are pushing China with every lever that they have to make the Dollar cheaper against the Yaun.

The Chineese have pegged their currency to benefit exports , every time they give our Government a little of what it wants in the way of relaxation the net effect is a small wage raise nationwide in China and a small pay cut nation wide in the USA.

This is probably a good idea Chineese prosperity and literacy have been improveing together at a blistering pace , they even have an Apollo program for goodness sakes.

If a Chineese guy can do my job just as well as I do it, is it really a good idea that he makes a tenth my pay? This is increaseingly artificial and we don't want the correction to be sudden.

As the Chineese standard of liveing (also Indian) rises they become more and more able to buy the products we export our net exports are still riseing , but not nearly as fast as China's have been .

   Someday the USA will be more of an exporter and China more of an importer (India too) the conversion being gradual should minimise the pains it causes.