more bad news for the dollar

[Rainbow]

You have obviously lost it and gone right off topic Rainbow, Bishops argument are completely valid as far as I can judge within this forum.

My replies (to [i]bishop[/] ) concern the information he posted based upon the link he submitted himself. This particular link to the "Bloomberg"s site, provide no answer as a solution. That is what I polemize on/about.

Whatever I try to say - with concern to U.S. doallar, is :
- markets
Since you have markets that are profitable for you, then you rule.
Iraq has oil that will deliver funds for any enterprise, along with strengthening U.S. dollar up. That market is completely empty (!). Try to imagine the outcomes, with all the influence on neighbouring countries. U.S. can potentially fill and rule that market within that whole region.

What does it mean ?
You have progress in both :
- U.S. dollar
- U.S. economy
The remaining factors :
- U.S. military
- U.S. intelligence
You have the whole view what is going on in Middle-East region, especially in Iraq.
However, it is not going to materialize itself over the night. It takes time.

[Rainbow]

i feel silly for wasting my time with this, but i'm just hoping to lend rainbow a hand...

rainbow, this currency war argument is not new, just like i said before. you want an example? here ya go, from the london business school from 1998.. http://faculty.london.edu/rportes/re...ortesReyEP.pdf

i've found other sources specifically applying the ideas in that paper to the iraq war that predate the one you linked.. but like i said, i've known about this theory for about 2 years now. plus i said that i'm inclinded to believe it - did you hear me? i said i think it could very well be true!

and for the record, i can't find where i commented on your alleged personality here. i have given you forceful replies though, i won't deny that. but you should realize that that's because you chose to ignore my initial question, then go off on a walkabout, talking about visas and poland, then the meaning of life, etc.. i've posted a lot of information here that you've summarily ignored. you want to debate? get with the program and refute my arguments.

#4
Forget it. The most important that we can go ahead :-)))

As an explanation my post on visas for Poles was an example, for future relation U.S. is building right now, in countries that may be influenced by "euro", what potentially will weaken U.S. dollar. It concerns almost all post-communists states.

#1, #2, #3
Since Saddam started to make deals on oil with France and Germany while paying in "euro", that was the critical point for U.S.
"Enron" was about to make a research for solutions, but it ended up very badly. There was something within or between "Enron" and U.S. governement. What caused that or went wrong ? I have no clue.
Generally, since "Enron" failed there was not much as a solution. Additionally, 09-11-2001 events added up even more fuel to U.S. policy, economy and currency.
There is no turning point. U.S. either succeeds, or we may end up pretty badly.
The matter is not who is the U.S. President, but U.S. economy itself.

[bishop]

As an explanation my post on visas for Poles was an example, for future relation U.S. is building right now, in countries that may be influenced by "euro", what potentially will weaken U.S. dollar. It concerns almost all post-communists states.

heh, it's a little bigger than being influenced by the euro.. the poles are adopting the euro!

Since Saddam started to make deals on oil with France and Germany while paying in "euro", that was the critical point for U.S.

and like i've shown (links that you probably ignored), russia, china, various opec countries (including saudi arabia and especially venezuela) are moving to the euro. maybe we can just conquer the entire world, eh? hell, even the japanese are beginning to talk about shifting some of their reserves into euros. and, i've shown that these countries are already converting dollars to euros - supported by the bloomberg link showing decreased demand for dollars. this trend cannot be solved by fixing the mess in iraq. it's a concerted effort on the part of all these other countries to pressure the hegemon into ending its interventionist (and imperialist) policies.

it is for this reason, as well as our massive deficits that countries are converting to the euro. so, that is why my rational argument for a solution is to balance the budget and end the imperialism. you apparently think that we can subjugate the entire world, and that this will give our nation (and the dollar) long-term prosperity..


and it DOES matter who's the president. bush has given us trillions of new debt, not the man on the moon. unless you think that he's beyond accountability and reproach.. well... you did vote for him again, so i guess that answers that question.

[asterix404]

Just as a really fast point... my prof told me that the oil industry is a very low margin of profits, around 6.9%. (Third%20Quarter%202004%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Profit%20Margins.pdf ) This being true, if we have spend 500 billion dollars we would need... 500/.07 billion dollars = 8 trillion dollars. So in order to make a profit on this war, the oil would have to bring us 8 trillion dollars, is this fair to say. This war can not be an investment on us oil rights. Hell given the tax bracket it would take so long, I mean unless there is a company that is dealing in the trillions which I don't think there is... so then if we don't get our money back from it, woudln't that drive the value of the dollar down becasue we are basicly taking out a loan that we will never ever be able to pay back?

[bishop]

it's not so much about the profitability of the business/war.. what matters most is that it's continuously being pumped and that it's priced in dollars. plus, we waste money like nobody's business and no single event has ever been responsible for devaluing the dollar - it's the cumulative effect of our deficit spending in general and geopolitics (i.e. countries purposely moving to the euro to weaken the hegemon).

[PatrickHenry]

This war can not be an investment on us oil rights.

You are correct that it isn't about the US consumer having a better deal on oil. It makes a lotta money for Bush's oily corporate buddies that put him in office though, huh? If you can command armies, what is to stop you from profiting personally while impoverishing the nation?

Did you think Washington, DC was actually your friend?!

[Rainbow]

You are correct that it isn't about the US consumer having a better deal on oil. It makes a lotta money for Bush's oily corporate buddies that put him in office though, huh? If you can command armies, what is to stop you from profiting personally while impoverishing the nation?

Did you think Washington, DC was actually your friend?!

Do you suggest that Bush gave "go ahead" to enter Iraq, in order to fill his (and his buddies) pockets with billions of dollars ?

[bishop]

huge no-bid contracts were given out to key corporations immediately following our capture of baghdad.

you admit that money is at the heart of this war.. we won't know his intentions, but the facts are clear - he did give them billions of dollars.

[Rainbow]

you admit that money is at the heart of this war.. we won't know his intentions, but the facts are clear - he did give them billions of dollars.

It may indicate that your assumptions (on this issue) are correct, :-)))
(I made "zero" on that :-))) )

However, take a look at the Middle-East region.
This whole area is more-than worth to invest, while Iraq is "the heart" of such enterprise.
All the markets established and/or developed in that whole region bring U.S. profits, and all the transactions will be made in U.S. dollars, only (!), including the most "precious" gas and oil. It brings more than trillions, back. The time is a factor.
Just imagine, that you need to build up a state from the scratch. There is nothing in there.
Can you imagine that money ? especially with trades for oil or gas ? More over, almost all the surrounding states would become affected, that - most likely, with potential political changes wihin them - add "some extra" to your economy.
Markets - and markets, again, give people jobs. Iraq IS a free-and-empty market, not to mention the whole area around.

In case of U.S. dollar, many people talk about morality, ethics, ect.
Have you ever bothered to think about others, guys ?
France and Germany planned that move for a decade (at least), to break U.S. dollar. They were fully aware (from the begining) of the consequences on establishing "euro", in order to "dump" U.S. dollar. Those countries are being called "U.S.'s friends" :-)))
These "gentlemen" are extremely sensitive on issues like : morality, ethics, ect. :-)))
I do not know whether it was (the originally) F. Mitterand's idea, but J. Chirac's for sure, since he upheld and approved that enterprise. Who stands behind Chirac's back, in a shadow ?
Maybe Bush's "colleagues", that - somehow, got "upset" (over something), and want a "revenge" to pay Bush back, and care for nothing but to pay Bush as hard as they can ?
Frictions, between "good-old friends" ?
That is why France and Germany work hard to get and control markets in post-communists countries.
It is clear, that for a along time Chirac has been familliar on these plans to bring U.S. dollar on its knees. Why ? Money, only ? I do not think so.

[bishop]

you're getting further and further away from the topic, again.

All the markets established and/or developed in that whole region bring U.S. profits, and all the transactions will be made in U.S. dollars, only (!), including the most "precious" gas and oil. It brings more than trillions, back.

the profits are being realized by the companies, but they aren't being realized by americans in general. the labor market remains weaker than it should be - especially if bush's rosy picturure matched up with reality. and growing inflation is MUCH more important to the economy than any profits the couple companies in iraq are making. like i said before, consumer spending fuels 2/3 of the economy. higher inflation, especially that which grows faster than wages, will decrease consumer spending. corporate profits are almost meaningless against that issue. exxon made record profits during the recession, if i'm not mistaken, and the economy as a whole did not benefit whatsoever.

so, like i said before, success in iraq (this time with respect to profits made in iraq) will not do anything to help the dollar. and as it falls, inflation goes up and our standard of living is affected.

can you give a solution that will cause the dollar to appreciate?

[Sasha]

A lower US dollar isnt nessicarily as bad as you all seem to make it out to be. As the dollar falls it becomes cheaper for other nations to buy American products, hence you can sell more, improve your balance of trade, pay off some of your debt etc. As that happens the dollar will regain its value.

If you want to know why its falling, stop blaming the rest of the world and some global conspiracy. The US has been a net consumer for the last decade if not more, add a government deficit to that and it is a wonder it took so long for the dollar to fall.

As far as your concers of the Euro Russia and China, they are simply fear mongering. The Euro makes good sense for Europeans regardless of what the US does, A uniform currency eases trading between member nations, (with whome they trade the most) and is more stable as it has a wider base to support it. Russia should diversify its foreign money supplies, its like any investment, nobody in their right mind invests in only one company, same deal for Russia. Finally if your worried about China Buying your debt, well why did you get the debt in the first place, and if its such a security risk, dont sell it to them.


.....oups, sorry, I read the posts backwards

[bishop]

(did you read the preceding debate before making this post?)

yes, a devalued dollar makes our exports cheaper for foreigners to buy. the problem is that for americans, a devalued dollar makes foreign imports more expensive. that is inflation. and, consumption fuels 2/3 of our economy. what your post clearly overlooked is the incredible pain, and drop in standard of living, that america would experience while becoming an export-oriented economy, rather than a consumption-oriented economy.

there has been some decrease in the trade deficit, but the dollar has continued to fall - because of the fiscal irresponsibility of congress and bush. when you have a republican majority, many of whom have sworn on the bible that they will never raise taxes, our fiscal future looks like it will remain irresponsible.

as far as your last paragraph is concerned, the issue as i see it is that we've abused the dollar's position as the #1 reserve currency. we've borrowed (i.e. engaged in deficit spending) like a gluttonous fool, and we've readily imposed our agenda on the entire world. we've staked much of our economic security on the assumption that foreign countries will always choose to fill their reserves with dollars. up until recently, they didn't have a solid alternative to choose from, but now they do. there are reasons, both economic and geopolitical for why these countries are shifting some of their reserves into euros.