The case against Dr. Paul

[dudalb]

China isn't a democracy. They don't have elections like we have. Those in power over there don't need to make promises in order to regain election. Unlike in the US where re-election is everything, and our politicians promise anything in order to stay in office. The Americans won't tolerate economic downturns. Economy crashing? Vote the bastards out of office. But in China? There is no voting in the opposition party. If there is an economic downturn in China, the people just have to lump it. Business losses due to reduced exports? Adapt or collapse.

Yeah,Authrotarian Dictatorships are so wonderful.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

--tl;dr--

The rest of the world is just sick to death of the US. You might see token support from our closest allies, such as the UK, but it won't be sufficient to grind world trade to a halt. Enough will go on that any holdouts will quickly turn their backs on the US and act in their own self interest. As they should.

I predict a wave of revolutions in small countries around the world. Without US support all the oppressive puppet governments will be unable to maintain power. The US modus operandi is to back friendly governments in foreign nations. Why? Because the US needs tribute in order to maintain the empire. Does the US support popular governments in foreign nations? No, because then they wouldn't need US support to stay in power. Rather the US supports oppressive, unpopular governments that can be counted on to extract the most blood from their people, and ship it off to the US (in the form of real goods for pennies on the dollar). If these puppet governments don't kow-tow to the US, the US threatens to let their own populations overwhelm them. That's how the US operates. All that is going away.
--tl;dr--

-Dave

Strangely, this is at once inaccurate.. and.. uh. .weren't you gone forever?

 

[dudalb]

Strangely, this is at once inaccurate.. and.. uh. .weren't you gone forever?

"I"M NOT DEAD YET!"
Never pass up a chance for a MOnty Python reference,though the Holy Grail character dash really resembles is the Black Knight......

 

[WildCat]

So, the amount of electronic dollars is not relevant when talking about the amount of dollars in circulation.

You asked about Federal Reserve Notes, not dollars.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Unbelievable!

So, the amount of electronic dollars is not relevant when talking about the amount of dollars in circulation.

Dumbfounding!

You are doing it again.

This is what you had asked:

Tell me: How many Federal reserve notes are in circulation?

Does the congress know this answer?

Why are these questions important?

I gave you the tools to figure it out, even going so far as to giving you the average lifespan of each Federal Reserve Note.

 

[WildCat]

I gave you the tools to figure it out, even going so far as to giving you the average lifespan of each Federal Reserve Note.

Hmmm, something about horses and water...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Dumbfounding?

The total value of an economy is not reducible to the total number of monetary instruments in circulation, no. That's kinda basic economics, J.

The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency.

If there is an increase of currency that is not in relation to an increase in wealth than the value of your past labor is reduced.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

When I think of decoupling I don't think of an end to trade between China and the US. I think instead of a relaxation of monetary controls such that the Chinese currency can free float with respect to the dollar, and the Chinese banks won't intentionally lower interest rates to match US's wishes.

If the US goes into overdrive pouring dollars into the economy to avoid a local recession, China simply will not follow lockstep for the next 10-20 years. They are already getting a lot of pressure to end the rampant inflation within their own borders. Once they stop following US dollar pumping, the difference will accelerate. There is no slow way to go about it. As US accelerates money printing, China will slow down and will stabilize their own currency. Short term they will see reduced exports to the US and some economic impact. Longterm it doesn't make a bit of difference.

The US buys 19% of China's exports. Where do you see that percentage this time next year? Will the US be buying more than 19% of China's output? The same? Less? Absolutely it will be less. The US is borrowing everything it gets from China. It might be this time next year the US accounts for 10% of China's exports. Then the next year even less. No way is the percentage going to go up.

Taiwan is another factor. Taiwan seems to be afraid of a Chinese takeover. They look to the US for protection against this event. The US provides protection in order to be able to influence Taiwanese monetary policy. We lower our rates -- Taiwan lowers its rates also. We ask them to lower their prices with respect to dollars, they do it. Otherwise the good 'ol US of A will withdraw our protection against the mainland China boogeyman.

But realistically what would a Chinese takeover of Taiwan mean? Look to Hong Kong. When it went back to Chinese ownership in 1997 what happened? Realistically not a darned thing. It's still a financial mecca. Still going strong. China was smart enough not to kill the golden goose. Rather than socializing Hong Kong, the tendency was to introduce more capitalism into mainland China. More free market economics. China has enjoyed continued economic expansion all these years. Capitalism works.

China wants Taiwan back, it's an ongoing embarassment. It's also a symbol of US involvement in Chinese affairs. China sees Taiwan as a lost colony. It's none of the US's business. All China wants is for Taiwan to be part of China again. It all comes down to face. China just wants Taiwan to Kow-tow to China instead of Kow-towing to the USA. That's all it amounts to. A Chinese Taiwan would simply pay tribute to China instead of to the USA. They'd simply make small economic changes as a response to China's demands, as opposed to USA's.

A China-Taiwan merger would simply mean more cooperation between the two. Perhaps a unified currency. More technology exchange. More ease with which Taiwan can use mainland China's production machines. Business as usual. It wouldn't mean a destruction of Taiwanese freedoms. It would mean a further increase in mainland China's freedoms.

It would symbolize to the world that the USA doesn't have the power it once had. That alone would be reason enough for China to occupy Taiwan. Just to show up the USA as being incapable of stopping it.

China recently surfaced a submarine in the midst of US naval operations in the sea near Taiwan. The US was caught completely by surprise. The Chinese sub could have shot off a nuke and taken out a US carrier. Why did China do this? It's just a show of force. It served its purpose. Recently China told an American naval vessel it couldn't dock in Hong Kong for shore leave, then later capitulated. Why? Because they can. They can be arbitrary and capricious. The US can't do anything about it. Little by little they're testing their limits.

A couple of years back Bush announces the US must be able to operate in space, and if needbe prevent other nations from operating in space as well. What kind of crazy statement is that? How does China respond? Within weeks, China lobs a missile up into low earth orbit and destroys one of their own satellites. Why? They say it was a test. The real reason is to thumb their noses at George Bush and the USA. It's a statement, "Ok, you wanna play hardball? Anything you put in orbit we can knock out. Get it?" I haven't heard anything out of Bush on the space issue since. Consider Bush humbled.

China isn't a democracy. They don't have elections like we have. Those in power over there don't need to make promises in order to regain election. Unlike in the US where re-election is everything, and our politicians promise anything in order to stay in office. The Americans won't tolerate economic downturns. Economy crashing? Vote the bastards out of office. But in China? There is no voting in the opposition party. If there is an economic downturn in China, the people just have to lump it. Business losses due to reduced exports? Adapt or collapse.

The whole mindset that China is dependent on the USA dollars for anything is absolutely ludicrous. It is a myth, promulgated by the same propaganda machine that has duped the American citizen about all things economic. The belief that the USA consumption drives the world economy is just exactly what USA is meant to believe, and by extension the rest of the world. It is a complete and utter myth. It is based on propaganda and lies from a Wall Street owned and operated media machine.

China uses dollars out of convenience only. That's the way the game is played. As soon as it ceases to be convenient they'll adapt and use something else. The Chinese government has essentially unlimited ability to respond to economic problems. They have massive capital savings and massive production capability. They have a captive citizenry, that is happy with the way things are going. Any downturns can be blamed on the US -- the Chinese government can use propaganda too. They need only claim the US is engaging in economic warfare, so the people must endure a bit of hardship for the greater good. The Chinese will go along. They'll endure.

The US economy in contrast is a fragile house of cards. We can't respond in any way that won't make us even weaker. Any global storm will devastate the US, yet leave the rest of the world essentially intact. To claim that there would be a falloff on world trade due to protectionist trade restrictions is...ridiculous. Why would any non-US country benefit by doing anything to hamper trade? If the US were to suddenly vanish, all US demand were to suddenly disappear, would other countries stop trading amongst themselves? Hardly. They would have a massive incentive to step up trade to make up for the loss to US. The US can only realistically dictate trade policy between US and other countries. But US can't set policy for other countries trading between each other. Not anymore.

The rest of the world is just sick to death of the US. You might see token support from our closest allies, such as the UK, but it won't be sufficient to grind world trade to a halt. Enough will go on that any holdouts will quickly turn their backs on the US and act in their own self interest. As they should.

I predict a wave of revolutions in small countries around the world. Without US support all the oppressive puppet governments will be unable to maintain power. The US modus operandi is to back friendly governments in foreign nations. Why? Because the US needs tribute in order to maintain the empire. Does the US support popular governments in foreign nations? No, because then they wouldn't need US support to stay in power. Rather the US supports oppressive, unpopular governments that can be counted on to extract the most blood from their people, and ship it off to the US (in the form of real goods for pennies on the dollar). If these puppet governments don't kow-tow to the US, the US threatens to let their own populations overwhelm them. That's how the US operates. All that is going away.

Some countries will go socialist/populist. Some will become more capitalist/free market. Whatever they do, they'll be making their own choices. Those that support free trade will find they thrive. Those that don't will stagnate.

With the US empire gone, the opportunites for wealth creation will be enormous. It's a poor world out there, and it wants the good life. Fantastic profits are to be had by simply investing in these emerging markets. All it takes is the US to get out of the way and to stop gaming the system.

-Dave

Are those your words?

Well done.


There is one factor that can save the America economy: Global War.

If large scale war does break-out than capital will flow to America, it will continue to be deemed a safe bet.

 

[WildCat]

The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency.

If there is an increase of currency that is not in relation to an increase in wealth than the value of your past labor is reduced.

Wrong.

You are confusing currency with money. All currency is money, but all money is not in the form of currency.

 

[Corsair 115]

This deal could be good for all three parties involved.

Access to the U.S. is of vital economic importance to Mexico and Canada, so those two countries will do what they can to mollify U.S. concerns over border security.

The US buys 19% of China's exports.

One-fifth of a nation's exports going to one country is a significant percentage.

Incidentally, the U.S. buys 75%+ of Canada's exports.

China recently surfaced a submarine in the midst of US naval operations in the sea near Taiwan. The US was caught completely by surprise.

I met an Australian submariner once who told me a similar story of how during a naval exercise his sub managed to sneak right in on an USN carrier.

The reason for the success? Diesel-electric submarine. Those subs are very hard to detect compared to nuclear-powered subs.

The belief that the USA consumption drives the world economy is just exactly what USA is meant to believe, and by extension the rest of the world. It is a complete and utter myth.

Really? Stock markets around the world don't agree with you. Prospects of a U.S. recession has caused those global markets to decline considerably. It would seem investors around the world do think U.S. economic health is important for their own.

Any global storm will devastate the US, yet leave the rest of the world essentially intact.

See above. Investors elsewhere don't agree with you. They see a U.S. economic downturn hurting the economies of their own nations.

If the US were to suddenly vanish, all US demand were to suddenly disappear, would other countries stop trading amongst themselves? Hardly.

But there would most certainly be dramatic disruptions. Canada and Mexico, for example, would greatly miss the disappearance of the U.S. economy.

The rest of the world is just sick to death of the US. You might see token support from our closest allies, such as the UK, but it won't be sufficient to grind world trade to a halt.

I'd wager it's more correct to say they're sick of the current administration rather than of the country itself. One must always differentiate between the nation and its people and the government which runs it.

The US modus operandi is to back friendly governments in foreign nations.

Do you think any global power would act differently? Do you think the former Soviet Union didn't do exactly the same thing? Do you think Russia currently or China or India wouldn't do the same thing? It's in one's own interest to back friendly governments.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wrong.

You are confusing currency with money. All currency is money, but all money is not in the form of currency.

You are pretending there is not an overwhelming dominate currency. Now, if there were competitive currencies you would be correct. In this circumstance you FAIL!

 

[volatile]

You are pretending there is not an overwhelming dominate currency. Now, if there were competitive currencies you would be correct. In this circumstance you FAIL!

What are you blathering on about?!?!?!

There are not enough dollar bills in existence to cover the entire monetary wealth of the US economy. You seem to understand this, given that you don't believe banks ship truckloads of paper between themselves to cover non-cash transactions.

As I explained to you, in the UK this is manifestly obvious, as the wording on the notes themselves indicates that the currency and its instruments are different things. "I promise to pay the bearer, on demand, the sum of Ten Pounds", signed by the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England. The note itself is just a voucher of exchange for goods to the value of ten pounds, it is not the currency in and of itself.

You get loonier by the day.

 

[volatile]

The amount of a currency in circulation in relation to the wealth dictates the value of a currency.

If there is an increase of currency that is not in relation to an increase in wealth than the value of your past labor is reduced.

You're talking about inflation, but unfortunately for your argument inflation is not just caused by newly minted cash being put into the economy.

A currency and its instruments are different things.

 

[WildCat]

Do you think any global power would act differently? Do you think the former Soviet Union didn't do exactly the same thing? Do you think Russia currently or China or India wouldn't do the same thing? It's in one's own interest to back friendly governments.

Apparently Ron Paul would tell friendly nations to shove off, withdraw from NAFTA, and cozy up to Iran and Syria. And then, profit!

 

[Spindrift]

You are pretending there is not an overwhelming dominate currency. Now, if there were competitive currencies you would be correct. In this circumstance you FAIL!

I know this is a waste of time, but I'm going to try anyway.

Jerome - Do you agree that money and currency are two different things?

A simple yes or no will do.

 

[rtalman]

http://money.howstuffworks.com/question237.htm

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I know this is a waste of time, but I'm going to try anyway.

Jerome - Do you agree that money and currency are two different things?

A simple yes or no will do.

Yes.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You're talking about inflation, but unfortunately for your argument inflation is not just caused by newly minted cash being put into the economy.

It does if the amount of new currency placed into the economy is not in relation to new wealth created.

 

[Spindrift]

Yes.

So why did you respond to Wildcat as you did?

Wrong.

You are confusing currency with money. All currency is money, but all money is not in the form of currency.

You are pretending there is not an overwhelming dominate currency. Now, if there were competitive currencies you would be correct. In this circumstance you FAIL!

 

[ZenFountain]

There's nothing stopping you from starting your own currency Jerome.