- Joined
- 17 January 2007
- Posts
- 2,986
- Reactions
- 32
For want of a better word...............to describe the current 'system'?
And even to be fair to Keynes, what's happening isn't strictly part of his philosophy either I guess?
The Ultimate Destruction of the US Dollar and World Markets Will Not Happen
- Thread starter konkon
- Start date
For want of a better word...............to describe the current 'system'?
And even to be fair to Keynes, what's happening isn't strictly part of his philosophy either I guess?
You should read his book, I don't know if he had any philosophy. The guy just rambled on, using sentences and compound nouns as big as paragraphs. I am convinced he barely had a clue what he was talking about, but was just enjoying the ride offered by the fact that no one could understand what he was saying either, and assumed this was because he was smarter than them.
The current 'system' is just your run of the mill mixed socialism and capitalism, be it in China, the US, Britain, Japan, Europe, Australia, wherever. Politicians understand that if they exert too much control over an economy (such as the full-bore socialist experiments), the economy completely collapses, people starve etc etc. But they also know that under full-capitalism, although the economy will be the most productive and wealthy, there will be much much fewer politicians and bureaucrats.
So here we are.
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
"Socialism" has been a major part of any human "economic system" since humans first walked this orb.
Without local communal groups pulling together to find "food & water for all", humans would never have made it this far!
ALL original human connections were essentially a form of "socialism" until the Industrial Revolution when "capitalism" (which is still a form of "broken socialism" in that it tends to favour one group of wealthier "social beings" over another) really took off.
We ARE "social" creatures of habit after all.
We ALL live in "societies".
We currently have "communal social networking" on a grand scale - (eg The WWW, Facebook, et all).
With all our current accumulated "wealth" we swan around the planet "socialising" on a scale never seen since the days of the Grand Tours for those made wealthy during the IR.....
IMO "socialism" in some form or other (either politically or economically) will always play a significant role in human evolution.
aj
- Joined
- 26 January 2009
- Posts
- 322
- Reactions
- 0
the economic system we are drowning in at the moment is definately not true capitalism... its best described as corporate cronyism
- Joined
- 26 January 2009
- Posts
- 322
- Reactions
- 0
socialism has been claimed by so many factions over the years its mere name has become thoroughly stigmatised... from nazi-ism (nationalist socialism) to communism (marxist socialism) it has been the banner behind which tyrants and madmen hid their totalitarian ambitions... which is a shame because as you say... provided it was implemented in a non extreme, minimal interventionist way it wouldnt be a bad system, i think jeffersons vision of government is still the best we can aim for though:
"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
— Thomas Jefferson
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Hear, hear!
Say, (theoretical) would you think TJ (if alive today) would stand a chance agin BO at the next PrezElect?
My guess = Shoo-in......
- Joined
- 26 January 2009
- Posts
- 322
- Reactions
- 0
Hear, hear!
Say, (theoretical) would you think TJ (if alive today) would stand a chance agin BO at the next PrezElect?
My guess = Shoo-in......
i concur with your guess!!!! total shoo in!... lets hope ron paul has a good run @ the presidency as he's the closest candidate to being a TJ that the yanks have had for years... but he wont... david rockefeller & co will sabotage him for threatening their private lil piggy bank... otherwise known as the federal reserve!
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
i concur with your guess!!!! total shoo in!... lets hope ron paul has a good run @ the presidency as he's the closest candidate to being a TJ that the yanks have had for years... but he wont... david rockefeller & co will sabotage him for threatening their private lil piggy bank... otherwise known as the federal reserve!
And on just that very point the following article sets out pretty well where the Fed is going now. We are going to see a lot of dollars floating around soon.
http://www.financeandeconomics.org/Articles archive/2011.06.09 Weak money.htm
You imply that all social interaction, all communities, all 'socializing' is socialist. That is word weaseling. Sure 'socialism' sounds like 'being social', and 'communism' sounds like 'a community', but this is not what these things are. Socialism has always best been described as 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs'. And what does this create? A community of leaches and slaves. The best men suffer expropriation from and are held back by the lazy, the inept, and the criminal.
It has been capitalism, that is 'freedom of action and association', that has dragged men up from primitive, collectivist tribes, or vicious feudalist oppression, to the state they find themselves in now. Prior to the Industrial revolution, life was hard, brutish, and short. It was the formation of a highly capitalist society in countries such as Britain, that finally offered men the chance to live comfortable lives, regardless of their class, cast, or birth.
All capitalists are social. They consider the proper relationship between men to be that of free will, rights, and respect. All socialists are evil. They consider the proper relationship between men to be of sacrifice, guilt, and force.
- Joined
- 26 January 2009
- Posts
- 322
- Reactions
- 0
lol... i keep wondering why you ripped the p*ss out of me earlier on in this link when our views on this subject, if not entirely in unison, are so close? i totally agree with this post and couldn't have put it better myself!
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Tothemax, great post. Succinct summary of a complex topic.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,607
- Reactions
- 6,396
Tothe max - isn't Medicare socialism?
Isn't higher marginal taxes to the wealthy socialism?
Isn't providing a pension to the elderly socialism? (should we be setting up 19th century workhouses for them?)
Isn't forcing businesses and councils to build ramps so people in wheelchairs can enter socialism?
Isn't providing support to farmers who have been hit by natural disasters socialism?
If so, why are these "evil"?
I agree with you bandicoot with regard to the USA that they have at best corporate cronyism at present.
No economists would be happy in the way they decide things.
Isn't higher marginal taxes to the wealthy socialism?
Isn't providing a pension to the elderly socialism? (should we be setting up 19th century workhouses for them?)
Isn't forcing businesses and councils to build ramps so people in wheelchairs can enter socialism?
Isn't providing support to farmers who have been hit by natural disasters socialism?
If so, why are these "evil"?
I agree with you bandicoot with regard to the USA that they have at best corporate cronyism at present.
No economists would be happy in the way they decide things.
- Joined
- 10 July 2004
- Posts
- 2,913
- Reactions
- 3
Word weasel? LOL. I like it. Ok, I have weaseled a few words from your rant. They're bolded. BTW, I take it this was a simple error on your part to only refer to men, as though they are somehow the only ones that matter here?
I'm pretty sure the Industrial Revolution was the cause of miserable, hard, brutish & short lives for the millions who slaved away in mines and factories for the benefit of a few who indeed DID go on to live comfortable lives. I'm also pretty sure most of those who benefited mightily from the capitalist inspired IR were primarily from middle to upper echelons of society.
Here's one evil man's view of Capitalism... http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au
LOL
IMO there's good and evil (and in-between) in most forms of society. Life ain't so black and white. IMO.
Socialism, capitalism etc etc (or variations and/or combinations of them) just won't work in the long run if you no longer can pay-down (all) your debt obligations with revenue within a given amount of time, but need to tap into other forms of debt to pay off debt! Layers and layers of debt has become the norm in all types of economic models and systems around the world.
The major banks around the world have made this form of investment acceptable practice, not just for your average investor, but for large corporations and governments. But it's primarily those with lower income, the middle classes and governments that are feeling the heat. Your larger corporations and major banks are repositioning themselves for the next wave of investment opportunities. Are they the masters of my universe? I feel that they think they might be.
The major banks around the world have made this form of investment acceptable practice, not just for your average investor, but for large corporations and governments. But it's primarily those with lower income, the middle classes and governments that are feeling the heat. Your larger corporations and major banks are repositioning themselves for the next wave of investment opportunities. Are they the masters of my universe? I feel that they think they might be.
I'm just a born ripper of the p*ss, I can't help it. Don't take it personallylol... i keep wondering why you ripped the p*ss out of me earlier on in this link when our views on this subject, if not entirely in unison, are so close? i totally agree with this post and couldn't have put it better myself!
Yes, all socialist, all evil. Socialist health-care is especially evil, but that's a whole separate topic. The elderly were once young - they should have taken personal responsibility and saved, rather than expecting the privilege of stealing from others in their later years. Farmers are in the business of dealing with nature - which has never been certain. If they can't live with the risk, they should choose another profession. Why should they have the right to make up their commercial shortfalls from our pockets? And by what moral framework does one judge those with more to be more ripe for theft? The same moral framework as a burglar, if you think about it.
In English, 'man' can be used both in the male and gender neutral form (incidently the same is true in German). I.e. 'the man is tall' (referring to a male human) or 'mankind', 'man cannot live by bread alone' etc referring to a human.
Except that those workers had a choice - remain on the farms, or go to the mines and the factories. Given the masses that chose the latter, the indications are that the alternatives were worse. Sure, it is easy to say that state ownership of the means of production would have both created the wealth of the industrial revolution without creating income inequality (which was present before the revolution anyway). But in reality this is a pipe dream, and all historical attempts at this have had to be constantly explained away by the Left as 'they didn't do it right'.
Don't believe the 'money as debt' videos. Under free banking, credit expansion is constrained, and doesn't balloon away exponentially. The 'money as debt' videos miss some basic points, namely that there are two sides (the creditor and the debtor) in every debt, thus debt is a circular flow, not a linear or exponential continuous expansion.
Here's an interesting question: Does the United States need to pay-off its debts so the USD doesn't collapse? No, at least not in full. Obviously, at this rate, the US debt will continue to rise. Holding large debt has become the norm for individuals, businesses and governments. They're all holding larger debt than in previous decades and if just about everyone is doing it, then it becomes acceptable practice to a large (or to some) extent.
Does the US need to cut military spending? Cutting military spending shouldn't be an option. The US needs to continue to 'control' the seas and geopolitical world to a large extent. It would start to lose its real empire if it gave these up. And it won't. Some county would always (at least, want to) fill the void of world domination (even though some believe all nations should participate in global decision making etc), and I'd rather see the US hold this title. Just look at the alternatives! I could go on and on...; I don't think you can have global cooperation like some socialists believe. You would always have some country that would want to dominate and this would create the same set of problems we have today, if not worse. Better the devil you know in this case.
Other creditor nations to the United States would stand to lose more if the US just shows them the finger. Kind of like Neo living in a world that was controlled by the Matrix, we are living in a world that is controlled by the United States (systems built and controlled by the US that are hidden to most of us), although there is a growing presence of opposition to this control and some of it must be coming from within the United States; the, in my opinion, near collapse of the financial system in 2008 was premeditated to some extent. Another reason why the military and protective services units/agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA, police etc etc etc) should continue to be funded to protect the US from all forms of harm. And this should be separate from congressional oversight, as congress can't follow through with meaningful and worthwhile measures to protect US interests. Factional fighting is out of control and too many special interest groups have too much political influence. Congress just can't be trusted anymore.
Raising taxes in these times is counter-productive to reinvigorate the United States middle class (with too much future debt obligations as things stand). Raising salaries (which would see an increase in tax revenue anyway) would make more sense down the track. The bar has to be raised to keep up with larger debts. This has to be a viable option in due course. A wealthier US citizen (and even illegal alien) would mean more purchasing power, more money to pay-down debt and more reasons to spur the local and non localised US economy.
The world is seeing a public versus private battle going on. The US, Greece etc is downsizing the public service (or attempting to), selling off state-owned assets and privatising whatever it can. This appears to be preplanned to some extent. By deliberately bankrupting a town, city etc you are going to go after any state-owned asset they have to meet debt obligations.
I don't think the US will reduce its debt over the long run. It will try and reduce the public sector or even privatise it (not its protective services agencies), but this won't even cover any interest repayments. It is possible that a major war will break-out in the future and this will restructure world creditor and debtor markets. I'm sure this occurred during WW1 and WW2. This may be a likely outcome if the US is pressured too much, given the position they're in. Another reason why a secretive presence in the financial markets is paramount. The so-called free markets are not there to destroy countries like the United States and its middle class. The way 'Wall Street' operates, it is a free-for-all. Wall-Streets' own sense of reality is vastly distant to main street's and there shouldn't be such a gap. In a world full of laws that prevents, for example, my neighbour from steeling my lawn mower, why is Wall Street (and co) allowed to manipulate and transfer middle class wealth to a sophisticated elite in and outside of the US? Nothing has really changed and it's a matter of time before another GFC (perhaps worse) occurs.
The US controls markets around the world. Who stands to lose the most if the US decides not to pay its foreign creditors? That would be the creditors themselves and to some extent the US itself; pretty much all countries on earth as a US default could send markets tumbling south, and even surpassing the GFC. Sure all markets are interconnected, but the US would stand to lose less overall.
Trading partnerships are a forced proposition to some extent. Sometimes you've got very little choice but to trade the way the US wants you to. You have to ask yourself why countries just stop using the USD to trade oil. It looks easier than what it actually is. A total break from pertodollars could 'create' a major war. Other nations don't have the control they probably think they do over their own and other markets, anyhow.
Whatever the US stands to lose, other nations stand to lose more. China for the moment would be the only major exception. It will continue to build wealth and a great part of this will continue to come from within its borders. But it will never be in a position to control world markets like the US does. Other nations don't really have a say whether the US controls markets in general. The complex systems the US established and continues to create and dominate (like algorithmic market trading computers) is setting-up the US for the next generation and beyond. The US is also making sure other countries/competitors are peddling backwards, and to a large extent, thank God they are. The systems are in place to make countries like China very wealthy, but insulated from controlling world markets.
The US needs to ensure more counterproductive (to the US) market manipulation doesn't occur. Only true patriots, like in its protective services in general, can adequately form a resistance to this ongoing 'wall-street' hijacking of the US economy and the future of the United States; protective services agencies (the lot, NSA, FBI, CIA etc etc) should protect US citizens, interests etc from these out-of-control traders as much as they should from some lowlife with a bomb. Congress, for example, is not the savior it thinks it is. They are counterproductive to a consistent, worthwhile, followed-through set of plans to see the US collectively reemerge as a dominant world player with a strong middle class.
And if anyone can tell me of a better dominant player to fill the void of the world superpower, I'm all ears....I just can't see it happening. Of course, I have this as a bias so you better try pretty hard.
Does the US need to cut military spending? Cutting military spending shouldn't be an option. The US needs to continue to 'control' the seas and geopolitical world to a large extent. It would start to lose its real empire if it gave these up. And it won't. Some county would always (at least, want to) fill the void of world domination (even though some believe all nations should participate in global decision making etc), and I'd rather see the US hold this title. Just look at the alternatives! I could go on and on...; I don't think you can have global cooperation like some socialists believe. You would always have some country that would want to dominate and this would create the same set of problems we have today, if not worse. Better the devil you know in this case.
Other creditor nations to the United States would stand to lose more if the US just shows them the finger. Kind of like Neo living in a world that was controlled by the Matrix, we are living in a world that is controlled by the United States (systems built and controlled by the US that are hidden to most of us), although there is a growing presence of opposition to this control and some of it must be coming from within the United States; the, in my opinion, near collapse of the financial system in 2008 was premeditated to some extent. Another reason why the military and protective services units/agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA, police etc etc etc) should continue to be funded to protect the US from all forms of harm. And this should be separate from congressional oversight, as congress can't follow through with meaningful and worthwhile measures to protect US interests. Factional fighting is out of control and too many special interest groups have too much political influence. Congress just can't be trusted anymore.
Raising taxes in these times is counter-productive to reinvigorate the United States middle class (with too much future debt obligations as things stand). Raising salaries (which would see an increase in tax revenue anyway) would make more sense down the track. The bar has to be raised to keep up with larger debts. This has to be a viable option in due course. A wealthier US citizen (and even illegal alien) would mean more purchasing power, more money to pay-down debt and more reasons to spur the local and non localised US economy.
The world is seeing a public versus private battle going on. The US, Greece etc is downsizing the public service (or attempting to), selling off state-owned assets and privatising whatever it can. This appears to be preplanned to some extent. By deliberately bankrupting a town, city etc you are going to go after any state-owned asset they have to meet debt obligations.
I don't think the US will reduce its debt over the long run. It will try and reduce the public sector or even privatise it (not its protective services agencies), but this won't even cover any interest repayments. It is possible that a major war will break-out in the future and this will restructure world creditor and debtor markets. I'm sure this occurred during WW1 and WW2. This may be a likely outcome if the US is pressured too much, given the position they're in. Another reason why a secretive presence in the financial markets is paramount. The so-called free markets are not there to destroy countries like the United States and its middle class. The way 'Wall Street' operates, it is a free-for-all. Wall-Streets' own sense of reality is vastly distant to main street's and there shouldn't be such a gap. In a world full of laws that prevents, for example, my neighbour from steeling my lawn mower, why is Wall Street (and co) allowed to manipulate and transfer middle class wealth to a sophisticated elite in and outside of the US? Nothing has really changed and it's a matter of time before another GFC (perhaps worse) occurs.
The US controls markets around the world. Who stands to lose the most if the US decides not to pay its foreign creditors? That would be the creditors themselves and to some extent the US itself; pretty much all countries on earth as a US default could send markets tumbling south, and even surpassing the GFC. Sure all markets are interconnected, but the US would stand to lose less overall.
Trading partnerships are a forced proposition to some extent. Sometimes you've got very little choice but to trade the way the US wants you to. You have to ask yourself why countries just stop using the USD to trade oil. It looks easier than what it actually is. A total break from pertodollars could 'create' a major war. Other nations don't have the control they probably think they do over their own and other markets, anyhow.
Whatever the US stands to lose, other nations stand to lose more. China for the moment would be the only major exception. It will continue to build wealth and a great part of this will continue to come from within its borders. But it will never be in a position to control world markets like the US does. Other nations don't really have a say whether the US controls markets in general. The complex systems the US established and continues to create and dominate (like algorithmic market trading computers) is setting-up the US for the next generation and beyond. The US is also making sure other countries/competitors are peddling backwards, and to a large extent, thank God they are. The systems are in place to make countries like China very wealthy, but insulated from controlling world markets.
The US needs to ensure more counterproductive (to the US) market manipulation doesn't occur. Only true patriots, like in its protective services in general, can adequately form a resistance to this ongoing 'wall-street' hijacking of the US economy and the future of the United States; protective services agencies (the lot, NSA, FBI, CIA etc etc) should protect US citizens, interests etc from these out-of-control traders as much as they should from some lowlife with a bomb. Congress, for example, is not the savior it thinks it is. They are counterproductive to a consistent, worthwhile, followed-through set of plans to see the US collectively reemerge as a dominant world player with a strong middle class.
And if anyone can tell me of a better dominant player to fill the void of the world superpower, I'm all ears....I just can't see it happening. Of course, I have this as a bias so you better try pretty hard.
Not raising the debt ceiling will be more devastating over the long run for other nations outside of the United States. The slight possibility that it won't get done this time round means that other markets around the world will go in free-fall mode, along with the US, but expect the US to get out of it a lot quicker than the rest.
I'm sure it will get done, but if it doesn't expect the Euro to go under! Therefore the USD will appreciate over the long term.
But we're expecting a bit too much, I think.
I'm sure it will get done, but if it doesn't expect the Euro to go under! Therefore the USD will appreciate over the long term.
But we're expecting a bit too much, I think.
The $US is reinforced in nearly every asset class, investment model etc around the world. The $US is like oxygen to us. In a hypothetical or future possible world of collapsed markets (for whatever reason), the $US will be the last or one of the last 'men' standing. It won't just disappear like many predict. It (in this world, as it stands) can't 'disappear'. It underlies nearly every other investment model, even indirectly. An analogy would be like saying life on earth would 'disappear' after oxygen here does! You won't have oxygen or the $US 'disappearing' before life or other investment models, asset classes, respectively. Of course, I don't wish for any of the above to occur. I'm just putting-out analogies and hypotheticals.
So all those packing and preparing for the worst in the USA if there is a so-called hyperinflation situation in the USA, just like I saw on television yesterday, don't bother. It's those outside of the USA that might need to worry; hopefully only might and I hope it doesn't happen.
The $US is and will continue to defy supply and demand principles that economists hold so dearly. It's already doing this. The $US is seeing continued support even with all the printing. It's one of the benefits of having the world's reserve currency and you should support every way to continue this into the 22nd century.
The stockpiling of food etc (just in case of the so called hyperinflation of the world's reserve currency) will have an expiry date and you might be throwing away good money. But the $US expiry date is not on the agenda. Other countries, organizations and agencies might want it to be, but this is where you can help others reinforce the $US continued strength.
Also think of a possible situation where other currencies are no longer as effective to buy goods and services, debts etc etc around the world, and the $US is used even more. This would mean less supply floating out there, higher demand of the $US and the $US to stabilize and strengthen; bringing it in line with supply/demand fundamentals, that we all love! And the $US would continue to be the world's reserve currency.
So all those packing and preparing for the worst in the USA if there is a so-called hyperinflation situation in the USA, just like I saw on television yesterday, don't bother. It's those outside of the USA that might need to worry; hopefully only might and I hope it doesn't happen.
The $US is and will continue to defy supply and demand principles that economists hold so dearly. It's already doing this. The $US is seeing continued support even with all the printing. It's one of the benefits of having the world's reserve currency and you should support every way to continue this into the 22nd century.
The stockpiling of food etc (just in case of the so called hyperinflation of the world's reserve currency) will have an expiry date and you might be throwing away good money. But the $US expiry date is not on the agenda. Other countries, organizations and agencies might want it to be, but this is where you can help others reinforce the $US continued strength.
Also think of a possible situation where other currencies are no longer as effective to buy goods and services, debts etc etc around the world, and the $US is used even more. This would mean less supply floating out there, higher demand of the $US and the $US to stabilize and strengthen; bringing it in line with supply/demand fundamentals, that we all love! And the $US would continue to be the world's reserve currency.
please note that the first paragraph should be amended as follows:
"The $US is reinforced in nearly every asset class, investment model etc around the world. The $US is like oxygen to us. In a hypothetical or future possible world of collapsed markets (for whatever reason), the $US will be the last or one of the last 'men' standing. It won't just disappear like many predict. It (in this world, as it stands) can't 'disappear'. It underlies nearly every other investment model, even indirectly. An analogy would be like saying life on earth would continue after oxygen here 'disappears'! Of course, I don't wish for any of the above to occur. I'm just putting-out analogies and hypotheticals."
"The $US is reinforced in nearly every asset class, investment model etc around the world. The $US is like oxygen to us. In a hypothetical or future possible world of collapsed markets (for whatever reason), the $US will be the last or one of the last 'men' standing. It won't just disappear like many predict. It (in this world, as it stands) can't 'disappear'. It underlies nearly every other investment model, even indirectly. An analogy would be like saying life on earth would continue after oxygen here 'disappears'! Of course, I don't wish for any of the above to occur. I'm just putting-out analogies and hypotheticals."
A little more needs to be said about this paragraph:
"The $US is reinforced in nearly every asset class, investment model etc around the world. The $US is like oxygen to us. In a hypothetical or future possible world of collapsed markets (for whatever reason), the $US will be the last or one of the last 'men' standing. It won't just disappear like many predict. It (in this world, as it stands) can't 'disappear'. It underlies nearly every other investment model, even indirectly. An analogy would be like saying life on earth would continue after oxygen here 'disappears'!" from my previous post ...
It should read "life on earth would not continue after oxygen disappears". The analogy "life on earth would continue after oxygen disappears" is in the context of someone believing that the $US is not really needed as a reserve currency. Not my view though.
You need to keep this in the context of certain fundamental dynamics, as they stand. I know that theoretically, even toilet paper from some country might be used as a form of reserve currency. A country other than the US might, one day into the very distant future, have a reserve currency, and I'm sure there are plenty looking at this option. My point was to raise the fact that other currencies, asset classes, economies etc that are so interconnected, even at a delicate level, are so interdependent in the $US survival that this is one key reason why the $US isn't going away any time soon.
Now the analogy given 'life on earth would not continue after oxygen here 'disappears'!' might seem false, but what I was alluding to was you would have a really unstable world economy if the $US collapsed, even if you substitute the $US with alternative currencies. In fact, I think you would most probably have chaos and mayhem and countries, organizations, companies, people(!) etc etc trying desperately to reposition themselves. Wars etc would probably break-out. It's possible that major ones even would break-out. Company balance sheets and P&Ls would be falsely re-marked, and this would add to the carnage. It would be a completely chaotic, confusing, dangerous time.
Depending from which perspective you view the analogy from, it's meant to reinforce the view that in the real economic world, as it stands and has stood for so long (with the $US being the reserve currency) a destruction of the $US cannot have any smooth transition at all! It would make mankind reevaluate all that he/she owns, mostly to the downside. How would you realistically mark valuations if such valuations crashed and then were thrown into the unstable, confusing and problematic world that would evolve? Certainly not with toilet paper or another would-be world reserve currency.
Having said all of this, the $US cannot be easily replaced as the world's reserve currency.
"The $US is reinforced in nearly every asset class, investment model etc around the world. The $US is like oxygen to us. In a hypothetical or future possible world of collapsed markets (for whatever reason), the $US will be the last or one of the last 'men' standing. It won't just disappear like many predict. It (in this world, as it stands) can't 'disappear'. It underlies nearly every other investment model, even indirectly. An analogy would be like saying life on earth would continue after oxygen here 'disappears'!" from my previous post ...
It should read "life on earth would not continue after oxygen disappears". The analogy "life on earth would continue after oxygen disappears" is in the context of someone believing that the $US is not really needed as a reserve currency. Not my view though.
You need to keep this in the context of certain fundamental dynamics, as they stand. I know that theoretically, even toilet paper from some country might be used as a form of reserve currency. A country other than the US might, one day into the very distant future, have a reserve currency, and I'm sure there are plenty looking at this option. My point was to raise the fact that other currencies, asset classes, economies etc that are so interconnected, even at a delicate level, are so interdependent in the $US survival that this is one key reason why the $US isn't going away any time soon.
Now the analogy given 'life on earth would not continue after oxygen here 'disappears'!' might seem false, but what I was alluding to was you would have a really unstable world economy if the $US collapsed, even if you substitute the $US with alternative currencies. In fact, I think you would most probably have chaos and mayhem and countries, organizations, companies, people(!) etc etc trying desperately to reposition themselves. Wars etc would probably break-out. It's possible that major ones even would break-out. Company balance sheets and P&Ls would be falsely re-marked, and this would add to the carnage. It would be a completely chaotic, confusing, dangerous time.
Depending from which perspective you view the analogy from, it's meant to reinforce the view that in the real economic world, as it stands and has stood for so long (with the $US being the reserve currency) a destruction of the $US cannot have any smooth transition at all! It would make mankind reevaluate all that he/she owns, mostly to the downside. How would you realistically mark valuations if such valuations crashed and then were thrown into the unstable, confusing and problematic world that would evolve? Certainly not with toilet paper or another would-be world reserve currency.
Having said all of this, the $US cannot be easily replaced as the world's reserve currency.
Similar threads
