Damned if we do, and damned if we don't !
- Thread starter bearclaw
- Start date
Yeah capitalism rules, but let's not forget that until the end of the cold war, 2/3 superpowers (USSR and China) were communist. I think Marx did a pretty good job of installing and popularizing a pretty useless economic system. Compare that to the people who can't get the best system -- capitalism -- working, Marx seems like a pretty effective leader.
Just pointing out the slightly less obvious.
I don't think that the majority of US presidents have been criminals. Just the ones since Nixon.
But maybe that's just because none of us were around for the earlier ones, or that the media has become more effective since Nixon...???
The problem is that capitalism and democracy go against human nature. If you observe certain monkey species, there's a leader who gets all the female monkeys and all the food he wants. All the other monkeys just follow the leader. That's why it's so difficult for the rest of the world to make it work, they have to evolve and get rid of their monkey heritage.
Communism is appealing to the naive and ignorant because it strikes primitive human chords: a sense of community, a strong leader, no industrial economy, no impersonal relations etc etc
Communism promises a return to the primitive "lost paradise".
No thank you I am grateful I am living in the XXIst century I don't want to live like a monkey.
ATTENTION CITIZENS:
As part of the Bush Administration's ongoing efforts to obliterate all traces of terrorism in the United States, the Department of Justice has commenced registration* of each and every American Patriot. By registering all non-terrorists within our borders, it is our intention to make use of the process of elimination to identify the evil ones who walk among us. If you are a non-terrorist (American Patriot), your participation is required. Please register below.
- John Ashcroft
United States Attorney General
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp
As part of the Bush Administration's ongoing efforts to obliterate all traces of terrorism in the United States, the Department of Justice has commenced registration* of each and every American Patriot. By registering all non-terrorists within our borders, it is our intention to make use of the process of elimination to identify the evil ones who walk among us. If you are a non-terrorist (American Patriot), your participation is required. Please register below.
- John Ashcroft
United States Attorney General
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp
Here is the article that I mentioned earlier in the thread:
The Oil-Euro-Dollar Link
A hot topic of late has been the idea that the US invaded Iraq as part of a plan to dissuade OPEC countries from deciding to price their oil in euros rather than US Dollars. The thinking is that demand for the US$ gets a significant boost from the fact that oil is traded in US Dollars and that if other OPEC nations followed Iraq's lead and decided to sell their oil in euros, the relative value of the US$ would fall. This would, in turn, create economic problems for the US.
The above-described idea is interesting, but in our view makes no sense. If the OPEC countries, or any oil-exporting countries for that matter, decided that they were accumulating too many US Dollars and that they would prefer some other currency, they could simply sell their dollars in the foreign exchange market. In fact, this is exactly what Mexico is doing right now with the 'surplus' dollars accumulated via oil sales. As far as the relative values of the US$ and the euro are concerned there is no difference between a) selling the oil for dollars and then exchanging the dollars for euros in the currency market, or b) selling the oil in euros in the first place. In other words, if the OPEC countries desired more euros and less dollars they could be acting on that desire right now.
Further to the above, the US Dollar's relative value is not determined by the currency in which oil is priced, but by the desire of foreign investors to hold dollars or investments denominated in dollars. And this desire to hold dollars is, in turn, determined by the expected return on dollar-denominated investments relative to the expected return on investments denominated in other currencies. Therefore, if you believe (as we do) that the returns on dollar-denominated investments over the next year or more will be insufficient to entice the massive capital in-flows needed to offset the huge US current account out-flows, you should be bearish on the US$. We are very bearish on the US$ beyond the next 1-2 months.
So much misinformation is dispersed by governments and the news media on a daily basis in an attempt to prevent us from seeing things as they really are that it makes no sense to blindly accept the official, or widely publicised, explanations for anything. Therefore when George Bush and Tony Blair state their reasons for invading Iraq, reasonable people are naturally suspicious. In this case, though, it is entirely possible that the openly-stated motive for invading Iraq (genuine security concerns) is the real motive. While it is certainly arguable as to whether such concerns are justified and, even so, whether invading Iraq is the right course of action to address these concerns, why search for an ulterior motive when the openly-stated motive makes the most sense?
The above is by Steve Saville of speculative-investor.com
The Oil-Euro-Dollar Link
A hot topic of late has been the idea that the US invaded Iraq as part of a plan to dissuade OPEC countries from deciding to price their oil in euros rather than US Dollars. The thinking is that demand for the US$ gets a significant boost from the fact that oil is traded in US Dollars and that if other OPEC nations followed Iraq's lead and decided to sell their oil in euros, the relative value of the US$ would fall. This would, in turn, create economic problems for the US.
The above-described idea is interesting, but in our view makes no sense. If the OPEC countries, or any oil-exporting countries for that matter, decided that they were accumulating too many US Dollars and that they would prefer some other currency, they could simply sell their dollars in the foreign exchange market. In fact, this is exactly what Mexico is doing right now with the 'surplus' dollars accumulated via oil sales. As far as the relative values of the US$ and the euro are concerned there is no difference between a) selling the oil for dollars and then exchanging the dollars for euros in the currency market, or b) selling the oil in euros in the first place. In other words, if the OPEC countries desired more euros and less dollars they could be acting on that desire right now.
Further to the above, the US Dollar's relative value is not determined by the currency in which oil is priced, but by the desire of foreign investors to hold dollars or investments denominated in dollars. And this desire to hold dollars is, in turn, determined by the expected return on dollar-denominated investments relative to the expected return on investments denominated in other currencies. Therefore, if you believe (as we do) that the returns on dollar-denominated investments over the next year or more will be insufficient to entice the massive capital in-flows needed to offset the huge US current account out-flows, you should be bearish on the US$. We are very bearish on the US$ beyond the next 1-2 months.
So much misinformation is dispersed by governments and the news media on a daily basis in an attempt to prevent us from seeing things as they really are that it makes no sense to blindly accept the official, or widely publicised, explanations for anything. Therefore when George Bush and Tony Blair state their reasons for invading Iraq, reasonable people are naturally suspicious. In this case, though, it is entirely possible that the openly-stated motive for invading Iraq (genuine security concerns) is the real motive. While it is certainly arguable as to whether such concerns are justified and, even so, whether invading Iraq is the right course of action to address these concerns, why search for an ulterior motive when the openly-stated motive makes the most sense?
The above is by Steve Saville of speculative-investor.com