The Rabbit Hole | Page 30 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Peering down the algorithmic trading rabbit hole 11 replies

Badgers Bolt hole 39 replies

Different Charting software: Hole in charts? 0 replies

Pipbuilder's hole 2 replies

Black Hole Trading 0 replies

Attachments: The Rabbit Hole
Exit Attachments

The Rabbit Hole

  • #581
  • Oct 22, 2016 1:19pm Oct 22, 2016 1:19pm
Regardless of who wins the presidential election this November, we will witness history being made.

If Hillary Clinton wins the U.S. presidential election, it will be the first time in history that two U.S. presidents have slept with each other!

But if Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidential election, it will be the first time in history that a billionaire moves into public housing vacated by a black family.


Is this a great country or what?
  • #582
  • Oct 22, 2016 2:14pm Oct 22, 2016 2:14pm
Quoting Mingary
Regardless of who wins the presidential election this November, we will witness history being made. If Hillary Clinton wins the U.S. presidential election, it will be the first time in history that two U.S. presidents have slept with each other! But if Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidential election, it will be the first time in history that a billionaire moves into public housing vacated by a black family. Is this a great country or what?
  • #583
  • Edited 4:52pm Oct 22, 2016 4:36pm | Edited 4:52pm
Quoting jen101
Saddam signed his own death warrant when in 2000, he decided to sell oil in Euros. Gaddafi untied from the dollar too. Assad's going down the same road. https://youtu.be/EbuIJFwwOps See towards the end. Just pure evil what the US has done.
Working my way through the video, criticism below:

1. It doesn't matter that the money from dollars is sitting in the federal reserves. The Saudis were buying assets in the USA, that's why the money ended back at the Fed, it doesn't matter if the oil was sold in potatoes, the profits would have still made its way into the US economy because that is were the Saudis were investing. The agreement to price oil in dollars says nothing about where the profits must be stored or spent.

2. The guy says the Japanese sells to the US hondas, and the US pays for that in dollars which they use to buy oil. That's factually wrong. The Japs sell the hondas, it gets paid for in dollars, it is converted back to yen, and yen is converted into dollars again to buy oil.

3. There is an idea in the video, that the US just prints money to pay for its way in the world. But it isn't really true, yes the US has more flexibility because it is economic super power and reserve currency, but the idea that they just sit around all day doing nothing is wrong. America just like Japan is selling goods a services and that is the predominant way which oil is paid for. The US federal deficit to GDP is only 2% this year.

4. It says that Iraq lost 17% of profits by selling in euros, and converting back to dollars. Does anyone sell anything in euros and dollars at the same nominal amount? If the euro is worth twice the amount of the dollar, and a barrel of oil is $100, oil will sell for 50euro. Arbitrage traders will ensure that there isn't a 17% spread in the market... You aren't making any more or less profit, the profit is just in a different currency.

5. It talks about Lybia, and the reason for the UK bombing and the ridiculous notion of creating an African currency for 'sharing wealth'. Gaddaffi died the richest man on earth and raped all the people of his country of the profit from selling oil, he wasn't doing it for sharing, he was attempting to get around US sanctions.

6. It then says it would shift the economic order of the world. No it wouldn't. The economy is the sum of the output of goods and services, not a currency which is a means of exchange. If they had switched to some kind of African/Muslim currency they would still be sand dwelling loafers earning a free living because the worlds need for oil. Whereas America would still be the most diverse, productive, and economical vibrant country in the world. Long term wealth is produce from work.

7. Do we really believe that the middle east would jack up the price of oil, and then not sell it to us, as is implied by Russia today? Absolutely not, because if the price is too high, there will be no sale, and who hurts the most from that the most. Probably those one trick pony economics that make their profits predominantly from oil. The oil industry is ~45% of the Saudi economy for example, if they sell oil it would devastate their economy. In any event demand and supply set the price, and nobody would bite the hand that feds them.

No idea why the Americans went into Iraq, pretty sure though it wasn't to preserve the 'petrodollar'. And pretty sure it wasn't just America and Britain which supported sanctions on Iraq that lead to the famine, it was a UN security council resolution (China, Russia, France, UK and US) who did so after Sadam invaded Kuwait in 90 - lest we conclude that it was done for reason.

We need to be asking ourselves, who benefits from spreading this kind of misinformation?
  • #584
  • Oct 23, 2016 12:01am Oct 23, 2016 12:01am
Here Jen,
This might shed some light on the entire network of motivators that seem to be a orchestrated plot to destroy Western democracy from within.

It's compelling to say in the least!

https://youtu.be/nKt2zaOrxD8
  • #585
  • Oct 23, 2016 12:04am Oct 23, 2016 12:04am
Quoting jen101
{quote} Royal Navy. Are we down? Don't know. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-people/our-capability

Impressive! Just wondering why so many Brits I have read on various forums harbor such negative views. Perhaps not being informed?
  • #586
  • Oct 23, 2016 4:06am Oct 23, 2016 4:06am
Quoting verv
{quote} Working my way through the video, criticism below: 1. It doesn't matter that the money from dollars is sitting in the federal reserves. The Saudis were buying assets in the USA, that's why the money ended back at the Fed, it doesn't matter if the oil was sold in potatoes, the profits would have still made its way into the US economy because that is were the Saudis were investing. The agreement to price oil in dollars says nothing about where the profits must be stored or spent. 2. The guy says the Japanese sells to the US hondas, and the...
Thanks verv for a different perspective!
  • #587
  • Edited 5:38am Oct 23, 2016 5:23am | Edited 5:38am
Quoting verv
{quote} Working my way through the video, criticism below: 1. It doesn't matter that the money from dollars is sitting in the federal reserves. The Saudis were buying assets in the USA, that's why the money ended back at the Fed, it doesn't matter if the oil was sold in potatoes, the profits would have still made its way into the US economy because that is were the Saudis were investing. The agreement to price oil in dollars says nothing about where the profits must be stored or spent. 2. The guy says the Japanese sells to the US hondas, and the...

On your point (3) GDP which is incorrect. It was actually less than 2% if actual figures are reported. If you are referring GDP to Debt ratio then that is also another calculation that doesn't correctly report the real numbers.

Also on the printing money part; Our current debt is pushing 21 trillion dollars. The amount of money borrowed from China has enabled the FED to print in circulation a lot more bills as a result of burgeoning costs, entitlement spending, stimulus package to shore up the 2008 financial crisis in the bank bail outs as well as paying for bad loans in the Housing Mortgage scandals. The national debt is something that has always been a Republican debated issue of contention in trying to address, but to no avail the can keeps getting kicked down the road is a tired act by now.

Also your assertion on Libya and Gaddafi is a unfair and inaccurate characterization about how he spent his wealth. When in fact he spent all kinds of money on infrastructure projects such as education, health, Women, Housing, Water, and a litany of other things that are well documented. Including cooperating with the US in the war on terror. It just depends on what truth or propaganda you are willing to accept. Also it is confirmed that Gaddafi was indeed pursuing an African single Currency as well attempting to unite several African countries to address several objectives for Africa as a whole. Now whether he indeed had ever any intention to follow through on those plans is an entirely different discussion that is purely speculative.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2009/02/200922113838580502.html

The fact Hillary messed that whole situation up by destabilizing that country, and getting four Americans killed in the process is a mere footnote in her scorched earth policies but something that is still a hot topic to a lot of Americans still seeking answers that labels Hillary as a murderer.

https://youtu.be/nHgGKl2FVUc

Also OPEC producing nations have jacked up the price of oil before, so what makes you think they won't do it again if conditions were idea in which they could exploit an opportunity?

Also the US dollar is the World's reserve currency, there is always a cost to other nations when converting fractional rates that are constantly changing benefiting the US dollar.

What do you think the US dollar is backed by? What is the RMB back by?

Also just clarification on Iraq, the first was (operation desert Storm was a multi coalition effort in which the objective was to push Saddam out of Kuwait. We actually never invaded Iraq and were under strict directives in that particular Military operation. The actual Iraq invasion, (Operation Iraqi Freedom) was initially a preemptive strike authorized by congress on the false pretense of WMD's, as a violation of the conditions Saddam agreed to years prior, and thus a case was made that those treaties were in violation. ( The real reason we went to Iraq served several purposes) 1. Halliburton which sought to cash in on several government contracts by proving in an experiment that they can erect a functioning city, with a population of 300,000 in a matter of less than 2 weeks. 2nd reason was to have a military base of operations to Sandwich the conflict in Afghanistan and to monitor Iran's military activities, in other words it was a idea geographic strategic point for security forces to move assets to support both wars. It wasn't until the Green Zone was established that Multi-coalition forces joined the cause in the reconstruction effort for much of the country. Thanks to Obama's failure to renegotiate the S.O.F.A. agreement, which many have said was by design, the US lost it's strategic planning objective, thus ultimately pulling our forces out prematurely. Giving Isis the opportunity to fill the vacuum left behind.
  • #588
  • Oct 23, 2016 6:29am Oct 23, 2016 6:29am
Quoting ThunderHeart
Here Jen, This might shed some light on the entire network of motivators that seem to be a orchestrated plot to destroy Western democracy from within. It's compelling to say in the least! https://youtu.be/nKt2zaOrxD8
And you thought it was scary that we have a Muslim mayor.
  • #589
  • Oct 23, 2016 6:56am Oct 23, 2016 6:56am
https://youtu.be/nAKD_eeM5kU
  • #590
  • Oct 23, 2016 7:34am Oct 23, 2016 7:34am
Quoting jen101
https://youtu.be/nAKD_eeM5kU

Thanks for this! I enjoy this kind of stuff immensely! Love aviation!
  • #591
  • Oct 23, 2016 7:57am Oct 23, 2016 7:57am
Quoting ThunderHeart
{quote} Thanks for this! I enjoy this kind of stuff immensely! Love aviation!
Not far from where I am is The Imperial War Museum where they have the Eurofighter, Harrier, Concord and also the Blackbird SR71. Lots of WW2 planes too.
  • #592
  • Edited 12:32pm Oct 23, 2016 8:20am | Edited 12:32pm
Quote
On your point (3) GDP which is incorrect. It was actually less than 2% if actual figures are reported. If you are referring GDP to Debt ratio then that is also another calculation that doesn't correctly report the real numbers.

Also on the printing money part; Our current debt is pushing 21 trillion dollars.The amount of money borrowed from China has enabled the FED to print in circulation a lot more bills as a result of burgeoning costs, entitlement spending, stimulus package to shore up the 2008 financial crisis in the bank bail outs as well...

I said federal deficit which can only mean one thing, the gap between federal expenditure and tax income as a % of GDP. Federal Debt is what you are talking about, they are two different things. What I said was exactly right, you seem confused as to what the word deficit means, and what the word debt means.

The federal deficit builds the federal debt. So long as the federal deficit is below the % growth rate of the economy, the federal debt will never be a problem as a % of GDP. A very simple spreadsheet calculation, where bonds are retired after 30 years demonstrates this.

Why has the amount of money borrowed from China allowed the FED to print more money? I really don't know what you mean by this, so lets get specific about the mechanisms here rather than being vague.

Here is how it goes:
Chinese comanies sell products in the USA.
US consumers buys products in dollars.
Chinese companies repatriate dollar profits, by converting back to yuan via the Chinese government which provides a fixed non floating peg.
This means the Chinese government accumulates dollars.
The Chinese government takes those dollars, and invests it in US gov. bonds

Where is there printing by the FED here, relating to the Chinese investment in US gov. bonds?


Quote
Also your assertion on Libya and Gaddafi is a unfair and inaccurate characterization about how he spent his wealth. When in fact he spent all kinds of money on infrastructure projects such as education, health, Women, Housing, Water, and a litany of other things that are well documented. Including cooperating with the US in the war on terror. It just depends on what truth or propaganda you are willing to accept. Also it is confirmed that Gaddafi was indeed pursuing an African single Currency as well attempting to unite several African countries...

When he died he was worth anywhere from 150-200billion$. Reportedly the richest man on earth. I don't think you are really giving any thought to my argument, where did he get this money from, except via milking it out of the country which according to you he was helping. I'm certain he was doing infrastructure projects but he undoubtedly enriched himself enormously during his time in power - where did that money come from, except through stealing it from his people.

He was a dictator that crushed the 'rights' of his people. He sponsored state terrorism, before it was popular, and supplied weapons to terrorists groups such as the IRA. He was not a real good guy.



Quote
Also OPEC producing nations have jacked up the price of oil before, so what makes you think they won't do it again if conditions were idea in which they could exploit an opportunity?
The claim in the video, was that they would put up the oil to such a price that it would not be affordable for the West to buy. An examination of that claim for more than a few seconds would suggest, that if they put up the price to unaffordable level they wouldn't be making any sales, and that would crush their own economies which are oil export driven. That makes totally no business sense.

OPEC have always tried to maximize their market share, whilst trying to maximise profits and they do this by making sure the market is rarely oversupplied - this does make business sense.

Lets not forget that OPEC is an invite only cartel, where countries adjust their output to fix the price of oil. OPEC has been fixing the price of oil for their own benefit for the last 30 years (past couple withstanding because of shale).

So that argument in the video doubly makes no sense. Because (1) if they put prices up so high that nobody could afford there would be no profit for those countries oil exporting countries, and (2) it ignores the fact that OPEC has for decades already been fixing the price of oil for maximum profit.

Come on, it is a claim that makes no sense at all.

Quote
Also the US dollar is the World's reserve currency, there is always a cost to other nations when converting fractional rates that are constantly changing benefiting the US dollar.

The US dollar is a free floating exchange rate. It costs any person, to exchange any currency, regardless of whether that is the dollar or euro or otherwise.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

Quote
What do you think the US dollar is backed by? What is the RMB back by?

Their respective governments. There is nothing innately wrong with a fiat currency, but the drawback is it requires fiscal discipline, and when there isn't fiscal discipline and monetisation of debt then there is a problem.

Quote
Also just clarification on Iraq, the first was (operation desert Storm was a multi coalition effort in which the objective was to push Saddam out of Kuwait. We actually never invaded Iraq and were under strict directives in that particular Military operation. The actual Iraq invasion, (Operation Iraqi Freedom) was initially a preemptive strike authorized by congress on the false pretense of WMD's, as a violation of the conditions Saddam agreed to years prior, and thus a case was made that those treaties were in violation.

Again I am referring to a part in the video, where the presenter of 60 minutes, asked then secretary of state Albright, about the 500,000 children that have reportedly died and asked if it was 'worth it.' They are talking here about sanctions that the UN imposed and the question being asked is if the sanction are worth it - sanctions agreed by the UK, France, China, Russia and the USA. It wasn't just the US here.

But the implication from the montage after that clip, is that the US was bombing the crap out of Iraq, but as you said above that's not true during Alrights tenure as secretary of state. Coalition forces, as you said, stopped at the Iraqi border. The sanctions that were put in place by the UN security council and were done so because Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the sanctions were in part alleviated precisely to deal with the effects of the famine in an 'oil for food' programme, which Sadaam refused to cooperate with at the expense of the lives of his own people.

That is deliberate misinformation spread in that video.


Quote
1. Halliburton which sought to cash in on several government contracts by proving in an experiment that they can erect a functioning city, with a population of 300,000 in a matter of less than 2 weeks. 2nd reason was to have a military base of operations to Sandwich the conflict in Afghanistan and to monitor Iran's military activities, in other words it was a idea geographic strategic point for security forces to move assets to support both wars. It wasn't until the Green Zone was established that Multi-coalition forces joined the cause in the reconstruction effort for much of the country. Thanks to Obama's failure to renegotiate the S.O.F.A. agreement, which many have said was by design, the US lost it's strategic planning objective, thus ultimately pulling our forces out prematurely. Giving Isis the opportunity to fill the vacuum left behind.



The only thing we actually know, is that they thought there were WMDs (wrongly), and went in for that reason.

Many of the things you just said could be true, but equally they could be wrong.
  • #593
  • Edited 12:14am Oct 24, 2016 12:00am | Edited 12:14am
Quoting verv
{quote} I said federal deficit which can only mean one thing, the gap between federal expenditure and tax income as a % of GDP. Federal Debt is what you are talking about, they are two different things. What I said was exactly right, you seem confused as to what the word deficit means, and what the word debt means. The federal deficit builds the federal debt. So long as the federal deficit is below the % growth rate of the economy, the federal debt will never be a problem as a % of GDP. A very simple spreadsheet calculation, where bonds are retired...
I was responding to your figure of our GDP estimate at being 2%. which I wasn't really clear on. Now I am, so I stand corrected, my bad. The over the top GDP estimates alone is what I was focused on as they are less than 2%, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it is barely over 1% currently. Also your federal deficit % to GDP ratio claim; do you have a link in where you actually got your figures from?

Why has the amount of money borrowed from China allowed the FED to print more money? I really don't know what you mean by this,

Why did we need to borrow money from China to begin with? Borrowing from China, and the printing of more money was correlated by introducing QE shortly after the 2008 financial crisis. It is well documented, even though we have been borrowing money prior to that catastrophe, the US and The UK introduced QE programs during that time thus the printing of more money to increase inflationary targets was the initial objective. The US had to borrow money from China to make this possible. The other stuff you mention is redundant and you are assuming I don't know how the exchange of money works in relation to China purchasing US treasury notes.

As far as Gaddafi; I am not trying to make an argument about him being a good person, but that in the last several years it was clear he was making concerted efforts for reforms for his country. Also another point was not to make a case about him being this Human rights champion either, because it is obvious that he wasn't, however only that you made claims such as The African Currency or the political union known as the AU was not true, and that he was doing nothing to help his country, which is also not true. All the other stuff about him being a Dictator and how he got his money, is not withstanding of the facts, as a lot is speculative narratives went into forming those opinions that is not entirely rooted in facts nor confirmed 100%. Even his personal wealth is "estimated", not substantiated to exactly a net worth like other people who actually pay taxes and can be verified. As I stated previously, and I will reiterate it for you so you are clear, it all depends what version of the truth you are willing to accept. Remember to the victors goes the spoils, as does the writing of history to shape its future. The whole thing about the IRA, is something I wasn't familiar with, but that being said, depending which side you took in that conflict, Gaddafi was either a terrorist or a hero, and I am sure victims of the Lockerbee plane bombing are also not short on memory as to what side they took as well.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

The buying and selling of commodities are priced in US Dollar currency. Any country having to buy such commodities need to pay the the costs for keeping large pools of money in US denomination on hand to deal with the the conversion costs and to keep them as low as possible. Being a reserve currency benefits the US Dollar more so than other currencies due to the demand of the currency to make such transactions and the frequencies in which it is used.

Opec. Dude you putting me to sleep with all this overkill! It is not necessary. You are correct that they have controlled prices. You simply ignored my question altogether. They have lowered production in the past and artificially created shortages in order to spike prices. In essence they are arbitrarily doing the same thing now, as they have reach agreements with Russia, to reduce production, in hopes to create demand, and to start raising prices again. So I am not really sure I understand what your premise or claim is.

The USD is backed by nothing! Yes that is right nothing at all! The FED creates money out of then air as it does it's debt, in its fractional lending debt scheme. The RMB is back by their government with gold.

Many of the things you just said could be true, but equally they could be wrong.

No that can't be equally wrong because I was actually there to witness with my own two eyes and serving in a capacity that was privy to intelligence reports, the daily briefings as well as strategic planning with level 5 security clearance, to have access to such info.(civilians were not exposed or privileged to access such info) So I knew exactly our reasons, our rationale and all stated objectives for our ground operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reasons I stated as to why we went into the war, was indeed motivated primarily on greed, and Dick Cheney's connections to Halliburton which made most of what happened in Iraq possible. In reality we could have finished our objectives with less than 6 months, with out so much as an incident following our invasion and eventual take over, but you know about the munitions depot right? Thanks Paul Bremmer! As far as bombing the sht out of Iraq that didn't happen until operation Iraqi freedom, and yes we did bomb the shit out of them, this I know from being in DG as an Intel Analyst with our B1's in which was in the works many years prior.
  • #594
  • Oct 24, 2016 3:38am Oct 24, 2016 3:38am
Quoting ThunderHeart
.... Also why are Brits so down on their own Navy capabilities in recent times? I keep hearing that David Cameron and others have decimated its fleet with lack of funding.
This a great tragedy. The UK government has cut back defence spending year after year resulting in a pathetic capability. I heard that they have so few boats that they cannot adequately police local waters (...ahoy people smugglers! ), and that so much of the RAF was deployed in the Med during the Libya fiasco that it was unable to adequately protect British air space.
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #595
  • Oct 24, 2016 3:48am Oct 24, 2016 3:48am
Quoting Mingary
Regardless of who wins the presidential election this November, we will witness history being made. If Hillary Clinton wins the U.S. presidential election, it will be the first time in history that two U.S. presidents have slept with each other! But if Donald Trump wins the U.S. presidential election, it will be the first time in history that a billionaire moves into public housing vacated by a black family. Is this a great country or what?
When did Hillary sleep with Barack? ...was it while Bill was off in the Seychelles with Monica?
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #596
  • Edited 9:23am Oct 24, 2016 5:53am | Edited 9:23am
Quote
I was responding to your figure of our GDP estimate at being 2%. which I wasn't really clear on. Now I am, so I stand corrected, my bad. The over the top GDP estimates alone is what I was focused on as they are less than 2%, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it is barely over 1% currently. Also your federal deficit % to GDP ratio claim; do you have a link in where you actually got your figures from?

I didn't give any figures for the federal debt to GDP ratio. Are you meaning the calculation I am referring to? I can explain that if you want...
Here is Warren Buffett backing up what I said (you need to go to 17min 59 seconds and listen to him for about a minute.

https://youtu.be/KuYBeBCx19g?t=17m59s

The oversight people make is that they forget that the US government budget every years includes interest payment and retirement of debt. So if the federal deficit is 0% for 30 years, there would be no debt after 30 years as the debt would be paid down.

Quote
Why did we need to borrow money from China to begin with? Borrowing from China, and the printing of more money was correlated by introducing QE shortly after the 2008 financial crisis. It is well documented, even though we have been borrowing money prior to that catastrophe, the US and The UK introduced QE programs during that time thus the printing of more money to increase inflationary targets was the initial objective. The US had to borrow money from China to make this possible. The other stuff you mention is redundant and you are assuming I...

The US didn't go to the Chinese and ask for money, the US had a bond auction and the Chinese bid for those bonds. If the Chinese didn't buy those bonds someone else would have. The question is how do we know this.

If you look at the 30 year bond auction history, data which you can get from forexfactory, you can see that the Chinese aren't necessary. Take October 13th 2016 bond auction, here are the results: 2.47|2.4. The 2.47 is the yield of that bond, i.e. 2.47% a year interest per year. But the relevant part is the 2.4, that is the cover - that means that for every 1 billion $ of 30 years bonds offered there was 2.4 billion$ trying to buy it.

Lets go back to depths of the financial crisis, Feb 12th 2009. The results for the auction were: 3.54|2.0. Even in 2009 there was still two times the amount of money trying to buy bonds, as there were bonds available. The Chinese simply aren't necessary.

The US and UK central banks, also bought bonds. And yes it used printed money to buy these bonds, but these bonds have not been monetized - there is a difference. The mistake people make is they assume that the printing of money, and the buying of those bonds is case closed, it isn't. Those bonds bought with printed money, will in the future be sold or paid down by the government, and the money the FED receives for selling/paying down those bonds will be destroyed and the circle will close.

The circle is money is printed, bonds are bought, those bonds or sold or paid down, and that same money is retired. It is not monetization of debt - at least not yet. Direct monetization of debt, would be to print money to buy bonds, and then never attempt to 'close the circle' by retiring that money at a later date.


Quote
As far as Gaddafi; I am not trying to make an argument about him being a good person, but that in the last several years it was clear he was making concerted efforts for reforms for his country. Also another point was not to make a case about him being this Human rights champion either, because it is obvious that he wasn't, however only that you made claims such as The African Currency or the political union known as the AU was not true, and that he was doing nothing to help his country, which is also not true. All the other stuff about him being...

I don't know a huge amount about Gaddafi either, there is no point pretending that I do. What I do know about him is that I'm glad I didn't live in Lybia


Quote
The buying and selling of commodities are priced in US Dollar currency. Any country having to buy such commodities need to pay the the costs for keeping large pools of money in US denomination on hand to deal with the the conversion costs and to keep them as low as possible. Being a reserve currency benefits the US Dollar more so than other currencies due to the demand of the currency to make such transactions and the frequencies in which it is used.

Being a reserve currency helps the dollar keep its value, no doubt. But countries are free to choose what currency they work from, the US dollar became the reserve currency because it was the dominant economic power in the 20th century and remains so. It is no accident the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency, it's the best economy, with some of the best legislation, and the best military to protect it, and it has never failed to pay it's debts.

Quote
Opec. Dude you putting me to sleep with all this overkill! It is not necessary. You are correct that they have controlled prices. You simply ignored my question altogether. They have lowered production in the past and artificially created shortages in order to spike prices. In essence they are arbitrarily doing the same thing now, as they have reach agreements with Russia, to reduce production, in hopes to create demand, and to start raising prices again. So I am not really sure I understand what your premise or claim is.

It said in the video, that the oil countries would raise the price of oil making it unaffordable for the USA. That was a claim in the video. That claim is utter nonsense.

If you are not defending that claim, ok.


Quote
The USD is backed by nothing! Yes that is right nothing at all! The FED creates money out of then air as it does it's debt, in its fractional lending debt scheme. The RMB is back by their government with gold.

The USD is backed by the US government.
The RMB, is not backed by gold. You need to back up that claim with a genuine source, not some quack on the internet. I cannot find any legit source, which says the RMB is backed by gold.

In addition, you are forgetting Chinese have been the biggest offenders of printing money in the last 40 years. The non floating government peg of the yuan, to the dollar was done by PRINTING. Those dollar profit that were repatriated to China were converted back to yuan via a fixed pegged rate which the government enforced by printing yuan.

Here is how that worked:
https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/money-and-banking/china-us-debt-situation/v/china-pegs-to-dollar-to-keep-trade-imbalance

The biggest offenders of flaunting the international monetary system, since the 1970s has been Chincom, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Quote
o that can't be equally wrong because I was actually there to witness with my own two eyes and serving in a capacity that was privy to intelligence reports, the daily briefings as well as strategic planning with level 5 security clearance, to have access to such info.(civilians were not exposed or privileged to access such info) So I knew exactly our reasons, our rationale and all stated objectives for our ground operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reasons I stated as to why we went into the war, was indeed motivated primarily on greed, and...

Lets say we accept everything you said as being true, that Cheney was greedy, that the Haliburton was interested in the oil field etc. You need to now convince me that was the real reason for going in.

I would say, that the costs of America being there, has far outweighed the supposed economic benefit of being there. I can accept there are greedy people, I find it hard to believe that was the the sole, or the real reason for the coalition being there.

Quote
As far as bombing the sht out of Iraq that didn't happen until operation Iraqi freedom, and yes we did bomb the shit out of them, this I know from being in DG as an Intel Analyst with our B1's in which was in the works many years prior.
The point is, that the video deliberate sought to mislead the viewer that (1) the US was bombing Iraq, and (2) Albright said the cost was worth it. Why would it do that?
  • #597
  • Oct 24, 2016 6:39am Oct 24, 2016 6:39am
This is all hurting my head so here's some mindless fun:
https://youtu.be/CqGZqyUwxZc
  • #598
  • Oct 24, 2016 6:55am Oct 24, 2016 6:55am
Remember Capitalism aka The American Dream?

Jonathan Pryce was the best pimp. Drury Lane... good memories

Even pimps can subscribe to Capitalism.
https://youtu.be/96c4B2C7e6Q
  • #599
  • Oct 24, 2016 7:21am Oct 24, 2016 7:21am
No single market access? We'll halve Corporation tax to 10%! Ha, up yours Juncker. That is about 1/3 of what it is in France, Germany and Italy. Even lower than Ireland. We'd get flooded with businesses moving here!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3865430/Corporation-tax-HALVED-Brussels-blocks-free-trade-deal-Downing-Street-plans-cut-rate-10-nuclear-option.html
  • #600
  • Oct 24, 2016 8:00am Oct 24, 2016 8:00am
I believe airlines should weigh both passenger and luggage combined! And if more than 1 seat is needed, then you pay for 2 (or more). That means weighing and measuring at check in. No more spillage!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3865262/Airline-s-weigh-passengers-Hawaiian-carrier-wins-legal-battle-check-certain-routes-spread-weight-evenly-avoid-crash-landings.html
69 traders viewing now