The Cat is out of the Bag

[seanD]

Timothy Geithner -- the same shmoe who is part of the Bernake and Paulson gang, who are raping our economy via the fed, and doing every conceivable thing wrong for recovery -- is now openly agreeing with Russia and China to a global currency, to replace the dollar, in order to "fix" the economic problem. Seems he may have slipped up and let the cat out of the bag too soon.

I wonder how much of the general public actually knows this, as it is silent in mainstream media?

Sources:

guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/global-reserve-currency-world-agenda)
telegraph.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/global-reserve-currency-world-agenda)
usnews (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/03/25/geithner-quite-open-to-idea-of-global-currency.html)

[Philosophickle]

This is basically inevitable. The dollar is way too unstable, and if you think about an emerging global economy then you can see why they may want a currency that isn't subject to the whims of a single controlling govt.

[joel]

I'd be okay as long as that global currency happens to be gold (i.e., not fiat). I would be vehemently opposed if it's fiat money.

In fact, gold at one time was the global currency. But then all the nations switched to paper money.

[Kelp]

I agree, who wants to have to pay for everything with mid-sized Italian cars?

[seanD]

Once again, talks of a global currency that would shift regulatory power from the US fed and towards a global institution. They say it will take decades. Maybe so, but they're obviously not considering some unforeseen international crisis or catastrophe, like a world war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tc4ypjg5C4

[seanD]

Seems I missed this. UN is also now calling for a global currency...

telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/6152204/UN-wants-new-global-currency-to-replace-dollar.html)

[joel]

Seems I missed this. UN is also now calling for a global currency...

telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/6152204/UN-wants-new-global-currency-to-replace-dollar.html)
"Replacing the dollar with an artificial currency would solve some of the problems..."
:lol: As if the dollar were not an artificial currency.

Although some of the concerns about the dollar may be justified, going back to Bretton-Woods will make things worse. The real solution to the problems is to abolish the dollar.

[seanD]

"Replacing the dollar with an artificial currency would solve some of the problems..."
:lol: As if the dollar were not an artificial currency.

Although some of the concerns about the dollar may be justified, going back to Bretton-Woods will make things worse. The real solution to the problems is to abolish the dollar.

Oh, the dollar will sink. This is inevitable, at least from about five out of the six economist I hear (don't let the BS declarations of recovery fool you). We're merely sustaining the corpse from flat-lining by pumping trillions of worthless paper into the system. China and Russia already don't want our dollar anymore. There is no hope, simply because the people at the helm -- Bernake, Geithner, Paulson -- are doing everything conceivably wrong for real sustainable recovery in the long term.

What troubles me is that history shows a disturbing trend -- economic failure, world war, new global political and financial system.

[seanD]

This just goes to show you how full of crap Obama and his band of henchman are in regards to the economy. While Bernake is telling you we're on the road to a recovery, Greespan, who works for the same freakin administration, is declaring that we are in for a crisis...

bbcnews (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8244600.stm)

[Nicholas]

This just goes to show you how full of crap Obama and his band of henchman are in regards to the economy. While Bernake is telling you we're on the road to a recovery, Greespan, who works for the same freakin administration, is declaring that we are in for a crisis...

bbcnews (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8244600.stm)

Are you sure? Because a quick google search says he retired in 2006 and is now doing other work.

[seanD]

Are you sure? Because a quick google search says he retired in 2006 and is now doing other work.

You're right. I had gotten the info that Greenspan was Obama's economic adviser from one source (and a questionable source) that I didn't bother to verify (which I normally do) :blush:

[Nicholas]

You're right. I had gotten the info that Greenspan was Obama's economic adviser from one source (and a questionable source) that I didn't bother to verify (which I normally do) :blush:

It's alright. We all make mistakes from time to time.

[Chuckg]

You are horribly misinformed, Sean. What world wars have been a direct result of economic failure?

[Philosophickle]

You are horribly misinformed, Sean. What world wars have been a direct result of economic failure?

War is often a last-ditch effort for financially-embittered countries. It's a quick way to get your economy producing and a way to decrease unemployment.

[Chuckg]

That's not true at all. If it were, then why is war-torn Africa one of the poorest places in the world? Neither World Wars were products were of depression(though Hitler was helped to power by one).

[Philosophickle]

That's not true at all. If it were, then why is war-torn Africa one of the poorest places in the world? Neither World Wars were products were of depression(though Hitler was helped to power by one).

You are confusing "economic downturns contribute to wars" with "all wars are the direct result of economic downturns". Of course there are other reasons wars are fought. That isn't the point. The point is that there are financial incentives for a govt., and especially govts that find themselves with ties between corporate institutions and the state-funded military, to fund military operations. On this point American political parties are essentially in agreement. Previous peace-hawks like Dianne Feinstein are now on record urging the president to escalate the war in Afghanistan while her husband rakes in billions from military contracts (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/04/27/BA284459.DTL). This is why we won't see the end of war during a recession.

[Chuckg]

No, I am responding to the statement:


What troubles me is that history shows a disturbing trend -- economic failure, world war, new global political and financial system.

A statement I whole heartedly believe is false. War is also most definitely not profitable, as most economic booms occur AFTER war occurs, not during or before. What you are quoting with that article is that some people in power abuse that power to make money during wars.

[Philosophickle]

A statement I whole heartedly believe is false. War is also most definitely not profitable, as most economic booms occur AFTER war occurs, not during or before.

That's not quite accurate. While it isn't lasting economic growth, war provides high employment and general consumer satisfaction. And there really isn't a boom that follows from war. If you're thinking of WW2, that economic boom for America was a special case because we were a country that had a high capacity for manufacturing, and Europe was in need of serious rebuilding. This led to a massive transfer of wealth to the United States. Most wars don't result in economic booms like that.


What you are quoting with that article is that some people in power abuse that power to make money during wars.

I think you misunderstand. America has a large military infrastructure. Wars put a lot of people to work. Having a lot of people working is good for a sitting politician, and during times of economic downturn, especially potentially devastating downturns like the one we are experiencing where we have high (ten percent) unemployment is motivation to keep troops out in the field and factories stateside churning out supplies for said troops. There definitely is a connection between the twilight of empire and increasing foreign military involvement. Rome, Britain, Russia, the US and soon to be China are all prime examples.

[Chuckg]

That's not quite accurate. While it isn't lasting economic growth, war provides high employment and general consumer satisfaction. And there really isn't a boom that follows from war. If you're thinking of WW2, that economic boom for America was a special case because we were a country that had a high capacity for manufacturing, and Europe was in need of serious rebuilding. This led to a massive transfer of wealth to the United States. Most wars don't result in economic booms like that.

I'm not speaking to specific booms, and perhaps worded myself incorrectly. After war, troops where drafted return to the work place and begin to contribute once more, thus boosting growth much more than the government spending for the war could. While it is not a boom on the level of WW2, for the most part after a war, as people return to the workplace, growth is higher than the years during the war. I agree with you on the employment issue during war, but I do challenge consumer satisfaction statement, and believe it is much more patriotism, so not an accurate gauge of consumer satisfaction.


I think you misunderstand. America has a large military infrastructure. Wars put a lot of people to work. Having a lot of people working is good for a sitting politician, and during times of economic downturn, especially potentially devastating downturns like the one we are experiencing where we have high (ten percent) unemployment is motivation to keep troops out in the field and factories stateside churning out supplies for said troops. There definitely is a connection between the twilight of empire and increasing foreign military involvement. Rome, Britain, Russia, the US and soon to be China are all prime examples.

I understand fully what you are trying to say here, but I do not think that the military market is large enough to do what you are claiming it is doing, essentially keeping all these people employed. Here is 2008's report on largest employers and strongest markets: http://books.google.com/books?id=QgoAz-FYv48C&pg=PT83&lpg=PT83&dq=Largest+American+Employers&source=web&ots=RlljdYRyzw&sig=hFmTALMeasxPh9N2_mmE4HgJz9o&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Largest%20American%20Employers&f=false I don't see any military companies there. Also, all of those empires that you have listed (save the US and China, as they have not yet run their course) also had strong foreign military involvement prior to their collapse.

[seanD]

More push to drop the US dollar and head towards a global financial system. Strange that while global governments discuss this in private, they deny in public that plans to implement this even exists. I guess it would be a necessity as to not cause panic in the global markets, while they gradually implement the plan into transition. You hear absolutely nothing about this in mainstream media, where you would think aspiring journalists would be all over this sensational news. Maybe they just don't know about it? :shrug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBDPGkW6SCU