WO3 al aan de gang: "Hegemonie Amerikaanse dollar"

quote:

Op dinsdag 11 juli 2006 15:30 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Jij begrijpt mijn punt niet, ik heb geen zin om uren te besteden aan het vinden van tegenbewijzen die door aanhangers van de conspiracy toch niet geaccepteerd worden. Het is een zinloze exercitie, net als pogingen om mij te bekeren tot een religie zinloos zijn zal ik geen enkele gelovige kunnen overtuigen om niet meer te geloven.

Maar stel dat hij gelijk heeft, then what?

Ik ga er sowieso van uit dat de dollar wel degelijk gaat vallen, hoe hard en hoe snel is de vraag.

quote:

Op dinsdag 11 juli 2006 15:30 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Jij begrijpt mijn punt niet, ik heb geen zin om uren te besteden aan het vinden van tegenbewijzen die door aanhangers van de conspiracy toch niet geaccepteerd worden. Het is een zinloze exercitie, net als pogingen om mij te bekeren tot een religie zinloos zijn zal ik geen enkele gelovige kunnen overtuigen om niet meer te geloven.

Maar stel dat hij gelijk heeft, then what?

Ik ga er sowieso van uit dat de dollar wel degelijk gaat vallen, hoe hard en hoe snel is de vraag.

quote:

Op woensdag 12 juli 2006 13:54 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Mjah, waar moet ik jou van overtuigen dan? De schrijver heeft goede punten, ok, en als ik net zulke goede punten op tafel leg, wat dan?

Het is een geen wetenschappelijke theorie maar een verhaal "Hoe het gegaan zou kunnen zijn", da's op zich prima maar dan ga ik kijken naar de auteur en dan zie ik zaken als het feit dat hij een aanhanger was van Lyndon LaRouche en een stuk op zijn naam heeft dat een de vogelgriep als een Pentagon samenzwering ziet. Tja, sorry, maar dan houdt het voor mij op.

quote:

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth

by William Clark

Summary

Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. The second coalescing factor that is driving the Iraq war is the quiet acknowledgement by respected oil geologists and possibly this administration is the impending phenomenon known as Global "Peak Oil." This is projected to occur around 2010, with Iraq and Saudi Arabia being the final two nations to reach peak oil production. The issue of Peak Oil has been added to the scope of this essay, along with the macroeconomics of `petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but genuine challenge to U.S. dollar hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The author advocates graduated reform of the global monetary system including a dollar/euro currency `trading band' with reserve status parity, a dual OPEC oil transaction standard, and multilateral treaties via the UN regarding energy reform. Such reforms could potentially reduce future oil currency and oil warfare. The essay ends with a reflection and critique of current US economic and foreign policies. What happens in the 2004 US elections will have a large impact on the 21st century.

Website: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
Essay (PDF): http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.pdf

quote:

Op woensdag 12 juli 2006 14:14 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Dan begrijp jij mij verkeerd, ik zeg nergens dat ik de 'informatie' weerleg. Ik heb al eerder gesteld dat een dergelijk verhaal niet te weerleggen is. Je kan hooguit een bepaalde geloofwaardigheid toe kennen op basis van het werk van de auteur, daarmee weerleg je echter niets.

Waarom is iemand die een MBA heeft en IT gestudeerd heeft geloofwaardig op het gebied van geo-politiek? Haal jij je medisch advies ook van een drs theologie? Kan hij gelijk hebben? Yep. Het is maar net waarin je wilt geloven, ik kan iig nooit bewijzen dat hij ongelijk heeft omdat het niet gaat om bewijsbare zaken hier.

quote:

Op dinsdag 11 juli 2006 15:55 schreef Starfish het volgende:
nog een tvp. interessant stuk!

quote:

Op donderdag 13 juli 2006 12:43 schreef JohnDope het volgende:
De komende wereld oorlog wordt er 1 met weinig bloedvergieten, maar het facistische regime zal op iedereen dwang uitoefenen; de kleinen en de groten, de zwarten en de blanken, de vrijen en de slaven, de rijken en de armen.

Zodra ze de baas over ons geld zijn, zijn wij slaaf van hun systeem, dan hebben zij amper wapens nodig. Het lijkt mij persoonlijk niet onverstandig om de wereldbank te saneren en dubieuze organisaties als de VN te negeren.

quote:

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives

February 15, 2006

The End of Dollar Hegemony

A hundred years ago it was called “dollar diplomacy.” After World War II, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, that policy evolved into “dollar hegemony.” But after all these many years of great success, our dollar dominance is coming to an end.

It has been said, rightly, that he who holds the gold makes the rules. In earlier times it was readily accepted that fair and honest trade required an exchange for something of real value.

First it was simply barter of goods. Then it was discovered that gold held a universal attraction, and was a convenient substitute for more cumbersome barter transactions. Not only did gold facilitate exchange of goods and services, it served as a store of value for those who wanted to save for a rainy day.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn’t long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin-- always hoping their subjects wouldn’t discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.

That general rule has held fast throughout the ages. When gold was used, and the rules protected honest commerce, productive nations thrived. Whenever wealthy nations-- those with powerful armies and gold-- strived only for empire and easy fortunes to support welfare at home, those nations failed.

Today the principles are the same, but the process is quite different. Gold no longer is the currency of the realm; paper is. The truth now is: “He who prints the money makes the rules”-- at least for the time being. Although gold is not used, the goals are the same: compel foreign countries to produce and subsidize the country with military superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation’s people-- just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.


[knip]


The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion.

The artificial demand for our dollar, along with our military might, places us in the unique position to “rule” the world without productive work or savings, and without limits on consumer spending or deficits. The problem is, it can’t last.

Price inflation is raising its ugly head, and the NASDAQ bubble-- generated by easy money-- has burst. The housing bubble likewise created is deflating. Gold prices have doubled, and federal spending is out of sight with zero political will to rein it in. The trade deficit last year was over $728 billion. A $2 trillion war is raging, and plans are being laid to expand the war into Iran and possibly Syria. The only restraining force will be the world’s rejection of the dollar. It’s bound to come and create conditions worse than 1979-1980, which required 21% interest rates to correct. But everything possible will be done to protect the dollar in the meantime. We have a shared interest with those who hold our dollars to keep the whole charade going.

Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism, and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF surely will do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually they will fail.

Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged—as it already has been.

In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein-- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.

In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

After these attempts to nudge the Euro toward replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency were met with resistance, the sharp fall of the dollar against the Euro was reversed. These events may well have played a significant role in maintaining dollar dominance.

It’s become clear the U.S. administration was sympathetic to those who plotted the overthrow of Chavez, and was embarrassed by its failure. The fact that Chavez was democratically elected had little influence on which side we supported.

Now, a new attempt is being made against the petrodollar system. Iran, another member of the “axis of evil,” has announced her plans to initiate an oil bourse in March of this year. Guess what, the oil sales will be priced Euros, not dollars.

Most Americans forget how our policies have systematically and needlessly antagonized the Iranians over the years. In 1953 the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected president, Mohammed Mossadeqh, and install the authoritarian Shah, who was friendly to the U.S. The Iranians were still fuming over this when the hostages were seized in 1979. Our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran in the early 1980s did not help matters, and obviously did not do much for our relationship with Saddam Hussein. The administration announcement in 2001 that Iran was part of the axis of evil didn’t do much to improve the diplomatic relationship between our two countries. Recent threats over nuclear power, while ignoring the fact that they are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons, doesn’t seem to register with those who continue to provoke Iran. With what most Muslims perceive as our war against Islam, and this recent history, there’s little wonder why Iran might choose to harm America by undermining the dollar. Iran, like Iraq, has zero capability to attack us. But that didn’t stop us from turning Saddam Hussein into a modern day Hitler ready to take over the world. Now Iran, especially since she’s made plans for pricing oil in Euros, has been on the receiving end of a propaganda war not unlike that waged against Iraq before our invasion.

It’s not likely that maintaining dollar supremacy was the only motivating factor for the war against Iraq, nor for agitating against Iran. Though the real reasons for going to war are complex, we now know the reasons given before the war started, like the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s connection to 9/11, were false. The dollar’s importance is obvious, but this does not diminish the influence of the distinct plans laid out years ago by the neo-conservatives to remake the Middle East. Israel’s influence, as well as that of the Christian Zionists, likewise played a role in prosecuting this war. Protecting “our” oil supplies has influenced our Middle East policy for decades.

But the truth is that paying the bills for this aggressive intervention is impossible the old fashioned way, with more taxes, more savings, and more production by the American people. Much of the expense of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was shouldered by many of our willing allies. That’s not so today. Now, more than ever, the dollar hegemony-- it’s dominance as the world reserve currency-- is required to finance our huge war expenditures. This $2 trillion never-ending war must be paid for, one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the vehicle to do just that.

For the most part the true victims aren’t aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the “tax” that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world’s reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar’s value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy “bread and circuses” just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don’t change our ways. Though we don’t occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don’t declare direct ownership of the natural resources-- we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Once again Congress has bought into the war propaganda against Iran, just as it did against Iraq. Arguments are now made for attacking Iran economically, and militarily if necessary. These arguments are all based on the same false reasons given for the ill-fated and costly occupation of Iraq.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system-- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela-- become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become.

But real threats come from our political adversaries who are incapable of confronting us militarily, yet are not bashful about confronting us economically. That’s why we see the new challenge from Iran being taken so seriously. The urgent arguments about Iran posing a military threat to the security of the United States are no more plausible than the false charges levied against Iraq. Yet there is no effort to resist this march to confrontation by those who grandstand for political reasons against the Iraq war.

It seems that the people and Congress are easily persuaded by the jingoism of the preemptive war promoters. It’s only after the cost in human life and dollars are tallied up that the people object to unwise militarism.

The strange thing is that the failure in Iraq is now apparent to a large majority of American people, yet they and Congress are acquiescing to the call for a needless and dangerous confrontation with Iran.

But then again, our failure to find Osama bin Laden and destroy his network did not dissuade us from taking on the Iraqis in a war totally unrelated to 9/11.

Concern for pricing oil only in dollars helps explain our willingness to drop everything and teach Saddam Hussein a lesson for his defiance in demanding Euros for oil.

And once again there’s this urgent call for sanctions and threats of force against Iran at the precise time Iran is opening a new oil exchange with all transactions in Euros.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

Bron: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

quote:

Op vrijdag 14 juli 2006 18:21 schreef pberends het volgende:

[..]

Willem Middelkoop hierover:
[..]

Bron

quote:

De dag dat de dollar valt...
zondag 20 november 2005 20:55 Ned 3
zaterdag 26 november 2005 11:00 Ned 3 (Herhaling)
Leven we op een zeepbel? Kan de zwaar in de schulden geraakte Amerikaanse economie instorten en ons, Europeanen, meesleuren in de vrije val? Zijn de dagen van wereldmunt dollar geteld? En is een herhaling van de crisisjaren dertig echt zo ondenkbaar?

VPRO's Tegenlicht en NRC Handelsblad presenteren in nauwe samenwerking hun eerste proeve van 'stel dat'-journalistiek. Stel dat op een dag de dollar valt. In een scenario dat zich ontrolt in 24 uur buitelen waarheid en fictie over elkaar heen. Om negen uur 's morgens krijgt een handelaar in Singapore de opdracht om een grote hoeveelheid dollars te verkopen, waarmee hij een ongekend diepe val van de dollar in gang zet. Uur na uur zien we hoe de wereld daarop reageert. Aan het eind van de dag staat correspondent Twan Huys handenwringend voor de camera in Washington, Chinezen maken zich op voor een mogelijke oorlog, en in Amsterdam kan een vrouw haar taxi alleen nog maar betalen met drie pakjes sigaretten.
Per seconde raken de Verenigde Staten 18.000 dollar dieper in de rode cijfers. Per dag lenen overheid, bedrijfsleven en particulieren inmiddels zo'n 3 miljard dollar (!) van de rest van de wereld. Bij de introductie van de euro in 2002 was een dollar 1.13 euro waard ; in februari/maart van 2005 werd - tijdelijk - de laagtegrens van 0,75 eurocent gepasseerd. Reden voor analisten als Stephen Roach, chief economist bij MorganStanley, om de noodklok te luiden: de almaar toenemende tekorten in Amerika vormen een tijdbom onder de huidige wereldeconomie. Andere experts zijn minder stellig maar moeten het ook toegeven: waarschijnlijk zal binnen nu en tien jaar een eind komen aan het tijdperk van de dollar als wereldreservemunt. Zoals ooit de dollar het estafettestokje overnam van het Britse pond, zo zal immers ook de dollarstandaard overgaan in een nieuwe standaard. In elk geval heeft het huidige valutastelsel, dat gemaakt lijkt om Amerikanen eindeloos te laten consumeren en investeren, de beste tijd gehad. Want het is nauwelijks voorstelbaar dat Azië - met name de exploderende economie van China - tot in lengte van dagen de tekorten van Uncle Sam zal blijven financieren.

Maar wat gebeurt er dan precies als die tikkende tijdbom ontploft? Tegenlicht nodigde Maarten Schinkel, financieel-economisch redacteur van NRC Handelsblad, uit om hardop mee te denken over (de gevolgen van) een dergelijke monetaire crisis. Een plotse spike in de dagkoersgrafiek van de dollar kan de eerste steen zijn in een nog rustige zee. Maar de vloedgolf die eruit voortkomt bedreigt de geglobaliseerde en geintegreerde mondiale economie. Want waren die internationale economische verhoudingen wel zo rustig als ze leken? Was alles wel zo in evenwicht? De kenners weten beter. De wereld steekt massaal de kop in het zand. "Het gaat goed zolang het nog goed gaat".

In 'De Dag dat de Dollar valt' voegt regisseur Roel van Broekhoven fictie en werkelijkheid samen. De in scene gezette val van de dollar wordt becommentarieerd door o.a. bankeconomen Stephen Roach (New York) en Andy Xie (Hong Kong), topbankier en voormalig thesaurier Cees Maas, defensiespecialist Rob de Wijk en GroenLinks kamerlid Kees Vendrik. In gespeelde scenes en journaalfragmenten zien we hoe de paniek van de financiële wereld overslaat naar het leven van alledag. Met medewerking van Twan Huys (New York) en nieuwslezeres Aldith Hunkar.

Samenstelling en regie: Roel van Broekhoven
Script en interviews: Maarten Schinkel (NRC Handelsblad)
Research: Ger Wieberdink/William de Bruijn
Productie: Madeleine Somer/Karin Spiegel
Eindredactie: Doke Romeijn/Frank Wiering

quote:

Op vrijdag 14 juli 2006 17:13 schreef pberends het volgende:
Frappant bericht uit Amerika:

RTL Video: Amerikaanse bank: Schuld 66 biljoen kan failliet VS betekenen

[afbeelding]

Het rapport van de Amerikaanse centrale bank FED (!) zelf Is the United States Bankrupt?

quote:

Op maandag 10 juli 2006 17:34 schreef Skull-splitter het volgende:
3e wereldoorlog is een feit vanaf het moment dat er mensen met messen de cockpit in sprongen...

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 juli 2006 10:13 schreef pberends het volgende:

[..]

Ah, het is in ieder geval een intern verhaal van een gevestigde Amerikaanse organisatie.

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 juli 2006 10:35 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
Oh, en de mensen die menen dat de VS failliet gaat aan zijn staatsschuld, de VS haar staatsschuld zit zo ongeveer tussen die van Nederland (lager) en die van Duitsland (Hoger) en is ver verwijderd van landen als Japan, Italie of Belgie..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Men ziet maar al te graag de hoogte van het bedrag, maar de Absolute hoogte van de schuld is op zich niet intressant. Waar het om gaat is hoe hoog de schuld is tov het BNP.
Voorbeeld, een schuld van 50.000 euro is voor een Bijstandstrekker een onmogelijke horde, voor mij met mijn inkomen is het een normale financiering voor bv een auto.
De Amerikaanse staatsschuld is een groot bedrag, maar de Belgische, de Japanse of Italiaanse is in verhouding tot hun economie veel hoger.

quote:

Some people consider all government liabilities, including future pension payments and payments for goods and services the government has contracted for but not yet paid, as government debt.

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 juli 2006 10:41 schreef Corporate_Intestines het volgende:

[..]

Zit daar die 66 biljoen dollar dan bij in? Dat gaat immers (als ik het goed heb begrepen van RTLZ) over de pensioenen en dergelijkde).
[..]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_debt

quote:

Op vrijdag 14 juli 2006 19:13 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

Er wordt gezegd dat een land failliet kan gaan. Nu was mij dit onbekend, dus ik vraag me af wat er dan gebeurt.. enig idee? En, wanneer is er sprake van faillisement van een land?

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 juli 2006 11:46 schreef Corporate_Intestines het volgende:
't Is allemaal niet helemaal correct he, met die getallen.

11,7 billioen GDP, dus wanneer de schuld 64,7 % van GDP is kom je op 7,6 billioen dollar. Op dit moment staat de meter op 8,4. Dat is (met inachtneming van groei van 1,7 miljard per dag) bijna 1 billioen meer. Op een GDP van 11,7 billioen is dat nogal wat. ( 10%, +/-).

Over de debt limit. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521
Met iets andere getallen:
[afbeelding]

==

Los daarvan is het natuurlijk een beetje flauw om de verenigde staten te vergelijken met Belgie. Als belgie failliet gaat is dat weliswaar heel vervelend voor Belgie (en mogelijk de regio) maar het is geen wereldmacht.

quote:

Op dinsdag 11 juli 2006 12:40 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Alleen naar buiten toe, pb, homogener ja maar homogeen zou ik de VS niet willen noemen. Een New Yorker heeft net zo veel binding met een Texaan als een Nederlander met een Spanjaard..tenzij ze allebei in het buitenland zijn.

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 juli 2006 10:35 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
Oh, en de mensen die menen dat de VS failliet gaat aan zijn staatsschuld, de VS haar staatsschuld zit zo ongeveer tussen die van Nederland (lager) en die van Duitsland (Hoger) en is ver verwijderd van landen als Japan, Italie of Belgie..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Men ziet maar al te graag de hoogte van het bedrag, maar de Absolute hoogte van de schuld is op zich niet intressant. Waar het om gaat is hoe hoog de schuld is tov het BNP.
Voorbeeld, een schuld van 50.000 euro is voor een Bijstandstrekker een onmogelijke horde, voor mij met mijn inkomen is het een normale financiering voor bv een auto.
De Amerikaanse staatsschuld is een groot bedrag, maar de Belgische, de Japanse of Italiaanse is in verhouding tot hun economie veel hoger.

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 juli 2006 13:06 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Dat je de staatsschuld moet meten aan de hoogte van het BNP is een opzettelijke misleiding. Ja het werkt prima als susmiddel in onze huidige economie, maar in feite hou je jezelf voor de gek en de economen weten dat ook wel. De staatsschuld stijgt elk jaar wat vereist dat het BNP ook moet stijgen. Het hele economische concept hangt vast aan exponentiele groei in een eindige wereld. Grondstoffen zijn eindig, land is eindig, met andere woorden groei is eindig. Dit systeem loopt uiteindelijk vast en dan is er geen enkele mogelijkheid meer om die staatsschuld af te lossen en de rente te kunnen betalen. Een goede recessie zou al voor enorme problemen.zorgen.

Daarnaast komt al het geld in circulatie door de leningen/obligaties maar de rente die erover betaald moet worden moet van ditzelfde bedrag komen. Het extra geld voor het betalen van de rente wordt uit de economie getrokken zodat banken het daarna weer deels kunnen uitlenen. Het totaal aan schulden van bedrijven, particulieren en de overheid worden echter alleen maar groter. Iedereen leeft op de pof en men zou niet in staat zijn om alle schulden af te lossen zonder geld uit de economie te ontrekken. Er is zelfs niet eens geld genoeg in circulatie om alles af te lossen. men zou hiervoor nieuwe leningen moeten aangaan.

quote:

Iraq Is Killing the Dollar

By Nicholas von Hoffman, TheNation.com. Posted July 10, 2006.

History shows that inflation and the cost of war go hand in hand -- and Iraq is no different. Tools

Ask George Washington what he thinks about fighting a war on credit. Back in his day, Congress printed money to pay for the Revolutionary War but neglected to tax anybody to back up this funny money of theirs. The bills were called continentals and in due course they lost all their value, hence the once-popular expression, "not worth a continental."

When your money is not worth a continental that means you are suffering from inflation big time. It happened 230 years ago in our War of Independence from the British. We are seeing it beginning to happen now in our war with, well, whoever it is we are fighting. We may not know the names, the whereabouts or the precise whys of the Iraq War but the costs are approaching a trillion dollars.

The Continental Congress was controlled by rich people and rich people do not like to pay taxes. Not then and not now, when we have another Congress controlled by rich people. Different war, same stupidity.

For a long time after the financially disastrous mistakes of the 1776 period, American politicians at least tried to wage pay-as-you-go wars. The Lincoln Administration introduced the first federal income tax in an attempt to pay for the Civil War. It was not enough and thus the greenback, as the paper dollar was called then, rapidly lost buying power (inflation). Gold coins, of course, did not and it was not until a decade or so after the Civil War that the government succeeded in hardening up the greenback and putting it on a par with the gold coin dollar. The hardening was done, however, at great pain to the nation's farmers and factory workers, but ain't that usually the way?

In World Wars I and II enormous efforts were made to pay the costs as the wars were being fought. It was during the Second World War that taxes were first deducted from paychecks. Taxes were hiked very high, particularly on the rich. Perhaps the assumption was that, since they had so much more materially at stake than the other 98 percent of the population and had that much more interest in seeing that the United States won the war, they ought to pay more. A victorious enemy would be confiscating rich people's property, not family farms or factory workers' houses.

Even so, a relentless drive was put on to get everyone to help pay for the conflict. On the home front ceaseless campaigns were conducted to get people to buy US government "War Bonds." Children were encouraged to buy "War Savings Stamps."

Nevertheless, even with so many billions in purchasing power drained out of the economy via taxes and savings, prices still moved up. Inflation stalked the land but not as injuriously as it might have if the country had not been on a pay-as-you-go basis.

At first the Vietnam War was carried out without much deficit spending. When President Lyndon Johnson left office in 1969, he passed on to his successor, Richard Nixon, a more or less balanced budget. Nixon, however, could not or would not hold the line and triggered a war-born inflation that got so bad he tried to impose price controls on the country.

Controls are a poor substitute for prudent financial management. They could not hold back inflation but they contributed to the sense of waste, disorganization and social chaos, which are the handmaids of inflation. It took more than a decade of recession, lower wages and confusion before the ship was righted again.

Now comes Iraq and an Administration which either through miscalculation or doctrinaire bull-headedness has ignored what every minister of finance from every developed country has known for 150 years.

Instead of paying for the war, George W. Bush and his Administration are laboring under the crackpot notion that the Lord will provide. Well, the Lord -- or the mechanics of business and finance -- is providing and what is being provided are dangerous dollops of inflation.

It would be worse if it weren't for foreign lenders picking up the debts the United States has run up pursuing the terrorist ghost riders. As the buying power of the dollar weakens, fewer of those obliging foreigners will lend us money. They don't want to be paid back with dollars that, ravaged by inflation, are worth less.

The government will have to pay higher interest rates to attract borrowers. There cannot be an adult left in America who hasn't learned what inflation does to one's personal finance.

But not everybody's personal finance. People with lots of money have ways of protecting themselves against the damage inflation does. People without do not. And that may be the basis of the old saying: "rich man's war, poor man's fight."

Nicholas Von Hoffman is a columnist for the New York Observer and is the author, most recently, of "Hoax" (Nation Books, 2004).

quote:

Op zaterdag 15 juli 2006 10:35 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

De Amerikaanse staatsschuld is een groot bedrag, maar de Belgische, de Japanse of Italiaanse is in verhouding tot hun economie veel hoger.

quote:

Op zondag 16 juli 2006 11:35 schreef zakjapannertje het volgende:
hier nog een doomsday-arikel
[..]

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38550/

quote:

Op zondag 16 juli 2006 12:01 schreef zakjapannertje het volgende:

[..]

maar Belgie en Italie (en in mindere mate Japan) hebben nog ruimte om meer voltijdsbanen en voltijdsbanen met langere uren/minder vakanties te creeren

quote:

Why Has the Balanced Budget Become the Holy Grail?

by David Morris

January 16, 1996

How did a perfectly balanced budget become the holy grail, to be secured at any cost? Why have we come to believe that the stock market rises and falls based on our progress towards reducing the federal budget deficit to zero? When did we decide that it was preferable to stop delivering basic services to ourselves, our neighbors and our children rather than allow the government to borrow any money?

It may be too late to inject a little rationality in the balanced budget debate. But what the heck. Somebody has to try.

The U.S. budget deficit is one of the lowest of any government on the planet. In Europe, the banking community decided that for countries to join a common currency union they had to have their financial house in order. For these bankers, that meant having a budget deficit of 3 percent or less. The U.S. deficit is under 2 percent. Indeed, except for interest payments, the federal budget last year had an actual surplus of $84 billion.

As economic historian Frederick Thayer has pointed out, every time we've made an aggressive and successful effort to reduce the deficit to zero we've experienced a financial disaster ( l817-21; l823-36; l852-57; l867-73; l880-l893; l920-30). On the other hand, in 112 years of deficit spending since 1791 we've never suffered a depression. Is that coincidence?

When the federal government runs a reasonable and manageable deficit the extra purchasing power ripples through the economy, increasing jobs and raising wages. Many economists swear that this additional spending also drives up inflation and interest rates. Yet that would occur only when we are at full employment, a blessed state the United States has not achieved for more than a generation. As Robert Eisner, former president of the American Economic Association says, "Numerous economists have examined the data in rigorous fashion and find no clear relation between deficits and interest rates."

Deficits fluctuate, depending on the robustness of the economy. The budget deficit soared from 1 percent in 1980 to 4.5 percent in l983, the depth of a recession. Then it plunged back to 1.5 percent in 1989, when we suffered a second recession that pushed it up again to 4.5 percent in 1992. Today the deficit is back to where it was in 1989.

Deficit spending doesn't prevent business downturns, but it does reduce the severity of recessions. And it directly helps the poor, as unemployment insurance and welfare payments increase.

The Republican Party insists that the government discard this classically effective tool for protecting the health of the economy. And Newt Gingrich promises to stop the government from operating effectively until the President agrees to abandon the federal commitment to help the needy in case of recessions.

Republicans demand that the federal government be run like a private corporation. But corporations distinguish between investments and consumption. The federal government does not. For Washington, buying pencils, building bridges and developing a better artificial heart are all treated the same on the books. Professor Eisner estimates that in 1991, when the putative deficit was $193 billion, the actual deficit, if calculated as corporations do, would have been $24 billion.

"The task of public policy should not be a balanced budget come hell or high water", Yale economist William Nordhaus recently told the New York Times. It "is to weed out low yield public investments and to reduce inefficient public subsidies." If that were how the budget debate were framed, what would we do?

We would target the two largest federal expenditures: military and health. Military spending, especially on weapons, channels the genius and work of hundreds of thousands of top engineers and scientists and skilled workers and hundreds of billions of dollars to make products no one ever uses. We spend more on the military than the entire world put together. The cold war is over. Conservative organizations like the Cato Institute and think tanks like the Center for Defense Information, led by retired admirals, have shown how we could virtually eliminate the federal deficit through reductions in military spending while still having the capacity to defend ourselves and successfully wage a major war anywhere on the planet.

The key strategy to reducing health care costs is to reduce overhead. Replace the 1200 odd health insurance companies with a single federal insurer. Medicare spends 2-4 percent of each premium dollar on its own bureaucracy. Corporate HMOs frequently grab more than 20 cents on the premium dollar for overhead and profit. The Republican health care plan increases overhead expenses. As three health care experts conclude in a marvelous report called, A Rational Option, "shifting seniors to corporate managed care plans will transfer $30-40 billion a year from health services to the pockets of executives and shareholders of some of the largest corporations in the country."

To sum up. The federal budget deficit is low and getting lower. If the government used a more conventional bookkeeping system the deficit might all but disappear. Deficit spending reduces the severity of recessions. Prudent cuts in the military and the creation of a single insurer health system would end the deficit. Any more questions?

quote:

Op zondag 16 juli 2006 19:24 schreef -IksRee- het volgende:
Op zich heeft de openingspost een valide verhaal en het is natuurlijk een al langer bekend verhaal dat de ronde doet, maar 1 ding wordt vergeten: de VS kan niet failliet gaan, een land kan niet failliet gaan en zeker niet het militair machtigste. Dan schrappen ze toch gewoon de dollar, voeren een nieuwe in en alle buitenlandse worden waardeloos verklaard. Simpel zat. Wie wil ze tegenhouden? Tuurlijk zal zoiets niet snel gebeuren maar het kan wel degelijk. Er zal eerder zoiets gebeuren dan hetgeen een hele hoop mensen hopen: dat de VS hierdoor opeens machteloos zal worden en in elkaar zal gaan storten.

quote:

Op zondag 16 juli 2006 19:29 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:

[..]

ik weet niet of jij argentinie kent maar dat is dus failliet gegaan.

maar goed ze schrappen de dollar en dan, de nieuwe munt is dan niets waard want die vertrouwd niemand dan meer.

en ik denk dat de elke amerikaan dit tegen zal houden ze maken ook hun eigen spaargeld waardeloos

quote:

Op zondag 16 juli 2006 19:31 schreef -IksRee- het volgende:

[..]

Argentinie heeft en had niet de impact vd VS. Argentinie is te negeren, de VS niet.
Hun eigen spaargeld hoeft niet waardeloos te worden, ze kunnen binnenlandse tegoeden dan bv 1 op 1 omruilen.

quote:

Op zondag 16 juli 2006 19:29 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:

ik weet niet of jij argentinie kent maar dat is dus failliet gegaan.

quote:

Op zondag 16 juli 2006 19:29 schreef icecreamfarmer_NL het volgende:
en ik denk dat de elke amerikaan dit tegen zal houden ze maken ook hun eigen spaargeld waardeloos