Originally posted by AThousandYoungRight, so English isn't your strong point, or you're the new Humpty Dumpty. At any rate, duecer is more coherent than you, and you've supposedly got this massive brain.////You could always hold your breath until you turn blue.
That's not my understanding of the statement. //// I guess I need to be LOUDER and MORE OBNOXIOUS to get any results.
Originally posted by MacSwainDidn't they teach you guys ANYTHING in school?
Please give details on previous national debt defaults by the USA. When was this?
BRETTON WOODS agreement broken in the early 70's. Look it up and then call your congressman demanding that schools do a better job teaching your kids than they taught you.
But give this a whirl....and read the rest of the article for some excellent analysis you won't get on FoxNews regarding Iraq.
" Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world's gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960's was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.
When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of "severing the link between the dollar and gold", in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlesswhich was the reason for the high inflation, and high unemployment rate of the 70's. It has also been responsible for the annual average inflation rate of 3% (compounded)....crazy republicans, what were they thinking?
Didn't they teach you guys ANYTHING in school?
BRETTON WOODS agreement broken in the early 70's. Look it up and then call your congressman demanding that schools do a better job teaching your kids than they taught you.
But give this a whirl....and read the rest of the article for some excellent analysis you won't get on FoxNews regarding Iraq.
" ot do anything about it."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm
2 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakEither you can’t read or you can’t comprehend…or both. You are 0 for 2 mate. The US has never defaulted on its national debt..so shut it.
1971. There are numerous sources of info online...
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2006/640/
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FJ14Dj01.html
D
Neither site you gave listed a US default on its national debt. No surprise there, everyone, except you, knows the US has never defaulted. Poor schlub. Having looked at these two sites and getting an idea of what you read…..no wonder you are clueless. George Soros of all people! 🙂 Give it up.
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2006/640/
Bringing the world into focus through the lens of Scripture
Your first link is Koinonia House, which appears to be a religious cult site. It merely relates dropping the gold standard this way, I quote: “act of severing this link was functionally "equivalent" to an act of bankruptcy.” Dropping the gold standard isn't defaulting on national debt and the article DOES NOT say the US defaulted on its national debt.
[WORD TOO LONG]
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FJ14Dj01.html
Ominous: The US deficit vs the dollar - By Jack Crooks
This site makes NO mention to US defaulting on national debt. It did pay homage to opinions of George Soros & mentioned his piece entitled: The Crisis of Global Capitalism.
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerNo capital letter or predicate in first sentence. Poor spelling and a lack of predicate in 2nd sentence.
people like my parents who worked there whole life, and did there best, but would have a meager retirement if not for their children. For the millions of blacks in the south who worked their wholw life in menial jobs, because that was the only job they could get. If you don't live in a poor community, then the poor become invisible to you. It takes effort to see them, even though they are right in front of you.
How can it be anyone's fault for not understanding sentences with no predicate?
Face it Bosse; you simply like deucer and so are defending him despite his repeated insults of others.
I'm glad you think I have a super brain, Bosse, but this is the first I've heard of it at this website. I hope you're not implying that this is something I brag about.
Holding one's breath just leads to unconciousness. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSince you're giving me a hard time about my English, I will point out that we're not talking or speaking here. We're writing or posting.
Your poor reading skills are a source of concern, given that you're a teacher.
He said his parents would have had trouble in retirement had it not been for their children, who presumably help them out. My grand-parents were like that: worked at humble jobs all their lives and woke up to discover their retirement money was worth nothing. A very commo y, to get to where they got, you need a costly degree.
Wealth takes imagination and will.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungregardless of wether he likes me or not, I never claimed to have any great skill with the written word. I do, after all, have a phd in stupidity. You, on the other hand, have a college education, and yet you are still dumb as a post.
No capital letter or predicate in first sentence. Poor spelling and a lack of predicate in 2nd sentence.
How can it be anyone's fault for not understanding sentences with no predicate?
Face it Bosse; you simply like deucer and so are defending him despite his repeated insults of others.
I'm glad you think I have a super brain, Bosse, but this g one's breath just leads to unconciousness. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
Edit: all bickering aside, my point still stands
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOK…you asked, here it is. Hope you don’t get tired reading. You will be disappointed! Because the facts and who was actually involved will not fit you sterotype. Also, you will see there is nothing nefarious about leaving the gold standard, it was simply failing because there wasn't enough gold in existance to equal the worlds growing post-war economic wealth. To reiterate the point with ragnorak, leaving the gold standard is not equivalent to defaulting on national debt. Btw.. You get more out of these things when you research them yourself.
Waiting for your response to Bretton Woods now.
“Preparing to rebuild the international economic system, 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations gathered at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire for the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. The delegates deliberated upon and signed the Bretton Woods Agreements during the first three weeks of July 1944.
The architects of Bretton Woods had conceived of a system wherein exchange rate stability was a prime goal. Governments did not seriously consider permanently fixed rates on the model of the classical gold standard of the nineteenth century. Gold production was not even sufficient to meet the demands of growing international trade and investment. And a sizable share of the world's known gold reserves were located in the Soviet Union, which would emerge as a Cold War rival to Western Europe and the United States.
The only currency strong enough to meet the rising demands for international liquidity was the US dollar. In fact, the dollar was even better than gold: it earned interest and it was more flexible than gold.
Since the principal "Reserve currency" would be the U.S. dollar, other countries would peg their currencies to the U.S. dollar, and—once convertibility was restored—would buy and sell U.S. dollars to keep market exchange rates within plus or minus 1% of parity. Thus, the U.S. dollar took over the role that gold had played under the gold standard in the international financial system.
The modest credit facilities of the IMF were clearly insufficient to deal with Western Europe's huge balance of payments deficits. Only the United States contribution of $570 million was actually available for IBRD lending. In addition, the IBRD was forced to grant loans only when repayment was assured. Given these problems, by 1947 the IMF and the IBRD themselves were admitting that they could not deal with the international monetary system's economic problems.
From 1947 until 1958, the U.S. deliberately encouraged an outflow of dollars, and, from 1950 on, the United States ran a balance of payments deficit with the intent of providing liquidity for the international economy. Dollars flowed out through various U.S. aid programs.
After the end of World War II, the U.S. held $26 billion in gold reserves, of an estimated total available of $40 billion (approx 65percent). As world trade increased rapidly through the 1950s, the size of the gold base increased by only a few percent. In 1958, the U.S. balance of payments swung negative. In 1960, with Kennedy’s election, a decade-long effort to maintain the Bretton Woods System at the $35/ounce price was begun.
Dissatisfaction with the political implications of the dollar system was increased. In the late 1960s, the dollar was overvalued with its current trading position. By 1968, the attempt to defend the dollar at a fixed peg of $35/ounce, the policy of the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations, had become increasingly untenable. Gold outflows from the U.S. accelerated, and the profligate fiscal spending of the Johnson administration had transformed the "dollar shortage" of the 1940s and 1950s into a dollar glut by the 1960s.
In 1967 there was an attack on the pound, and a run on gold in the "sterling area," and on November 17, 1967, the British government was forced to devalue the pound. U.S. President Lyndon Baines Johnson was faced with a brutal choice, either he could institute protectionist measures, including travel taxes, export subsidies and slashing the budget—or he could accept the risk of a "run on gold" and the dollar. From Johnson's perspective: "The world supply of gold is insufficient to make the present system workable—particularly as the use of the dollar as a reserve currency is essential to create the required international liquidity to sustain world trade and growth." He believed that the priorities of the United States were correct, and that, turning away from open trade would be more costly, economically and politically, than it was worth: "Our role of world leadership in a political and military sense is the only reason for our current embarrassment in an economic sense on the one hand and on the other the correction of the economic embarrassment under present monetary systems will result in an untenable position economically for our allies."
While West Germany agreed not to purchase gold from the U.S., and agreed to hold dollars instead, the pressure on both the Dollar and the Pound Sterling continued. In January 1968 Johnson imposed a series of measures designed to end gold outflow. However, to no avail: on March 17, 1968, there was a run on gold, the London Gold Pool was dissolved, and a series of meetings began to rescue or reform the existing system. But, as long as the U.S. commitments to foreign deployment continued, particularly to Western Europe, there was little that could be done to maintain the gold peg.
The attempt to maintain the peg collapsed in November 1968, and a new policy program was attempted: to convert Bretton Woods to a system where the enforcement mechanism floated by some means, which would be set by either fiat, or by a restriction to honor foreign accounts.
In 1971 more and more dollars were being printed in Washington, then being pumped overseas, to pay for government expenditure on the military and social programs. In the first six months of 1971, assets for $22 billion fled the U.S. This resulted in gold becoming a floating asset, and in 1972 $70.30/ounce and still climbing. By 1972, currencies began abandoning even this devalued peg against the dollar, though it took a decade for all of the industrialized nations to do so. In February 1973 the Bretton Woods currency exchange markets closed, after a last-gasp devaluation of the dollar to $44/ounce, and reopened in March in a floating currency regime.”
(*emphasis for effect is mine)
2 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakInteresting.
1971. There are numerous sources of info online...
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2006/640/
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FJ14Dj01.html
D
It seems to me that the Bretton Woods system of 'pegged' currencies was unworkable in the long-term. It was an attempt at over-regulating the currency markets -- again, in response to the unrest and calamity of WWII.
One of the most notable currency pegs left is the yuan to the dollar -- that should also go.
I can't count this as a default. Nixon buried a system that had out-stripped its temporary usefulness.
edit: OK, so macswain said it first. But I said it second!
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerNo, but Bosse did. That post was directed at Bosse, not you, though I was not very clear about it.
regardless of wether he likes me or not, I never claimed to have any great skill with the written word. I do, after all, have a phd in stupidity. You, on the other hand, have a college education, and yet you are still dumb as a post.
Edit: all bickering aside, my point still stands
If he hadn't started putting down my English and praising yours I wouldn't be a grammar Nazi. But he decided to go there.
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainit was simply failing because there wasn't enough gold in existance to equal the worlds growing post-war economic wealth.
OK…you asked, here it is. Hope you don’t get tired reading. You will be disappointed! Because the facts and who was actually involved will not fit you sterotype. Also, you will see there is nothing nefarious about leaving the gold standard, it was simply failing because there wasn't enough gold in existance to equal the worlds growing post-war economic weal in March in a floating currency regime.”[/i]
(*emphasis for effect is mine)
It seems to me that less gold simply makes the dollar more powerful.
MacSwain's post is a beautiful example of how to combine quotes with original writing - unless he C and P'd the whole thing.