Protecting the petrodollar: America gears up for a long war

[Publicus]

It is a deep dark secret that a government does not have to borrow to spend money, but all of 'em borrow and will continue to borrow until there aren't banks any more. As long as there are banks, governments will instead continue to borrow.

That is very true, at least for nations like Thailand and the US (and unlike eg Italy) that can print their own currency. (And they do not need to tax to gain revenue for that same reason either, but do so for reasons of social control). The reason they choose to "borrow" the very same currency they can and already do create without limit is to mask the fact that they are diluting the purchasing power of their currency. Financial "assets" can be increased without limit, but the underlying wealth they are supposed to represent is constrained by physics. GDP is an arbitrary quantity that includes deficit spending and a government can increase that number at will by simply printing and spending currency - however this has no effect on the physical supply of labor and goods purchased, only their price and availability, which both deteriorate if governments create too much money.

You're one of the few knowledgeable people about this stuff -- far more than I am -- so I'm somewhat confounded by your conclusions. Governments borrow from banks, deposit checks (electronically) in banks and all to create or stimulate demand, to include an aggregate demand for money.

Governments however do create more than demand. The money supply enables the purchase of capital goods, equipment and of capital itself. This increases productivity and production which is, without dismissing the all important consumer, the driver of tangible GDP.

Banks receive the money because they have the expertise to distribute it to the people who use it best, i.e., the producers and the consumers alike. . Consumers have a concomitant role as the buyers of goods, services, money for mortgages and car loans etc.

The difference between financial capital and tangible capital is a big deal to the debt police who post here, That is understandable. However, police brutality by the debt police is unnecessary because the money comes from the same place, which is also true under a gold standard. With a gold standard however there'd be a lot less of it and global GDP would be a fraction of its present levels, meaning catastrophe.

You say you're not for the gold standard - unless of course you actually are for it - so what is your alternative? You analyze well but always come to the wrong conclusion, as in the post above, or no conclusion. The storm troopers and captains of the debt police in their riot gear and forcing balance sheets on everyone don't actually resolve anything. Not anything at all.

That's a major reason I use words such as nihilist and anarchist.

My pitches are slow and easy to see. But you guys keep hiding the ball.

[cloudhopper]

It is a deep dark secret that a government does not have to borrow to spend money, but all of 'em borrow and will continue to borrow until there aren't banks any more. As long as there are banks, governments will instead continue to borrow.

That is very true, at least for nations like Thailand and the US (and unlike eg Italy) that can print their own currency. (And they do not need to tax to gain revenue for that same reason either, but do so for reasons of social control). The reason they choose to "borrow" the very same currency they can and already do create without limit is to mask the fact that they are diluting the purchasing power of their currency. Financial "assets" can be increased without limit, but the underlying wealth they are supposed to represent is constrained by physics. GDP is an arbitrary quantity that includes deficit spending and a government can increase that number at will by simply printing and spending currency - however this has no effect on the physical supply of labor and goods purchased, only their price and availability, which both deteriorate if governments create too much money.

You're one of the few knowledgeable people about this stuff -- far more than I am -- so I'm somewhat confounded by your conclusions. Governments borrow from banks, deposit checks (electronically) in banks and all to create or stimulate demand, to include an aggregate demand for money.

Governments however do create more than demand. The money supply enables the purchase of capital goods, equipment and of capital itself. This increases productivity and production which is, without dismissing the all important consumer, the driver of tangible GDP.

Banks receive the money because they have the expertise to distribute it to the people who use it best, i.e., the producers and the consumers alike. . Consumers have a concomitant role as the buyers of goods, services, money for mortgages and car loans etc.

The difference between financial capital and tangible capital is a big deal to the debt police who post here, That is understandable. However, police brutality by the debt police is unnecessary because the money comes from the same place, which is also true under a gold standard. With a gold standard however there'd be a lot less of it and global GDP would be a fraction of its present levels, meaning catastrophe.

You say you're not for the gold standard - unless of course you actually are for it - so what is your alternative? You analyze well but always come to the wrong conclusion, as in the post above, or no conclusion. The storm troopers and captains of the debt police in their riot gear and forcing balance sheets on everyone don't actually resolve anything. Not anything at all.

That's a major reason I use words such as nihilist and anarchist.

My pitches are slow and easy to see. But you guys keep hiding the ball.

Any fiat currency is OK as long as its purchasing power remains stable or improves. The world will always use and abuse them.

My disagreement is with your assertion that money creation (via fractional reserve bank lending and deficit spending by the sovereign) can stimulate productivity. It will certainly stimulate demand but not necessarily demand for productive assets. If the easy credit merely allows consumption to be advanced then future consumption must be deferred. And that point of future credit saturation and demand destruction has been reached. Surely you understand that the present system must create new money and/or credit at an exponentially increasing rate in order to avoid an asset deflation. I don't think the Fed will even try, much less succeed, in destroying the USD and expect to see a fall in the nominal price of all assets including gold and oil as that happens..

[BATHIK]

I've read that Salon article, it's the crappiest piece of journalism I've seen in a while, doesn't even try to live to its headline.

It offers zero support for it, zero evidence that Li works of Chinese government when he writes his articles and gives his talks. At most it states "It’s a question that many critics of China ask as well" and that's it. First you ask a question and they put it into headline as if it's a fact. Now THAT is a pure propaganda trick.

I'm not going to read 4,200 word rebuttal, forget about it. Salon didn't even give a link and not quoted a single argument against Li's presentation.

Eric is involved in politics and has worked for the government before. Maybe not at the time of the talk, but he is a politician. Whatever that means in China. Maybe you'll like this article better:

http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/25/04/2014/why-democracy-still-wins-critique-eric-x-li’s-“-tale-two-political-systems”

..

As outsiders have noticed, Li is clearly anti-democratic. The type of person politicians in Russia (and other non-democratic nations) love.

Okay, so the first attempt to discredit Li as a paid hack working for Chinese government failed. Even according to Salon it's rather the other way around - Chinese use HIS talks and articles for their propaganda attempts.

As for globalpolicyjourna's criticism - everything can be criticized, with or without merit, effort along doesn't mean anything.

In this case the critic, Huang, tries to discredit data used by Li because it didn't come about in a democratic way, and insists that democracy naturally stops corruption. That's so 1990s.

It might stop a certain kind of corruption, like petty bribery by low ranking officials, but real money is stolen at the top, often as government policies, by people who dictate laws themselves, the infamous 1 percenters. Democracy is proven to be helpless against them, be in Washington, City of London, or Thai government house.

[Asiantravel]

It is a deep dark secret that a government does not have to borrow to spend money, but all of 'em borrow and will continue to borrow until there aren't banks any more. As long as there are banks, governments will instead continue to borrow.

That is very true, at least for nations like Thailand and the US (and unlike eg Italy) that can print their own currency. (And they do not need to tax to gain revenue for that same reason either, but do so for reasons of social control). The reason they choose to "borrow" the very same currency they can and already do create without limit is to mask the fact that they are diluting the purchasing power of their currency. Financial "assets" can be increased without limit, but the underlying wealth they are supposed to represent is constrained by physics. GDP is an arbitrary quantity that includes deficit spending and a government can increase that number at will by simply printing and spending currency - however this has no effect on the physical supply of labor and goods purchased, only their price and availability, which both deteriorate if governments create too much money.

You're one of the few knowledgeable people about this stuff -- far more than I am -- so I'm somewhat confounded by your conclusions. Governments borrow from banks, deposit checks (electronically) in banks and all to create or stimulate demand, to include an aggregate demand for money.

Governments however do create more than demand. The money supply enables the purchase of capital goods, equipment and of capital itself. This increases productivity and production which is, without dismissing the all important consumer, the driver of tangible GDP.

Banks receive the money because they have the expertise to distribute it to the people who use it best, i.e., the producers and the consumers alike. . Consumers have a concomitant role as the buyers of goods, services, money for mortgages and car loans etc.

The difference between financial capital and tangible capital is a big deal to the debt police who post here, That is understandable. However, police brutality by the debt police is unnecessary because the money comes from the same place, which is also true under a gold standard. With a gold standard however there'd be a lot less of it and global GDP would be a fraction of its present levels, meaning catastrophe.

You say you're not for the gold standard - unless of course you actually are for it - so what is your alternative? You analyze well but always come to the wrong conclusion, as in the post above, or no conclusion. The storm troopers and captains of the debt police in their riot gear and forcing balance sheets on everyone don't actually resolve anything. Not anything at all.

That's a major reason I use words such as nihilist and anarchist.

My pitches are slow and easy to see. But you guys keep hiding the ball.

Maybe there is something much worse than debt to worry about

The main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. About 95% of the $230 trillion in US derivative exposure is held by four US financial institutions: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.

The staggering size of this market is beyond science fiction or anything that can be comprehended.Paul Wilmott who holds a doctorate in applied mathematics from Oxford University has written several books on derivatives. Wilmott estimates the derivatives market at $1.2 quadrillion, to put that in perspective it is about 20 times the size of the world economy.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html

[Publicus]

Maybe there is something much worse than debt to worry about

The main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. About 95% of the $230 trillion in US derivative exposure is held by four US financial institutions: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.

The staggering size of this market is beyond science fiction or anything that can be comprehended.Paul Wilmott who holds a doctorate in applied mathematics from Oxford University has written several books on derivatives. Wilmott estimates the derivatives market at $1.2 quadrillion, to put that in perspective it is about 20 times the size of the world economy.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html

It's an old principle that if you're going to go in, go all in.

And the derivatives number is a whopper.

It's no surprise to see real numbers and data I presented about U.S. and global capital be victimized by a game of one upmanship I presented the fact USA is valued at almost $200 Trillion and that global financial capital stands at $212 Trillion, so now comes the gargantuan sum of $1,200 Trillion of derivatives.

Derivatives is obscure to all but a few among the posters here to include myself, so I'm not going to expend time or effort on it.

The point is that derivatives are notional. Derivatives are neither exact nor are they concrete. Derivatives exist on paper. Consequently, banks and others trade off their paper, such as stocks and bonds. The value trade offs - swaps - all but cancel out derivative obligations.

Subtract 90% from your $1,200 Trillion and lemme know what you get in outstanding derivatives. It shows the world isn't coming to an end just yet.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Publicus

[cloudhopper]

Well I get 120 trillion and that still seems like a big number to me.

LOL everything but tangible assets are "notional".

Not to worry they will just mint a dozen 10 trillion dollar coins and the world will be saved.

[Asiantravel]

Well I get 120 trillion and that still seems like a big number to me.

LOL everything but tangible assets are "notional".

Not to worry they will just mint a dozen 10 trillion dollar coins and the world will be saved.

[lovetotravel]

Seems the BRICs might be in trouble. Doesn't look like the dollar is in any near term trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/business/imf-lowers-world-growth-forecast-pointing-to-us-as-a-bright-spot.html

The I.M.F. brought its estimate for global growth this year down to 3.3 percent from 3.7 percent and reduced its forecast for 2015 to 3.8 percent. The fund pointed to weaker growth in China, Europe, Japan and Latin America — Brazil in particular — as the main culprits behind the broad retrenchment.

...........................

Its estimate for United States growth in 2015, 3.1 percent, outpaces all major industrialized countries and exceeds as well a number of emerging markets, which in theory are supposed to grow at a substantially more rapid clip.

The assessment reflected a broad acceptance by global investors that, at least for the near future, the United States economy was set to advance ahead of many large economies, not just in terms of growth but also in corporate profitability and international competitiveness.

As a result, large investors and central banks have become aggressive purchasers of the dollar, betting that the currency will keep rising in value against the euro, the yen and the wobbly currencies of countries like Russia, Brazil and Turkey.

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It's always so funny view the post that comment that America's appetite for oil drives it to fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. For those who are not 'in the know' The USA has now become the world's largets producer of Petroleum products in the world, first natural gas and soon crude oil, all due to 'fracking' (another story in itself). If America wanted oil so much it could have just stayed in Iraq, but it did not.

Now I'm certainly cautious about entering another conflict in the ME, most Americans are, but when factions and so called Islamic states excecute your citizens on video in crude fashion, you are going to get a 'cause and effect' result. Any other country would react the same way when their citizens have been harmed....

It's not 'brain surgery' but everyone has to lable every thing a country does for a conspiracy theory.

Tboxcar, It is refreshing to see someone here on Thaivisa who has a clue as to what is going on. I don't frequent these pages very much anymore do to the clueless wonders and conspiracy nuts (I'll leave out the large contingent here that has extreme "America Envy") who seem to dominate the forums here. The truth of course as you touched on is that the U.S. does sit on the largest reserves of petroleum products in the world, and the U.S. will be a net exporter of energy within the next 5 years, unless of course Obama were to get a third term Those here who love to predict the demise of the U.S. Dollar had better hope they are not actually making a wager on the downfall of the Greenback, because the Dollar that has been artificially supressed (by the U.S. themselves) for over a decade is now just begining to wake up I received a report from G.S. last month that actually expects an even odds bet that the Euro and U.S. Dollar get to parity when the FED begins to increase rates next year, at the same time the U.K. is about to undergo a severe real estate recession, the Chinese real estate and the shadow banking system is a ticking time bomb and of course the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about is the severe demographic problems facing Japan. Now the clueless wonders can all jump off their barstools and expound on the latest "Petro Dollar" conspiracy theory

[Asiantravel]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It's always so funny view the post that comment that America's appetite for oil drives it to fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. For those who are not 'in the know' The USA has now become the world's largets producer of Petroleum products in the world, first natural gas and soon crude oil, all due to 'fracking' (another story in itself). If America wanted oil so much it could have just stayed in Iraq, but it did not.

Now I'm certainly cautious about entering another conflict in the ME, most Americans are, but when factions and so called Islamic states excecute your citizens on video in crude fashion, you are going to get a 'cause and effect' result. Any other country would react the same way when their citizens have been harmed....

It's not 'brain surgery' but everyone has to lable every thing a country does for a conspiracy theory.

Tboxcar, It is refreshing to see someone here on Thaivisa who has a clue as to what is going on. I don't frequent these pages very much anymore do to the clueless wonders and conspiracy nuts (I'll leave out the large contingent here that has extreme "America Envy") who seem to dominate the forums here. The truth of course as you touched on is that the U.S. does sit on the largest reserves of petroleum products in the world, and the U.S. will be a net exporter of energy within the next 5 years, unless of course Obama were to get a third term Those here who love to predict the demise of the U.S. Dollar had better hope they are not actually making a wager on the downfall of the Greenback, because the Dollar that has been artificially supressed (by the U.S. themselves) for over a decade is now just begining to wake up I received a report from G.S. last month that actually expects an even odds bet that the Euro and U.S. Dollar get to parity when the FED begins to increase rates next year, at the same time the U.K. is about to undergo a severe real estate recession, the Chinese real estate and the shadow banking system is a ticking time bomb and of course the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about is the severe demographic problems facing Japan. Now the clueless wonders can all jump off their barstools and expound on the latest "Petro Dollar" conspiracy theory

“America Envy “

oh please …………. Actually yes I envied people who were lucky enough to live in America during the 70s and 80s after I spent a year living in LA but travelling all over USA with work............... A country that once had such an awe inspiring “ can do “ mentality and incomparable entrepreneurial spirit which over 25 years has changed to a “ can’t do “ or won’t do “ attitude

As for the America of today I honestly and totally wouldn't set foot in the place even if you paid me.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Asiantravel

[Asiantravel]

Seems the BRICs might be in trouble. Doesn't look like the dollar is in any near term trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/business/imf-lowers-world-growth-forecast-pointing-to-us-as-a-bright-spot.html

The I.M.F. brought its estimate for global growth this year down to 3.3 percent from 3.7 percent and reduced its forecast for 2015 to 3.8 percent. The fund pointed to weaker growth in China, Europe, Japan and Latin America — Brazil in particular — as the main culprits behind the broad retrenchment.

...........................

Its estimate for United States growth in 2015, 3.1 percent, outpaces all major industrialized countries and exceeds as well a number of emerging markets, which in theory are supposed to grow at a substantially more rapid clip.

The assessment reflected a broad acceptance by global investors that, at least for the near future, the United States economy was set to advance ahead of many large economies, not just in terms of growth but also in corporate profitability and international competitiveness.

As a result, large investors and central banks have become aggressive purchasers of the dollar, betting that the currency will keep rising in value against the euro, the yen and the wobbly currencies of countries like Russia, Brazil and Turkey.

But that doesn't mean America will be saved just because of weakness in BRICS nations?

Economist John Williams says forget all the happy talk about the improving economy. Williams says “The economy is in severe trouble.”

On unemployment and the Obama Administration’s recent claim of creating “nearly 10 million new jobs in the last four and a half years,” Williams says, “If we were to go back to the levels before the recession, we would need at least 11 million new jobs. That’s 11 million more than we have now. . . . We are in serious trouble here.” You heard correct, the U.S. needs 11 million more jobs just to get back to the pre-2008 crash levels. . . . We are still losing jobs in this economic picture. That’s what the numbers are showing despite all the happy hype you get in the popular media.”

http://usawatchdog.com/economy-in-severe-trouble-john-williams/

[BATHIK]

BRICs main goal is not high growth and world domination, it's relative independence from IMF, World Bank, petrodollar. and the US, so their performance should be judged by that, not by debt fueled dreams sold by the Wall Street. They never meant to live up to those, they consciously rejected them.

[BATHIK]

deleted double post

Edited October 8, 2014 by BATHIK

[Asiantravel]

Maybe there is something much worse than debt to worry about

The main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. About 95% of the $230 trillion in US derivative exposure is held by four US financial institutions: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.

The staggering size of this market is beyond science fiction or anything that can be comprehended.Paul Wilmott who holds a doctorate in applied mathematics from Oxford University has written several books on derivatives. Wilmott estimates the derivatives market at $1.2 quadrillion, to put that in perspective it is about 20 times the size of the world economy.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html

It's an old principle that if you're going to go in, go all in.

And the derivatives number is a whopper.

It's no surprise to see real numbers and data I presented about U.S. and global capital be victimized by a game of one upmanship I presented the fact USA is valued at almost $200 Trillion and that global financial capital stands at $212 Trillion, so now comes the gargantuan sum of $1,200 Trillion of derivatives.

Derivatives is obscure to all but a few among the posters here to include myself, so I'm not going to expend time or effort on it.

The point is that derivatives are notional. Derivatives are neither exact nor are they concrete. Derivatives exist on paper. Consequently, banks and others trade off their paper, such as stocks and bonds. The value trade offs - swaps - all but cancel out derivative obligations.

Subtract 90% from your $1,200 Trillion and lemme know what you get in outstanding derivatives. It shows the world isn't coming to an end just yet.

" The point is that derivatives are notional. Derivatives are neither exact nor are they concrete. Derivatives exist on paper. Consequently, banks and others trade off their paper, such as stocks and bonds. The value trade offs - swaps - all but cancel out derivative obligations. "

But the notional value is highly significant because if the underlying asset turns toxic, then the derivative itself does too.

this happened during the financial crisis when underlying mortgages went bad. Subsequently all the derivatives contracts on top of those mortgages also went bad too

[Asiantravel]

BRICs main goal is not high growth and world domination, it's relative independence from IMF, World Bank, petrodollar. and the US, so their performance should be judged by that, not by debt fueled dreams sold by the Wall Street. They never meant to live up to those, they consciously rejected them.

Good point!

And to purge the system from perennially financing the global militarisation syndrome

[Publicus]

I've read that Salon article, it's the crappiest piece of journalism I've seen in a while, doesn't even try to live to its headline.

It offers zero support for it, zero evidence that Li works of Chinese government when he writes his articles and gives his talks. At most it states "It’s a question that many critics of China ask as well" and that's it. First you ask a question and they put it into headline as if it's a fact. Now THAT is a pure propaganda trick.

I'm not going to read 4,200 word rebuttal, forget about it. Salon didn't even give a link and not quoted a single argument against Li's presentation.

Eric is involved in politics and has worked for the government before. Maybe not at the time of the talk, but he is a politician. Whatever that means in China. Maybe you'll like this article better:

http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/25/04/2014/why-democracy-still-wins-critique-eric-x-li’s-“-tale-two-political-systems”

..

As outsiders have noticed, Li is clearly anti-democratic. The type of person politicians in Russia (and other non-democratic nations) love.

Okay, so the first attempt to discredit Li as a paid hack working for Chinese government failed. Even according to Salon it's rather the other way around - Chinese use HIS talks and articles for their propaganda attempts.

As for globalpolicyjourna's criticism - everything can be criticized, with or without merit, effort along doesn't mean anything.

In this case the critic, Huang, tries to discredit data used by Li because it didn't come about in a democratic way, and insists that democracy naturally stops corruption. That's so 1990s.

It might stop a certain kind of corruption, like petty bribery by low ranking officials, but real money is stolen at the top, often as government policies, by people who dictate laws themselves, the infamous 1 percenters. Democracy is proven to be helpless against them, be in Washington, City of London, or Thai government house.

A lot of posters are tired of crackpots and their massive manic energy in dreaming up schemes that 'expose' everything and anything, the United States especially and in particular.

They have their own questions which predictably of course have their own outlander answers. They have lots of both. Lots and lots of both. The off the wall questions and answers come from many different types, from anarchists to nihilists to fascists.

While fascism and fascists are organic, having morphed into their 21st century form as we read it and them almost daily, the attack is principally against democracy. The attack does of course fail. It always has, it always will.

The fascist choice for managing a capitalist society is always based— by definition —on the categorical rejection of “democracy.”

Fascism always replaces the general principles on which the theories and practices of modern democracies are based: —recognition of a diversity of opinions, recourse to electoral procedures to determine a majority, guarantee of the rights of the minority, etc.—with the opposed values of submission to the requirements of collective discipline and the authority of the supreme leader and his main agents.

This reversal of values is then always accompanied by a return of backward-looking ideas, which are able to provide an apparent legitimacy to the procedures of submission that are implemented. The proclamation of the supposed necessity of returning to the (“medieval”) past, of submitting to the state religion or to some supposed characteristic of the “race” or the (ethnic) “nation” make up the panoply of ideological discourses deployed by the fascists.

http://www.forumdesalternatives.org/en/the-return-of-fascism-in-contemporary-capitalism

While the statement is generally true and apt, the new religion is anti-globalism. The new leader of anti-globalism is Putin and his Brics countries. It then comes with the territory that, beyond being anti-democracy, the 21st century fascists should be anti-USDollar, anti-petrodollar, anti the United States.

They are against the USD$ being the currency of international trade. They oppose the USD$ being the dominant forex reserve currency. Debt and growth are viewed through the hazy prism of the 19th century.

They want to reverse everything. They are compelled to reverse everything. The reference in the quote to "returning to the ("medieval") past" is not a flippant remark. It is, rather, a statement to a central point in the mindset of the disaffected and discombobulated anti-globalists.

[BATHIK]

So anti-globalists are fascist?

All hail the mighty dollar to subjugate them all into one and only true religion of freedom and democracy, with extreme prejudice, if necessary.

Has this poster gone totally mad? Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

[Asiantravel]

title of this thread " America gears up for a long war "

30 years ?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/06/leon-panetta-memoir-worthy-fights/16737615/

Edited October 8, 2014 by Asiantravel

[Publicus]

Cheney and Putin are in the same league of very dangerous people.

[lovetotravel]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

It's always so funny view the post that comment that America's appetite for oil drives it to fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. For those who are not 'in the know' The USA has now become the world's largets producer of Petroleum products in the world, first natural gas and soon crude oil, all due to 'fracking' (another story in itself). If America wanted oil so much it could have just stayed in Iraq, but it did not.

Now I'm certainly cautious about entering another conflict in the ME, most Americans are, but when factions and so called Islamic states excecute your citizens on video in crude fashion, you are going to get a 'cause and effect' result. Any other country would react the same way when their citizens have been harmed....

It's not 'brain surgery' but everyone has to lable every thing a country does for a conspiracy theory.

Tboxcar, It is refreshing to see someone here on Thaivisa who has a clue as to what is going on. I don't frequent these pages very much anymore do to the clueless wonders and conspiracy nuts (I'll leave out the large contingent here that has extreme "America Envy") who seem to dominate the forums here. The truth of course as you touched on is that the U.S. does sit on the largest reserves of petroleum products in the world, and the U.S. will be a net exporter of energy within the next 5 years, unless of course Obama were to get a third term Those here who love to predict the demise of the U.S. Dollar had better hope they are not actually making a wager on the downfall of the Greenback, because the Dollar that has been artificially supressed (by the U.S. themselves) for over a decade is now just begining to wake up I received a report from G.S. last month that actually expects an even odds bet that the Euro and U.S. Dollar get to parity when the FED begins to increase rates next year, at the same time the U.K. is about to undergo a severe real estate recession, the Chinese real estate and the shadow banking system is a ticking time bomb and of course the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about is the severe demographic problems facing Japan. Now the clueless wonders can all jump off their barstools and expound on the latest "Petro Dollar" conspiracy theory

“America Envy “

oh please …………. Actually yes I envied people who were lucky enough to live in America during the 70s and 80s after I spent a year living in LA but travelling all over USA with work............... A country that once had such an awe inspiring “ can do “ mentality and incomparable entrepreneurial spirit which over 25 years has changed to a “ can’t do “ or won’t do “ attitude

As for the America of today I honestly and totally wouldn't set foot in the place even if you paid me.

So you are saying you only lived in the US for one year, many years ago????

[lovetotravel]

BRICs main goal is not high growth and world domination, it's relative independence from IMF, World Bank, petrodollar. and the US, so their performance should be judged by that, not by debt fueled dreams sold by the Wall Street. They never meant to live up to those, they consciously rejected them.

If you think for one minute any other country wouldn't want to be in the place of the US, and will do whatever they can to make that happen...well....

The BRICs want to be the top dogs. And nothing wrong with that. It's what keeps economies vibrant and innovations flowing.

[mania]

I don't frequent these pages very much anymore do to the clueless wonders

unless of course Obama were to get a third term

Those here who love to predict the demise of the U.S. Dollar had better hope they are not actually making a wager on the downfall of the Greenback

I received a report from G.S. last month that actually expects an even odds bet that the Euro and U.S. Dollar get to parity

Now the clueless wonders can all jump off their barstools

Hi Vic

Kind of an odd statement from a US citizen

Given a US President can only serve 2 terms

Unless of course they repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution

Wouldn't hold my breath on that especially given this guys track record.

As for the dollar I agree it will not fail & if it did it would probably mean all other fiats had already failed.

But demise....well that is a broader definition & yes we have seen it going downhill for a long time....Probably since the

FED Reserve was snuck into place but no problem it is what it is eh?

As for your GS "tips" I do remember your tip for folks here on TV not to buy gold

when it was $700 an ounce in 2008 saying folks should wait till upper $300's

Good thing none held you to that eh?

As gold then went to darn near $1900 in 2011 & many made enough to retire

Maybe those are some of those clueless wonders on bar stools eh?

Edited October 8, 2014 by mania

[lovetotravel]

Seems the BRICs might be in trouble. Doesn't look like the dollar is in any near term trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/business/imf-lowers-world-growth-forecast-pointing-to-us-as-a-bright-spot.html

The I.M.F. brought its estimate for global growth this year down to 3.3 percent from 3.7 percent and reduced its forecast for 2015 to 3.8 percent. The fund pointed to weaker growth in China, Europe, Japan and Latin America — Brazil in particular — as the main culprits behind the broad retrenchment.

...........................

Its estimate for United States growth in 2015, 3.1 percent, outpaces all major industrialized countries and exceeds as well a number of emerging markets, which in theory are supposed to grow at a substantially more rapid clip.

The assessment reflected a broad acceptance by global investors that, at least for the near future, the United States economy was set to advance ahead of many large economies, not just in terms of growth but also in corporate profitability and international competitiveness.

As a result, large investors and central banks have become aggressive purchasers of the dollar, betting that the currency will keep rising in value against the euro, the yen and the wobbly currencies of countries like Russia, Brazil and Turkey.

But that doesn't mean America will be saved just because of weakness in BRICS nations?

Economist John Williams says forget all the happy talk about the improving economy. Williams says “The economy is in severe trouble.”

On unemployment and the Obama Administration’s recent claim of creating “nearly 10 million new jobs in the last four and a half years,” Williams says, “If we were to go back to the levels before the recession, we would need at least 11 million new jobs. That’s 11 million more than we have now. . . . We are in serious trouble here.” You heard correct, the U.S. needs 11 million more jobs just to get back to the pre-2008 crash levels. . . . We are still losing jobs in this economic picture. That’s what the numbers are showing despite all the happy hype you get in the popular media.”

http://usawatchdog.com/economy-in-severe-trouble-john-williams/

This guy and his website have little credibility:

http://traderscrucible.com/2011/02/01/why-shadow-government-statistics-is-very-very-very-wrong/

http://voxrationalis.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/the-absurdity-of-shadowstats-inflation-estimates/

[Publicus]

So anti-globalists are fascist?

All hail the mighty dollar to subjugate them all into one and only true religion of freedom and democracy, with extreme prejudice, if necessary.

Has this poster gone totally mad? Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

It wuz your post I replied to.

I didn't make a free floating general post.

I replied to your post.

Maybe now one can follow my drift....

[craigt3365]

An inappropriate post has been removed from view, along with a very good reply. Apologies to the member with the reply.

[craigt3365]

Please, no links to commercial websites.

[Asiantravel]

title of this thread " America gears up for a long war "

30 years ?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/06/leon-panetta-memoir-worthy-fights/16737615/

30 years x $40 Billion a Year

Twelve years ago we stumbled into a war in Iraq with little thought as to how much it would cost or how we might pay for it. Trillions of dollars later, we are about to wade into another protracted conflict, and once again there is no financial strategy. today the Department of Veterans Affairs pays $4 billion per year in compensation to US veterans of that conflict. For Iraq and Afghanistan, the veterans’ costs will be much higher. Fifty percent of the troops who served to date will receive medical and disability benefits for the rest of their lives — amounting to some $1 trillion that the United States owes but has not yet paid.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/07/fighting-islamic-state-how-much-will-cost/xub6sT2eWP1k67t1HWBsFL/story.html

The New U.S. Price Tag for the War Against ISIS: $40 Billion a Year

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/10/New-US-Price-Tag-War-Against-ISIS-40-Billion-Year

Edited October 11, 2014 by Asiantravel

[mania]

30 years ?

30 years x $40 Billion a Year

The New U.S. Price Tag for the War Against ISIS: $40 Billion a Year

Sadly this is the way they boost the fake economy/GDP etc

As GDP includes govt spending what they do not have......... it in part boosts that silly useless number.

Also the 40 billion is more than likely a fraction of what will really be spent.

But as usual those who supply tools of the trade will smile & rake all that borrowed $$$ in

not worried it ultimately helps to collapse their main customer. There will always be customers.

Edited October 11, 2014 by mania

[Publicus]

title of this thread " America gears up for a long war "

30 years ?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/06/leon-panetta-memoir-worthy-fights/16737615/

30 years x $40 Billion a Year

Twelve years ago we stumbled into a war in Iraq with little thought as to how much it would cost or how we might pay for it. Trillions of dollars later, we are about to wade into another protracted conflict, and once again there is no financial strategy. today the Department of Veterans Affairs pays $4 billion per year in compensation to US veterans of that conflict. For Iraq and Afghanistan, the veterans’ costs will be much higher. Fifty percent of the troops who served to date will receive medical and disability benefits for the rest of their lives — amounting to some $1 trillion that the United States owes but has not yet paid.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/07/fighting-islamic-state-how-much-will-cost/xub6sT2eWP1k67t1HWBsFL/story.html

The New U.S. Price Tag for the War Against ISIS: $40 Billion a Year

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/10/New-US-Price-Tag-War-Against-ISIS-40-Billion-Year

The Pentagon is currently spending $7 to $10 million a day against ISIS vs $212 million a day even while winding down in Afghanistan.

The issue here is however that Peter Peterson funds the Fiscal Times which is a recent startup, single issue journal focused on reducing entitlement programs such as Social Security and unemployment compensation.

Peterson is a billionaire right wing budget hawk and his journal has been criticized before for its dubious journalism. It's certainly fine to have a point of view, and it helps a lot to circulate one's point of view when one has a bunch of billions of bucks.

It's also cynical to try to draw in the left end of the political spectrum on anti-war issues while simultaneously campaigning against the social security programs the left advocates, so Mr. Peterson is fooling no one.

Frank Sesno, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at the George Washington University, said, “I don’t think it’s possible to have organizations where there’s a single source of funding, and not think there’s a point of view,” he said. “There can be big ethical problems with jobbing out reporting to an organization when there’s a discernible point of view.”