A Complete Waste of Space

nicolas10 wrote: 1/ Those people make shitloads of $ during any war

kind of an old fable. Iraq cost some of them serious money, actually. This isn't the early 20th century, when the DuPonts and such were arming all sides of every conflict. Even then, the nation has until rather recently, avoided involvement in conflicts like mad, preferring to profit from both sides. And, yes, I do agree with you that the same folks have essentially been running the show for over two centuries here.

2/ Had the US not attacked Iraq, the dollar would have taken the plunge, since saddam decided to trade oil in €

another strawman. Iraq makes so little difference in the whole of world currency demand, it wouldn't have mattered. Hell, Iran would have probably bought dollars just to spite him. And Germany and China aren't going to stop stocking up on them either.

3/ Ratings agencies attacked the € to give a breath of fresh air to the $ by attacking greece's ratings and putting the crisis on the €

where, pray tell, do you come up with this nonsense? The Greeks, with a corrupt government and unwilling taxpayer base, went on a spending spree for over a decade on borrowed money. Why they weren't downgraded earlier is astounding. Actually, one wonders, looking at the paper record, why Portugal, Spain and Italy have anything over junk ratings. You cannot borrow the levels of money those natons do without the GNP to regenerate it. That's what folks often overlook about the US: we might have been reckless fools with our money over the past decade, but we still manage the largest economy on the planet.

4/ If hamadinedjad decides to trade in € despite all of this, the US are going in. I've said it a while ago and I stand by my forecast.

knock yourself out, Nic. I only hope and pray that no one else but yourself is depending on your economic acumen. Please explain, if you can, how Iran, with sagging production, worldwide economic sanctions and something like the 6th or 7th rank(at best) in potential oil reserves, is going to singlehandedly sink the dollar in favor of the Euro?

Now, the Chinese pouring money into the Euro.......that could have SOME effect. But, only to stabilize the Euro relative to the dollar. The Chinese and Americans are essentially economic partners at this point(and will remain so for some while, I suspect), so no way do they do a damned thing to actually sink the greenback.

nicolas10 wrote:Do you advocate vandalism druidish style?

now that was funny......

nicolas10 wrote:Do you advocate vandalism druidish style?

druids...sickles...communism!

Nicky, I can understand your view point on things...though, mine differ from yours....In this particular instance,so far, Slick seems to be on target....(enjoy your new sig, Slick...but include all of it)

nicolas10 wrote:Do you advocate vandalism druidish style?

No, but I'm not against running around in forest naked during a full moon and chasing maidens and sexing them.

callmeslick wrote:kind of an old fable. Iraq cost some of them serious money, actually. This isn't the early 20th century, when the DuPonts and such were arming all sides of every conflict. Even then, the nation has until rather recently, avoided involvement in conflicts like mad, preferring to profit from both sides. And, yes, I do agree with you that the same folks have essentially been running the show for over two centuries here.

I see that you agree with my main point. You might be better informed than I am but I don't believe for one second that those people lost money on the Iraq war. Those who supported the cost were the taxpayers of all western nations. BUT assuming you are right and they lost money on that particular conflict, it was probably because they needed to for some reason. Investing now for losing less later for instance.

[quoteanother strawman. Iraq makes so little difference in the whole of world currency demand, it wouldn't have mattered. Hell, Iran would have probably bought dollars just to spite him. And Germany and China aren't going to stop stocking up on them either.[/quote]

It would alone, but what would happen if Iran and every other major oil producers followed? Would Iran rather spite Iraq or would they rather spite the US? Easy question I think! Germany, as most of WE (us included ) are the US's bitches. We sure won't stop stocking up on $. This sarkozy asshole sells as much of France's gold (that de Gaulle boldly got back) as he can just to save the $ and the banking system. He should be hanged for high treason if you ask me. BUT China? It already holds the US by the gonads, so imagine if the OPEC started dealing in € AND China decided the $ was going down? It's not so far fetched.

where, pray tell, do you come up with this nonsense? The Greeks, with a corrupt government and unwilling taxpayer base, went on a spending spree for over a decade on borrowed money. Why they weren't downgraded earlier is astounding. Actually, one wonders, looking at the paper record, why Portugal, Spain and Italy have anything over junk ratings. You cannot borrow the levels of money those natons do without the GNP to regenerate it. That's what folks often overlook about the US: we might have been reckless fools with our money over the past decade, but we still manage the largest economy on the planet.

It's both been an attack as the one you have seen from merril lynch on fortis, which came conveniently at a time the $ needed a breathe of fresh air. Maybe you believe in coincidences. I don't
I would agree with your point if you added the UK and the US to the list Why aren't you? It's the ration dept/gdb that's important, and it is irrelevant if you have the biggest economy on the planet or not. But whatever the situation in greece, it was singled out and then attacked by speculators. You can't deny that.

knock yourself out, Nic. I only hope and pray that no one else but yourself is depending on your economic acumen. Please explain, if you can, how Iran, with sagging production, worldwide economic sanctions and something like the 6th or 7th rank(at best) in potential oil reserves, is going to singlehandedly sink the dollar in favor of the Euro?

Now, the Chinese pouring money into the Euro.......that could have SOME effect. But, only to stabilize the Euro relative to the dollar. The Chinese and Americans are essentially economic partners at this point(and will remain so for some while, I suspect), so no way do they do a damned thing to actually sink the greenback.

As I said earlier, it's not Iraq or Iran alone trading in € that will be dangerous, they are just one part of a puzzle that involves China. You are probably right that it alone wouldn't make the $ take the plunge.

One last thing though. Why did the US REALLY invade Iraq?
Why are they going to invade Iran?

Try to give me one more likely reason than the one I put here, because I see none.

Nic

nicolas10 wrote:.

One last thing though. Why did the US REALLY invade Iraq?

because an ideology had taken sway over the current White House('neoconservatism',some called it) that needed an excuse to develop a foreign policy based on pre-emptive use of force. It was sort of a rogue element, now pretty thoroughly discredited, and did NOT reflect the will or interest of 'old money'

Why are they going to invade Iran?

short of a blatant display of nuclear stupidity by the Iranians, it won't happen. Ever. Even in that case, Israel will be the actual attacker, and I wouldn't give a physical invasion of Iran more than a 1 in 1000 chance.

callmeslick wrote:because an ideology had taken sway over the current White House('neoconservatism',some called it) that needed an excuse to develop a foreign policy based on pre-emptive use of force. It was sort of a rogue element, now pretty thoroughly discredited, and did NOT reflect the will or interest of 'old money'

Good one

We're going to have to disagree on that one. Had the "old money" as you call it wanted to avoid a war, it would have. Period.

The fact remains that if oil in general started being traded in €, it would put the $ in a less than enviable situation should something else (china) happen.

short of a blatant display of nuclear stupidity by the Iranians, it won't happen. Ever. Even in that case, Israel will be the actual attacker, and I wouldn't give a physical invasion of Iran more than a 1 in 1000 chance.

Hopefully even the neocons aren't stupid enough to put a food on Iran's soil (haha right). Iran will be attacked nonetheless. Whether it will be directly by B2s from Diego Garcia or through Israeli strikes or both is irrelevant.

Nic

Quote:
Why are they going to invade Iran?


Slick said: "short of a blatant display of nuclear stupidity by the Iranians, it won't happen. Ever. Even in that case, Israel will be the actual attacker, and I wouldn't give a physical invasion of Iran more than a 1 in 1000 chance."

Yup, I agree, again...However, if we fail to support the them in an attack..by at least taking out the the ground to ship missiles, located around the Straits of Hormuz...getting oil is gonna be a problem for everyone.....Former U.N. Ambassador "Bolton" is saying that Israel must strike this week, before the Iranian reactor is fueled.....I would suggest filling up yer gas tanks...sooner, than later.

Old Pudfark sez: " I am not saying that there will be an attack, but, if there is one? It is likely to occur this week.....maybe? "

The nuclear is an excuse.

Nic