We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

OnTrail • 4 years ago

I address this to all other countries of the world.

We as Americans are just as fed up with the US government as you are. We realize "It’s the behavior of an arrogant sociopath". Please hang in there. We want to be rid of the arrogant sociopath as much as you do, perhaps even more.

Philip Averill • 4 years ago

thanks oBUMa

Napoleon Grove • 5 years ago

Physical Gold and Silver should be the global reserve currencies upon which domestic paper notes are valued. It the basis of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 and long before then. Gold is the ultimate canceller of debt and will be again.

On 15 August 1971 the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold, effectively bringing the Bretton Woods system to an end and rendering the dollar a fiat currency. This action, referred to as the Nixon shock, created the situation in which the United States dollar became a reserve currency used by many states. At the same time, many fixed currencies (such as the pound sterling, for example), also became free-floating.

If the Yuan went to being a Gold backed currency, Russia would follow with the Ruble and the US Dollar would implode along with the fascist dictatorship that has 3.5% of the world's population telling the other 96.5% what to do at gun point.

Michael Bruce Rosmer • 5 years ago

Clearly you don't have a very deep understanding of commodities backed currencies. The optimal currency is fiat by pure nature of the efficiency (commodity currencies are very wasteful, nor are they accurate representations of the wealth backing them) and that's without considering the fiscal value of such tools (commodity reserve currencies tend to perpetuate recessions among other things).

Do we need to move away from a currency dictated by a single government? Absolutely, especially in today's age where the currency needs to flow electronically and can be controlled and used as a weapon against other countries and institutions. However, moving to a commodity backed currency isn't the solution. The Euro for all its failings is a much closer example of where we need to head.

The other challenge has to do with the alignment of fiscal and monetary policy. Monetary policy is generally fairly sound (arguably because those running the monetary system aren't so swayed by politics and are educated on their roles), fiscal policy, which needs to function hand in hand with monetary policy has significant gaps (again arguably because it's driven by politics rather than sound economic principles and politicians aren't educated on economics). Case in point, governments tend to spend when they should be cutting back and cutting back when they should be spending.

homerja • 4 years ago

That's cute, you think those in charge have any idea what they are doing and that their monetary policy is "generally sound". Your last line about gov't needs based spending is downright insane on the face of it. Do you read the news? The facts are, the Fed has pissed away every opportunity to release the pressure on the global economy but chose to enrich the few and setting a terrible example that has been replicated universally. The Fed is now backing into a corner from which were is no escape accept to shoot their way out with more insanity. Raising rates would be suicide and printing only worsens the issue.

Michael Bruce Rosmer • 4 years ago

You don't sound like you understand the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy. Senior bankers absolutely have a pretty keen understanding of the impact of their actions, you can be cynical about it but loads of evidence demonstrate they not only understand their role but do a pretty decent job at it. Where some of your misunderstanding might stem from is the mandate of central banks, the role they play and what they can do. This is where the distinction between fiscal policy, which at a federal level adds net financial assets to the economy and monetary policy, which merely expands or contracts credit, becomes relevant.

Let's start with a basic recognition. Most people have no idea what quantitative easing is and as a result mistakenly believe it is "printing money", by which we mean adding to the net financial assets of the economy (assets on a balance sheet without a corresponding liability). Nothing could be further from the truth, quantitative easing does nothing to increase the net financial assets of the economy (hence it doesn't create inflation in currency) but is rather a swapping of government bonds for bank reserves on bank balance sheets (the size of the balance sheets remain exactly the same). The theory some believe is this is supposed to stimulate lending, it doesn't, this is a misnomer because banks aren't reserves constrained in their lending, they are constrained by available capital (not the same as reserves and not an issue for any of the major western banks, in fact a lot of them are awash with too much capital, certainly the system in the aggregate is awash with too much capital) and demand from credit worthy borrowers (this is the biggest problem). What it does instead is stimulates investment in the general stock markets (hence in large part the sustained rise in the Dow Jones over the last few years in spite of economics that haven't shifted proportionally and relatively low consumer demand (it's starting to turn now but way after the market rose substantially)).

Monetary policy is concerned almost entirely with setting the target interest rate and reserving it by adjusting the amount of available bank reserves within the system. We've seen a relatively stable currency (an enormous improvement over what we've typically seen historically). Fiscal policy is concerned with government spending, which is not the realm of central bankers and plays the far larger role in stimulating the economy to end recessions, etc. It is fiscal policy, which is handled quite poorly and poses the far greater risk of being inflationary in nature (though in fact private lending more so than either other factor plays the biggest role since it represents by far the largest share of the monetary supply).

Fiscal discipline and sound policy requires:

1. Heavy deficit spending on projects that increase the productive capacity of the nation during times of recession

2. Hefty budget surpluses and some debt repayment during times when the economy is strong

The former shortens recessions by kick starting the economy. The later cools booms to keep them from getting out of control.

Swami G • 5 years ago

Oh and having China as the major global reserve currency and them controlling world politics is MUCH better.

Doug Nusbaum • 5 years ago

Wow --- finally an explanation of why the dollar has falled 24% against most other currencies in the past year, and gold is up 15%, and silver is up 40%. Oh wait. that is dollar is up and gold and silver are down by those amounts. Stupid is an inability or unwillingness to learn. Mind numbing, dumb fuck stupid is smelling dog poop and thinking that it is a hot fudge sunday.

So tell me Mr. Sovereign man ... how much money have you made in the past year betting on the decline of the dollar and the rise in gold?

Skye Bowen • 5 years ago

Japan's next

B for Been Betta • 5 years ago

This is the most encouraging post I've read in a long, long time.

That is all I have to say.

Bsdetector • 5 years ago

YUP, went researching from last night how to open an account with this bank, looks not possible yet, people are pushing investing in their stock, screw that idea, I just want my money in some bank that doesn't try and control me like the fag#$t americans and canadians and all their slaves in most of the world.

Matthew Taylor • 5 years ago

OK, so the Chinese takeover of the world economy is a better choice? They already own most of the US (do the research). This a just the nail in the American coffin that the Chinese are locking down. They've been trying to drive down and devalue the US economy for decades. How is this a good thing? What is happening here is not good for the US at all. What would be good for the US is to fix the economy by throwing out corrupt, corporate shills and banker-led representatives from the legislature, resetting dollar values and exterminating the myth of inflation, thus cutting overall costs to consumers. In turn, this will allow the nation to afford to be a nation as a whole and get it out from under the yoke of debt and indemnity to other nations, and it's citizens will flourish in an affordable living environment. Upgrade the infrastructure, roads, railways and airways and make it easier and more affordable to travel, also opening up economic prosperity. This flattens the playing field across the board and forces places like China to play fair. Believing that China has the interests of other nations in mind economically is naive. They still want to take over the world. This is only a form of that desire. Don't believe the hype.

Professor_Bacon • 5 years ago

I see a lot of words, but they don't mean anything.

Dan Winter • 5 years ago

bitcoin-the stateless currency- is still too volative- even though bitcoin can load your mastercard

JimQ • 5 years ago

And it seems that the US political leadership is doing all it can to hasten the decline of America.

Opperdienaar • 5 years ago

The joint strike fighter is for the US empire what the Armada was for the Spanish empire. The madness of politics finally reaches their core business: violence