If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Well I hate to be the bearer of more bad news but now China thinks the US is broke(Not just me anymore). This is really bad for peace time. If China and Russia go ahead with this it will cause the next world war unless we see the US's real colors by siding with an anti human communist country for a new currency.
Initial reports are that Geitner/Obama is all for it.
I really don't but when all I hear is bad news that is all I can say. I wish I could talk about a world gov't and think it won't be corrupt but looking how corrupt the US is I know a one world gov't will be a bad thing.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men
We're not broke, and China does not think we're broke at this point - yet.
China is concerned that we're going to do the national equivalent of going broke, which is to significantly devalue our currency due to the large deficit spending we currently have planned.
And they have reason to be concerned, since they hold so much of their savings in US bonds. And their proposal is not necessarily a bad one. They want to redefine the reserve system for the world on a more diversified scale so that if one country goes down it doesn't take the whole world with it. It has some merit, and it may happen some day.
As far as it causing world war, I think that is highly speculative and not very supportable. War could arguably sooner break out for a number of more plausible reasons than this. One could even make the argument that a global currency could make it less likely for world war to break out.
Every nation can print as much money as it wants - exhibit A would be Zimbabwe, which has like 1 billion % annual inflation. The way you get your money to be worth anything in the first place is to back it up with resources that enable you to have real economic production. And you can't buy that productivity; you have to create it.
This gets at why the Japanese attacked the US back in late 1941 - for access to oil, not for our dollars.
oh ok...I guess this means this basic principle suddenly expired at the turn of the new century then, kinda like old milk in the fridge. My bad. Good catch there.
China doesn't have the natural resources so they have to depend on the Anglo-American connection.
I can't believe we are going to have a one world currency in hte coming months or years. To think the conspiracy theorists called this years and years ago. It is kind of weird.
China doesn't have the natural resources so they have to depend on the Anglo-American connection.
It always boggles the imagination as to how you come up little "facts" such as these.
If China doesn't have natural resources, then why is it that the majority of the products in the Western world are made in China?
Yeah, those Chinese don't have the resources..that's why they're only the second or third largest economy on the planet, not to mention the fastest growing one for the past quarter of a century.
But I'm sure there's nothing I could say that could possibly negate your belief that you're "spot on"...as always...
Your sarcasm shows how much of a fool you really are.
Why did the Anglo-Americans go into Iraq??
Why do the Anglo-Americans want to go into Pakistan??
Why do the Anglo-Americans want to get into Sudan?
Natural Resources. As long as they control the natural resources they control China. Do you actually believe that the most corrrupt country on earth (the US) gives a shit about human rights in Sudan and how muslim men beat their wives in Pakistan?? The answer is a big fat NO. Hillary Clinton has made that very clear where Obama stands on human rights- IMO of course.
Your sarcasm shows how much of a fool you really are.
Originally posted by runningman
Why did the Anglo-Americans go into Iraq??
Why do the Anglo-Americans want to go into Pakistan??
Why do the Anglo-Americans want to get into Sudan?
Natural Resources. As long as they control the natural resources they control China.
1. You JUST got done telling me that "this is not 1941...wrong century" when I pointed out that nations go to war over natural resources, not money. And now you just contradicted yourself and kicked your own ass, bro.
2. As of right now, America doesn't "control" the oil in the Middle East. If they did, then they would control the prices and who it is sold to. They don't. China can and does buy its own oil from the Middle East without "Anglo-American connections."
3. "Natural resources" covers a lot more than just OIL. And China has tons of natural resources and relatively cheap labor, which is why American firms started outsourcing lots of manufacturing and the majority of things that you buy say "made in China" on them.
4. As for all that rambling about "human rights"... No idea what your point is there, as no one around here has ever said anything about believing that America is in Iraq for "human rights"... Perhaps you're trying to deflect attention from your other statements? I sure don't know...
I'm probably done here for a while, because I already know where this is headed... I hope that if you call me big meanie names you'll at least get more creative this time!
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment