We're All Ready Fascist.

[Mini-Me]

that's what i am talking about if people all over the world would unite and understand the beauty. but, for that to happen there will have to be a WWIII and billions will have to die. After that, people will finally evolve.

This is inevitable though. The Russian oligarchs have been working hard to bring down our economy. The collapse is coming. We got Russia into Afghanistan and Chechnya wars - they got us into Afghanistan and Iraq wars. They have collapsed economically after Afghanistan - we will collapse economically too soon. American people will have to make a choice. The choice they will make will be Fascism. There will be a war. Then people will unite under one world government in true communism where money is not God and will have peace for 1000 years.

You're missing the point. Communism through government is evil and tyrannical - always. VOLUNTARY Communism is moral, and you're free to try it if you live in a free society with minimal government, but I don't think it would work. I believe people would quickly choose to opt out of voluntary Communism after realizing that "competition breeds excellence." As wonderful as cooperation sounds, its inefficiency will lead the commune to underproduce in a way that it cannot sustain itself, especially as the commune increases in size and the production and distribution mechanisms become more complex - at that point, Communism no longer only underproduces on the whole, but it also overproduces some things at the expense of others, leading to severe shortages of basic necessities. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting experiment for you and other like-minded people to try in a free society. If it works, others will freely choose the same thing - no government coercion necessary. If it doesn't work, then it's a good thing it wasn't forced on the whole world. Get it?

I cannot stress this enough: Any collectivist system imposed by the government against the will of its people is the epitome of tyranny. Your rebuttal to the numerous reasons behind this is always the simple mantra of, "but people won't worship money," but as I've pointed out numerous times, you're operating from a false premise. You've also said before that the USSR censored free speech to "protect" the people from dangerus ideas, but this is erroneous: If you're so scared of an idea that you have to kill and imprison the people who espouse it, then it follows that you're so scared because you cannot logically defend your own ideas against it. If you are confident in the rational basis for your worldview, you should have no reason to fear outside ideas intruding and "corrupting minds." In fact, if such ideas are able to reach indoctrinated people against all odds under an overwhelming atmosphere of media bias and propaganda (as western ideals did in the USSR), then it's even more likely that they are superior. You might say that a large population is not smart enough to "choose wisely," but if that's the case, then it's even more foolish to trust a small group of rulers to choose wisely...and besides, even if people choose unwisely, they have a right to choose for themselves.

People have a right to be left alone by their government and not forced into any system they don't want to be. That's why our revolution seeks to create such a world...you, on the other hand, seem to want tyranny, and you don't even realize it.

 

[torchbearer]

You're missing the point. Communism through government is evil and tyrannical - always. VOLUNTARY Communism is moral, and you're free to try it if you live in a free society with minimal government, but I don't think it would work. I believe people would quickly choose to opt out of voluntary Communism after realizing that "competition breeds excellence." As wonderful as cooperation sounds, its inefficiency will lead the commune to underproduce in a way that it cannot sustain itself, especially as the commune increases in size and the production and distribution mechanisms become more complex - at that point, Communism no longer only underproduces on the whole, but it also overproduces some things at the expense of others, leading to severe shortages of basic necessities. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting experiment for you and other like-minded people to try in a free society.

However, and I cannot stress this enough, any collectivist system imposed by the government against the will of its people is the epitome of tyranny. Your rebuttal to the numerous reasons behind this is always the simple mantra of, "but people won't worship money," but as I've pointed out numerous times, you're operating from a false premise.

People have a right to be left alone by their government and not forced into any system they don't want to be. That's why our revolution seeks to create such a world...you, on the other hand, seem to want tyranny, and you don't even realize it.

+1
You sound like John Galt.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0
You wouldn't happen to be him would ya?

 

[cageybee]

You're missing the point. Communism through government is evil and tyrannical - always. VOLUNTARY Communism is moral, and you're free to try it if you live in a free society with minimal government, but I don't think it would work. I believe people would quickly choose to opt out of voluntary Communism after realizing that "competition breeds excellence." As wonderful as cooperation sounds, its inefficiency will lead the commune to underproduce in a way that it cannot sustain itself, especially as the commune increases in size and the production and distribution mechanisms become more complex - at that point, Communism no longer only underproduces on the whole, but it also overproduces some things at the expense of others, leading to severe shortages of basic necessities. Nevertheless, it would be an interesting experiment for you and other like-minded people to try in a free society.

However, and I cannot stress this enough, any collectivist system imposed by the government against the will of its people is the epitome of tyranny. Your rebuttal to the numerous reasons behind this is always the simple mantra of, "but people won't worship money," but as I've pointed out numerous times, you're operating from a false premise.

People have a right to be left alone by their government and not forced into any system they don't want to be. That's why our revolution seeks to create such a world...you, on the other hand, seem to want tyranny, and you don't even realize it.

so, say you are a president and our economy just collapsed and foreigners are running over here and are ready to buy the whole country for pennies. what do you do? what are your actions?

 

[torchbearer]

so, say you are a president and our economy just collapsed and foreigners are running over here and are ready to buy the whole country for pennies. what do you do? what are your actions?

you can only have a buyer when you have a seller.
Who is selling what and to who for what?
You are born with rights. That is not negotiable. No one can take your rights.. they can only convince you to surrender them.
Grow up, stand up... and stop fearing the government. We are going to make them fear us. For we are the master and it is the slave.
DO you not know that is why we assemble here?

 

[cageybee]

you can only have a buyer when you have a seller.
Who is selling what and to who for what?
You are born with rights. That is not negotiable. No one can take your rights.. they can only convince you to surrender them.
Grow up, stand up... and stop fearing the government. We are going to make them fear us. For we are the master and it is the slave.
DO you not know that is why we assemble here?

so, when the wall street will be selling off all american assets - you would close the wall street so that no one could buy anything???

 

[cageybee]

i guess i am asking tough questions now. all the discussion participants are silent all of a sudden.

 

[Mini-Me]

so, when the wall street will be selling off all american assets - you would close the wall street so that no one could buy anything???

No, he would not, nor would I. The wise thing to do is to allow people to make their own decisions. Business owners can foolishly sell every means of production they have in exchange for a loaf of bread that will last a day - or they can wisely keep their land and their means of production so that, when the dust settles, they will have everything they need to make their own bread. Although the economy revolves around big companies today (for reasons listed in my 3000+ word post), they do not own the majority of private property in the United States. Wall Street companies make up a huge portion of the economy, but they make up a small portion of the actual number of businesses in existence. Foreigners cannot buy the entire US merely by buying Wall Street...

If I were the President, I would:

• Give frequent televised speeches explaining to the people exactly what is happening to them and why. I would warn against selling their fishing rod for a fish, figuratively speaking.
• Make a very clear change in foreign policy. I'd address the people and nations of the world with a sincere apology for past US foreign policy, scale the CIA down to mere intelligence gathering (no peacetime cloak & dagger operations, no agitating for civil wars and revolts, etc.), pull our troops back home from abroad, and leave our bases to the people of the countries who hosted them to use as they see fit. I'd end foreign aid, I'd stop funding wars all over the world, and I'd do everything I could to pull out of the "free trade" agreements which oppress people in every single participating country, including our own.
• Use every bit of Constitutional authority I had to promote the abolition of legal tender laws (legalize competing currencies) and return to sound money.
• Promote deregulation at the federal level (states are free to choose otherwise), lower taxes, and absolutely no corporate welfare or government largesse
• Abolish corporate personhood at the federal level. States would be free to create corporate personhood, but other states would be free to deny such priviliges and immunities. As a result, I believe the market would return to contract-based joint-stock companies which have no priviliges or immunities not granted to the members comprising them (liability would be distributed by contract, rather than artificially limited by government decree).

For the reasons I gave in my 3000+ word post, and others that I haven't even touched on, these policies would allow the free market to start working again without being dominated by the "big boys." As such, foreign investors would be free to buy up Wall Street, but...it might not be a wise business decision, especially if I gave occasional speeches encouraging people to focus on rebuild the American economy. In a lot of ways, I'm thinking "fireside chats" without the collectivist bullshit. People don't listen to George W. Bush or take what he says to heart, but in the middle of The Worst Depression Ever, I think people would cling to every word of a President reversing all of the policies that destroyed them.

I'd also toy around with the idea of encouraging the people to sue the Federal Reserve banking system en masse for racketeering or something similar. I haven't given it much thought, and it might be a poor idea, but - I'm just throwing that our that.

Obviously, the government would still owe foreign creditors tons of money in debt, although a large portion of the debt is also held domestically. I'd make the payment of foreign debt the first priority, and this is the price America would have to pay for its past gluttony. I'd use diplomacy with foreign countries to work out a sane compromise for the honest payment of such debt, and I have a feeling they'd be very receptive to such an offer of good faith. After all, they'd be expecting America to either monetize the debt, ruining our relations and giving them worthless paper money, or to belligerently close off trade and declare the debt null and void, forcing them to go to war to collect.

The point of this post is that it's pretty much never "too late" for freedom*. If people like Ron Paul take over the government, it doesn't matter if economic meltdown is impending or if it's already happened...either way, the answer to our problems is the same.

*Except in the case of one extremely unlikely scenario that can arise as the result of past fascism and economic collapse: If, somehow, a small band of moneyed elites (foreign or domestic) managed to buy up almost every piece of property in America, Americans would have no choice but to become eternal sharecroppers, completely unable to own any land or start up their own businesses to compete (merely because no other land exists). This type of absolute consolidation could never arise naturally in a free market with sound money, but I suppose it's theoretically possible in the aftermath of an economic meltdown from fiat money collapse. If this were ever to happen, the total de facto lack of economic freedom would also lead to a totalitarian government (that the elites would set up to protect themselves), justifying a violent revolution and a return to freedom and a "clean slate" in terms of wealth distribution. If a totalitarian government didn't emerge and it actually represented the "sharecropping" people, I imagine some "possession is nine tenths of the law" property redistribution would be in order. That said, this is an extreme exception to the rule, since it can only happen as a result of central banking collapse (and central banks are alien to a real free market). Even then, it could only happen in the "perfect storm" of circumstances.

 

[cageybee]

Give frequent televised speeches explaining to the people exactly what is happening to them and why. I would warn against selling their fishing rod for a fish, figuratively speaking.
Make a very clear change in foreign policy. I'd address the people and nations of the world with a sincere apology for past US foreign policy, scale the CIA down to mere intelligence gathering (no peacetime cloak & dagger operations, no agitating for civil wars and revolts, etc.), pull our troops back home from abroad, and leave our bases to the people of the countries who hosted them to use as they see fit. I'd end foreign aid, I'd stop funding wars all over the world, and I'd do everything I could to pull out of the "free trade" agreements which oppress people in every single participating country, including our own.

i totally support this view, but this had to be done years earlier.

the main problem with pulling out from Iraq and Afghanistan and from everywhere around the world would literaly mean that we would have to crash economically, because we'd lose control of oil transactions immediately and the USD will no longer be the world currency. that would follow by nightmare hyperinflation and everyone who owns dollars would immediately become a poor man including bill gates.

the whole wall street would be bought up and then followed by foreigners buying up as much real estate possible, and then all the businesses that are not on wall street would be bought up too.

so, how would you deal with that as a president?

oh, and you would have to start drilling for your own oil and will not be able to buy anymore oil from other countries for dollars - only for gold, euros, other currencies, or hard goods in a way of a trade.

and, since the dollars would not be accepted anymore, and would become useless, we would no longer be able to buy anything from other countries. this means we would have to start our own production for lots of things so that we could have something to trade with other nations. this could take many many years to establish. until then, there would be millions of starving and dying or fleeing people from the country.

 

[Mini-Me]

i guess i am asking tough questions now. all the discussion participants are silent all of a sudden.

I went to hang out with my dog for a bit, since I hadn't been giving her enough attention and she was getting a bit upset with me.

In a nutshell, Ron Paul's answers are the right ones, whether they're implemented before or after economic collapse. The scenario of foreigners buying everything for pennies on the dollar is extremely far-fetched, even if it is possible. Even if they dumped all of their dollars into our market right now, they could not buy up enough property in America to enslave us as a nation of sharecroppers. If Ron Paul's policies were implemented right now (or after an economic collapse), the only way elites could enslave us is if the "era of freedom" started out with an extremely rigged playing field where they already owned literally 90% or more of land. Such a monopoly on the land would make it nearly impossible for a meaningful "other economy" to develop outside of the bought-out economy.

However, is this possible? I mentioned in my last post that it's probably theoretically possible, but right now I'm trying to work out exactly how (for fun, I guess).

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

Let the shieks and elites but all the land.

Possession is 9/10s of the rule. We didn't sell the country out, and if the choice was let farmland go unused and starve or dare them to enforce their ownership (they they attained through a rigged and illegal system called fiat money) I would raise arms for the latter.

 

[cageybee]

I went to hang out with my dog for a bit, since I hadn't been giving her enough attention and she was getting a bit upset with me.

In a nutshell, Ron Paul's answers are the right ones, whether they're implemented before or after economic collapse. The scenario of foreigners buying everything for pennies on the dollar is extremely far-fetched, even if it is possible. Even if they dumped all of their dollars into our market right now, they could not buy up enough property in America to enslave us as a nation of sharecroppers. If Ron Paul's policies were implemented right now (or after an economic collapse), the only way elites could enslave us is if the "era of freedom" started out with an extremely rigged playing field where they already owned literally 90% or more of land. Such a monopoly on the land would make it nearly impossible for a meaningful "other economy" to develop outside of the bought-out economy.

However, is this possible? I mentioned in my last post that it's probably theoretically possible, but right now I'm trying to work out exactly how (for fun, I guess).

look, the truth is we are in Afghanistan because the Russian FSB turned CIA created "mujahedeen-muslim-terrorist" apparatus against USA after USA has created these guys to overthrow a 60 years old pro-Russian government in Afghanistan. Russian FSB has persuaded them to turn around against USA. Afghanistan is a key country for all of the middle-eastern energy reserves. Middle-East has 3/4th of the world's energy - as Brzezinski said it in his book: whoever controls or dominates those middle-eastern energy reserves - is going to be the superpower.

In 2000, Saddam Husein started asking for Euros. This scared US because they were afraid that Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Qataris would follow suit. US has figured out that they need to get in there so that they can stop this. US got in, changed all oil accounts back to US dollars from Euros.

Later, Iran started asking for Euros. In December 2007 Iran has completely stopped accepting US dollars for its oil. Around 2 weeks ago, Iran opened a petroleum exchange which invites all the countries that export oil and petrochemicals to trade at this exchange. USD is not accepted at this exchange.

Now, if Saudis and the whole Eurasian OPEC countries will start trading their oil at this exchange for Euros, then US dollar will lose its backing and will become a toilet paper on the international exchange. No one will want USD. For them it will be just a paper. Do you understand???

Now, if we can't buy anything, our import-based lifestyle will just crash. A country that does not have its own production that pretty much imports everything, how is this country is going to survive until years later we finally start producing things?

Can you elaborate on this please, mr president ?

 

[Mini-Me]

i totally support this view, but this had to be done years earlier.

the main problem with pulling out from Iraq and Afghanistan and from everywhere around the world would literaly mean that we would have to crash economically, because we'd lose control of oil transactions immediately and the USD will no longer be the world currency. that would follow by nightmare hyperinflation and everyone who owns dollars would immediately become a poor man including bill gates.

Well, here's the thing - we would lose coercive control of oil transactions, which we've kept denominated in dollars through threat of force, but I think the change in tone of the US government (and the promise of a reversal in monetary policy) might stay the hand of foreign "dollar-dumpers." Even if it didn't, the dollar-dumping scenario is something we'd have to face if we kept our current policy of strongarming other countries, too. However, I don't think it would lead to hyperinflation if the catalyst for dollar-dumping was a reversal of US policy. Foreign dollar-dumping would certainly flood the domestic market with already-printed dollars and raise prices, but hyperinflation happens on the demand side of the equation: It only occurs if people expect that inflation will continue to happen, meaning they'd better buy real goods with their money as fast as they can before their money is worthless. The correction in prices that dollar-dumping would cause is a long time coming and it will be pretty harsh, but as long as the government promises not to print any more (which it would only do with intelligent people like Ron Paul in charge), Americans wouldn't panic. That said, let's say either hyperinflation happens anyway or "the revolution" occurs after hyperinflation, and continue...in that case, yes - everyone still holding dollars would be a poor person, including Bill Gates.

the whole wall street would be bought up and then followed by foreigners buying up as much real estate possible, and then all the businesses that are not on wall street would be bought up too.

Here's where your logic errs...if people holding dollars are poor, people holding real wealth - land, factories, and other means of production - would be rich. Only total idiots would sell their assets for dollars in this kind of situation, and even if they were willing to sell them for foreign currencies, their asking prices would be extremely high in the face of such uncertainty. At these kind of asking prices, foreign investors would probably be quite hesitant to invest in American companies when the entire economy has already imploded on itself...and if foreign investors DID see a wonderful buying opportunity, rest assured that American business owners would see a wonderful keeping opportunity.

As I mentioned before, it might be theoretically possible for elites (foreign or domestic) to buy up all of America wholesale, but hyperinflation isn't sufficient for that to occur. In fact, just the opposite would have to occur - such a scenario could only be the result of an extreme deflationary panic and/or an extreme number of loan defaults from deflation, and even that is not sufficient for America to be bought up entirely and permanently turned into a nation of sharecroppers where absolutely no competition is ever possible (even under a real free market). To make competition impossible even under a real free market, a small handful of elite investors would have to buy up perhaps 90% of the land in America. Only with an overwhelming monopoly on the sources of production (ultimately, land) can elites prevent the emergence of a competing "outside market." Obviously, government coercion and a corporate-fascist system of laws (especially legal tender laws!) can and will make it easy to be monopolistic, and that's the way things work in our own system - but unless more than 90% of the land in America is already owned by a small handful of elites at the start of an "era of freedom," a monopoly cannot permanently be held. If they have enough land to create their own communities, a growing number of people will simply refuse to do business with their "monopolistic masters," and with shrinking numbers of workers and consumers, the monopolies will have no choice but to go out of business.

So...is it theoretically possible for elites to buy up at least 90% of America in a deflationary panic? Yes, but I'm thinking some deception has to be involved somewhere, too (like foreign or domestic elites quickly unleashing a flood of money the market didn't even know existed, hence the low prices). It could only really happen in a situation where a small handful of people are singing, "I know something you don't know!"

Anyway, that's deflationary panic, not hyperinflation. If hyperinflation occurred in the event of dollar-dumping, the solution is to severely cut government spending to stop expanding the money supply - and to make sure everyone knows what you're doing. Eventually, people will realize that unless they want to participate in direct bartering, they'll have no choice but to start using money again as a medium of exchange. Hell, even in Zimbabwe, they still use money. In other words, adopting decent policies will reinstill enough confidence in the dollar that the world keeps turning. However, the dollar is fundamentally flawed, since it's based on credit - the only real solution is to eliminate legal tender laws. That way, the market can choose for itself what to use as currency, and it's a safe bet that the market would pick gold.

In other words, even hyperinflation isn't impossible to recover from - the recovery begins as soon as you take government out of the market and stop printing money. The only situation I can really think of that might require government intervention and wealth redistribution is the "end of the world" deflationary panic mentioned above, where a small group of people accumulate such an overwhelming amount of land that competition becomes impossible. Even so, I think of it this way: If policy changes before the armageddon of deflationary panics occurs, then such a panic won't happen and government intervention will therefore be unnecessary. If policy doesn't change first, then the owners of all that land will also own the government (literally and figuratively), and government intervention will never occur in our favor. Regardless of whether elites buy up America overnight (through deflationary panic) or slowly (through the NWO and one-world government), the solution to that will be the same: Either violent revolution will succeed, or their system will eventually collapse for economic reasons (whether it's in our lifetimes or not). Either way, I don't think the people of the world and/or America would be all too respectful of the property rights of their prior masters. Society would simply start over...hopefully under principles of freedom.

so, how would you deal with that as a president?

oh, and you would have to start drilling for your own oil and will not be able to buy anymore oil from other countries for dollars - only for gold, euros, other currencies, or hard goods in a way of a trade.

So, back to hyperinflation:
I've just cured the hyperinflation problem by ending the ridiculous practice of printing money. Oil around the world will be denominated in a currency other than the dollar, but once the dollar stabilizes (and/or competing currencies based on commodities emerge), you can buy oil with anything. You'll just have to figure out the exchange rate first.

That said, once free market policies were established, the American market would start to more seriously consider and develop cleaner and cheaper alternatives to oil anyways.

 

[Mini-Me]

Let the shieks and elites but all the land.

Possession is 9/10s of the rule. We didn't sell the country out, and if the choice was let farmland go unused and starve or dare them to enforce their ownership (they they attained through a rigged and illegal system called fiat money) I would raise arms for the latter.

Hehe...indeed. As I mentioned, if elites had a monopoly over land, "I imagine some 'possession is nine tenths of the law' property redistribution would be in order." Somehow I get the feeling that a just government would kind of...turn a blind eye to your actions, just this once

To make an aside about moral philosophy:
Normally speaking, libertarians often consider the non-aggression principle to be the be-all and end-all of morality, but this is not entirely true. Under ordinary circumstances, any act of aggression is immoral, but under extreme circumstances, some aggression can be warranted (such as you raising arms against your masters). On the other hand, there are some immoral actions that are not covered by aggression, namely when a refusal to act (even when it would cost you little) creates great suffering for a person. To give an example: You're at a pool with one other person. They bump their head, go unconscious, and begin to drown. You have a choice to make: Either you can take a minute out of your day and save them, or you can leave them to drown. By the standards of the non-aggression principle, neither act is immoral. However, it's pretty clear that letting the person drown is a callous, evil, and dare I say, immoral act. In fact, this particular example is so extreme that making a law against it might be justified.

However, most examples of allowing something to happen are not so clear-cut. There are many shades of gray, and as such, calling such things immoral requires a value judgment that the law is simply incapable of fairly and consistently applying - except in extreme circumstances. Giving the government the authority to make such value judgments is a slippery slope. To give a more "gray" example, some people probably don't give as much as they "should" to charitable causes. While this is somewhat callous, they nevertheless have the right to their own property, and the government (and/or a collective) has no right to steal it from them and redistribute it. As Ron Paul has said, the government can't make you a better person. For these reasons, the non-aggression principle is a good, solid principle to base laws off of in almost all circumstances, since it's quite objective and doesn't require subjective equivocation.

That said...there are exceptions to every rule. Refusing to save someone's life at no cost to yourself (except a minute of time) is an exception where a clearly immoral act does not violate the non-aggression principle. "Stealing" the property of a coercive monopoly that owns all of the land in America is an exception where an act violates the non-aggression principle but is quite justifiable. Because of the "slippery slope," I hesitated to admit that nonaggressive actions are sometimes immoral and aggressive actions are sometimes not immoral. After all, once you admit that the non-aggression principle is just a good rule of thumb rather than the ultimate decider in all cases, collectivists will immediately jump on the opportunity to push the government into every situation, equivocate to their hearts' desires, and claim that the non-aggression principle is entirely bunk in their attempts to rationalize and justify gross infringements of people's rights.

 

[cageybee]

OK, I think you are misunderstanding something...

If Saudis decide to accept Euros tomorrow - that's it, the end, its over, finish for US dollar. USD will no longer be a world currency. No one needs to start selling the dollar. The moment Saudis come on TV and say "From now on we accept Euros only" at that moment, well, first Bush will have a heart attack, then from that moment USD will no longer be accepted at any country other than USA, and there will be a hyperinflation like it was in Germany once when one dollar went from being worth 4 marks to 1 trillion marks. In this case, 1 Euro could get up to 1 trillion dollars or more since there are too many worthless dollars in the world. they will not even be worth a paper its printed on.

Ever since we went away from a gold standard and tied our currency to Saudi oil we fucked up our own future. Since then, we have to make sure that Saudis are extremely happy and are very well protected so that no one can change their mind. and we must make sure that all oil transactions in the whole middle-east are done in USD.

Now, Putin has been woeing Saudis and their relations have been getting stronger. Once more and more countries will start to trade on Iranian Oil Bourse, then the dollar will start to fall in value even faster. At this point, Saudis will pull their 2 trillion dollars from our economy and will switch them to Euros. Then they will make a statement that they will only accept Euros from that point.

So, you see, USA can not get the soldiers out of all the bases without realizing that it would cause a total destruction to USA with millions of people dying from starvation and a complete chaos, because we will not be able to buy anything from anyone and we will be the cheapest country in the world and the poorest country in the world, and without a future.

And believe me, they will be here buying everything that they can get their hands on even if it is overpriced. Because they will be toooo rich and people here will be toooo hungry.

 

[Mini-Me]

OK, I think you are misunderstanding something...

If Saudis decide to accept Euros tomorrow - that's it, the end, its over, finish for US dollar. USD will no longer be a world currency. No one needs to start selling the dollar. The moment Saudis come on TV and say "From now on we accept Euros only" at that moment, well, first Bush will have a heart attack, then from that moment USD will no longer be accepted at any country other than USA, and there will be a hyperinflation like it was in Germany once when one dollar went from being worth 4 marks to 1 trillion marks. In this case, 1 Euro could get up to 1 trillion dollars or more since there are too many worthless dollars in the world. they will not even be worth a paper its printed on.

Well, you were asking me how I would handle the situation. If I was in charge and the Saudi's stopped accepting the dollar, and the rest of the world stopped accepting the dollar, we would not necessarily go into hyperinflation domestically. Why? Because domestic Americans would still accept the dollar, so long as the President went on TV and said, "We are not going to keep debasing the currency. The monetary inflation will stop. Bernanke has been sacked, and I personally shaved off one of his eyebrows and made him cry on camera. By the way, to give you an idea how many dollars are actually in circulation so you have something to base your prices off of compared to their last stable levels..."

Foreign countries will not simply reject the dollar as payment, unless they were cutting off all trade to the US just to spite us. Keeping trade open but refusing to accept dollars at all would imply that the exchange rates were infinite (i.e. you couldn't buy any foreign currencies with dollars). Rather, until some stability came to the dollar, the exchange rates would just be pretty extreme. As I mentioned before, though, hyperinflation occurs because people expect more inflation. It's essentially a situation where people expect that dollars will soon be worth less than they are now, quickly driving down their worth. People end up hoarding real goods and buying everything they can to dump their dollars before they devalue any further. However, even in Zimbabwe, they still USE the money. Because of that, the way to cure hyperinflation domestically is to stop printing money and let confidence return domestically (and even better, to eliminate legal tender laws and allow competing currencies). Once people stop panicking and see the government's being honest, confidence will return and the demand for the dollar will increase, bringing prices back into equilibrium.

Hyperinflation is a terrible thing, but it's not the end of the world, especially if the government corrects its mistakes instead of making them over and over again (like Zimbabwe). Now, our government under our current leaders? They'll probably continue making the same mistakes. What they'll try to do is "stimulate" the economy by printing more and more money, but that obviously just feeds the hyperinflation. In the past, what would happen is governments would keep reinforcing this cycle to the point where they couldn't even print money fast enough to keep the actual money supply in equilibrium with the outrageous prices (driven by speculation of further monetary inflation, ironically ), causing them to just add more and more zeroes to paper money. When the unit of measurement keeps rapidly changing behind the scenes, people have no idea what the real money supply is or what prices should really be. However, it's never too late to turn around - it's just that, the longer you wait, the more you're going to suffer. We're already at a point where we'll suffer quite a bit - but as I said, it's not the end of the world. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is the end of the world - well, at least for a few hundred years. A free market can recover by itself from any economic catastrophe, so long as the market is actually free (and it's not right now, but that's beside the point). The worst case scenario we're facing from solely economic problems (i.e. ignoring the emerging police state and the NWO) will be shortages...a good number of people could unfairly die of starvation through no fault of their own, and if it gets extremely bad, it might even approach the catastrophic levels of the typical, garden-variety famines that occur regularly under Communism.

Ever since we went away from a gold standard and tied our currency to Saudi oil we fucked up our own future. Since then, we have to make sure that Saudis are extremely happy and are very well protected so that no one can change their mind. and we must make sure that all oil transactions in the whole middle-east are done in USD.

Now, Putin has been woeing Saudis and their relations have been getting stronger. Once more and more countries will start to trade on Iranian Oil Bourse, then the dollar will start to fall in value even faster. At this point, Saudis will pull their 2 trillion dollars from our economy and will switch them to Euros. Then they will make a statement that they will only accept Euros from that point.

I agree with pretty much everything you said in this last section.

So, you see, USA can not get the soldiers out of all the bases without realizing that it would cause a total destruction to USA with millions of people dying from starvation and a complete chaos, because we will not be able to buy anything from anyone and we will be the cheapest country in the world and the poorest country in the world, and without a future.

Not really - besides Nintendo Wii's, the only thing we really depend on the rest of the world for is energy. America is self-sufficient in terms of all other basic needs. America is leaving foreign countries soon, one way or another. Either we collapse first and cannot afford it anymore (we technically can't even now, but just like moronic credit card debtors, we're just digging ourselves deeper until the shit hits the fan), or we pull out voluntarily. If we pull soldiers out of foreign countries voluntarily, that indicates someone like Ron Paul is in charge - meaning we're also returning to sound monetary policies. As I mentioned above, hyperinflation would end the moment sound monetary policies were initiated. Period. That means that, unless foreign countries just wanted to spite us, they'd resume trade soon, seeing we got our act back together. We'd still owe them a buttload of money, but they'd understand that refusing to trade with us would make us much less likely to repay - and nobody in their right mind wants war (well, it depends on if the bankers are "in their right mind").

And believe me, they will be here buying everything that they can get their hands on even if it is overpriced. Because they will be toooo rich and people here will be toooo hungry.

This is impossible. You seem to have a backwards understanding of hyperinflation: Foreign countries are not currently able, with the number of dollars they have, to "buy up the US wholesale." In other words, they're not "toooo rich" already. As I mentioned, that would require a deflationary crisis so extreme that it's about as likely as me reappearing on the moon five seconds from now as a freak glitch in quantum mechanics.

Now, if we go into a short bout of hyperinflation (i.e. a momentary panic that isn't followed by further monetary inflation, so it eventually settles), that means prices are SKYROCKETING, and foreigners simply won't be able to afford to buy anything with dollars. People won't sell their businesses for dollars if they can't even BUY anything with dollars.

If we enter into hyperinflation yet CONTINUE to stupidly print money (like Zimbabwe, where you're paying over a hundred thousand dollars for a roll of toilet paper - literally), then foreigners will be even less likely to have the kind of money it would take to buy out businesses. Why is this? Well, under hyperinflation, the demand for the dollar is low, so foreigners won't be exactly hoarding their dollars and trying to accumulate as many as possible so they can buy out American companies. It's such a losing proposition that I'd dare anyone to try it. We may be able to get away with monetizing our current debt (a big no-no that would really piss those countries off), but that's as much as they'd be willing to accept from us, dollars-wise. If hyperinflation occurs and monetary inflation still continues Bernanke-style, the newly printed dollars will be circulating domestically (where they're forced on us), not in the foreign market, making the dollars held by foreigners worth less and less every day due to the sheer number of dollars held by Americans. Since foreigners holding dollars lose buying power under hyperinflation, that means that if they're not "toooo rich" already, they certainly won't be if we hyperinflate. That's why inflation steals wealth from people holding dollars.

In other words, hyperinflation does not lead to land being bought and sold for pennies. Hyperinflation leads to hoarding of everything with real value.

 

[Mini-Me]

look, the truth is we are in Afghanistan because the Russian FSB turned CIA created "mujahedeen-muslim-terrorist" apparatus against USA after USA has created these guys to overthrow a 60 years old pro-Russian government in Afghanistan. Russian FSB has persuaded them to turn around against USA. Afghanistan is a key country for all of the middle-eastern energy reserves. Middle-East has 3/4th of the world's energy - as Brzezinski said it in his book: whoever controls or dominates those middle-eastern energy reserves - is going to be the superpower.

In 2000, Saddam Husein started asking for Euros. This scared US because they were afraid that Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Qataris would follow suit. US has figured out that they need to get in there so that they can stop this. US got in, changed all oil accounts back to US dollars from Euros.

Later, Iran started asking for Euros. In December 2007 Iran has completely stopped accepting US dollars for its oil. Around 2 weeks ago, Iran opened a petroleum exchange which invites all the countries that export oil and petrochemicals to trade at this exchange. USD is not accepted at this exchange.

Now, if Saudis and the whole Eurasian OPEC countries will start trading their oil at this exchange for Euros, then US dollar will lose its backing and will become a toilet paper on the international exchange. No one will want USD. For them it will be just a paper. Do you understand???

Now, if we can't buy anything, our import-based lifestyle will just crash. A country that does not have its own production that pretty much imports everything, how is this country is going to survive until years later we finally start producing things?

Can you elaborate on this please, mr president ?

Oops - I totally missed this post. Sorry about that. Our import-based lifestyle of consumerism is going to end, one way or another. Regardless of what happens, we will not be of any use to the rest of the world until we start offering tangible goods.

However (as I mentioned in my last post), the only thing we really depend on foreign countries for is oil. Under a free market, alternatives will finally emerge. Until then, we can drill in the ANWAR...but even this will only be necessary if we're stupid enough to respond to speculative hyperinflation with actual monetary hyperinflation (i.e. start up the printing presses and add a bunch of zeroes ).

Right now, oil is denominated in dollars, but that doesn't mean other currencies around the world are "worthless paper" in the oil market. Rather, oil is priced in dollars and then sold, based on exchange rates, in other currencies. When the US dollar loses its reserve currency status, oil will no longer be denominated in dollars, but unless there's continued hyperinflation, people will still be able to buy oil in dollars - they will just have to be converted into another currency first, either literally or figuratively (for a comparison based on exchange rates). Therefore, the key is making sure that hyperinflation either doesn't occur or that it's short-lived. The trick here is to stop printing money, to let people know how much money is really in existence, and [the best solution of all] to abolish legal tender laws and let people trade whatever they want as a medium of exchange. If you were stupid enough to print bills with extra zeroes, it will take a lot longer for people to actually believe you that you stopped printing money, but once they do, prices with stabilize. Under sound monetary policies, people would stop panicking domestically, and business as usual will resume. Once domestic hyperinflation stops, confidence will also return to the international market, and hyperinflation will stop there, too.

In other words, we'll only be barred from buying oil for as long as the world market has no idea what each dollar is actually worth. Once the confusion clears and the value stabilizes (no matter what the value stabilizes at), trade will resume - unless they just want to spite us, in which case we can drill in the ANWAR. Now, although I have largely glossed over this part of the equation, I've actually been...oversimplifying a bit. If we don't go into sustained hyperinflation, we'll actually end up facing a painful deflationary credit crunch. Our economy will not be happy and carefree, especially because of its lack of production - however, the world will not stop turning.

Although the best solution is to get rid of legal tender laws (allow competing currencies) and outlaw fractional reserve banking as counterfeit and fraud, I'm mentally toying around with another novel "Government plays God" solution that may or may not work in theory. Due to corruption inherent in government and fiat money, it would never be a final solution in practice (currency debasement would happen again sometime down the road as long as the government has the power to do it). However, out of sheer morbid curiosity, I'm wondering if it's theoretically feasible. My gut tells me something is horribly wrong with this idea, but anyway...I'm curious about what might happen if we kept the fiat dollar as legal tender, but we outlawed fractional reserve banking and passed a decree that all debts to domestic banks are forgiven, yet the banks do not have to destroy their reserves like they would if debtors merely defaulted. Banks charge interest for loaning out money because they risk their reserves when they do so - ending debt-based money this way would not hurt the banks, because they don't lose the reserves they risked, nor would it hurt debtors (in fact, debtors get extremely lucky, since they don't have to repay all that money!). In other words, this would convert all of the cyclical credit-based fiat money in existence into fixed-supply fiat money to avoid the deflationary credit contraction. This would obviously distort the market (since who gets lucky from it is based on the completely arbitrary question of who had debt), but it would be a sort of "final distortion," a way to end the increasingly destructive cycle of credit expansion and contraction. It seems like one final bout of devaluation and redistribution that makes money permanent would be worth it...surely, it beats the alternatives (except for the best option, competing currencies and commodity-backed currencies). I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me could quickly explain a fatal flaw, but I haven't yet figured out why it might come back to bite us years later the way inflationary credit expansions later haunt us with deflationary credit contractions.

ANYWAY...how do we return to a production-based economy? THAT is the difficult one. It will definitely take years of hard work and effort to truly rebuild our industrial base, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Our agricultural base will sustain us as a society in the meantime. I think you're looking for me to provide a quick and easy answer, but there is no quick and easy answer. We made our bed, and now we must lie in it. We're going to go through tough times, but there's no avoiding it at this point - the only real question is how well we handle hardship:

• If we were to become a Communist nation, forced industrialization would quickly bring our manufacturing base back (the same way the USSR was quickly industrialized), but misallocations of capital would come at the same terrible cost in lives, aside from lives taken by the inevitable tyranny of the state. After a quick bipolar honeymoon filled with both rapid industrialization and death, the longterm effects on both the economy and the human spirit would be abysmal. While some people starve to death, others will live quite comfortably, oblivious of the famine around them (because the state-run media certainly won't be talking much about it). It all depends on the luck of the draw. This is the worst hell on Earth imaginable, especially for people who value freedom. I think I've already sufficiently explained my low opinion of Communism.
• A free market based on sound money would probably reindustrialize at a somewhat slower and more reserved rate, since the industrialization will not be forced down the throats of the people at a breakneck pace. The market would instead go at its own natural pace, which is slightly slower due to some conservatism in risk-taking. Odds are, people would adopt some of the practices of the Great Depression, like raising chickens and rabbits and such for food, etc. Recovery of the manufacturing base will happen a bit slower, but less people will die from shortages of food, and it will pave the road for long-term prosperity...and freedom.
  Choosing this road is by far the best option, but I have a feeling we might have to go through some pretty dark times before people wake up enough to realize it. We've grown complacent as a people, and this led to our demise...we let government go totally rampant. Hardship can bring out the best (and sometimes the worst) in people though, so the chance of a mass awakening is not completely out of the question. If it happens, I think we will correct the biggest mistake we made in the US Constitution - forgetting to give it teeth that severely punish treasonous politicians who violate it and expand the power of the government (implementing this is a complex discussion unto itself, but it can be done). With more experience under our belt, with the horrible policies of the past fresh in our minds, and without the baggage we had 230 years ago (such as rampant racism, sexism, and slavery), we may actually have the first chance in history for lasting freedom and prosperity.
• Or, we can continue on our current course, do stupid things like monetize the debt, print money with more zeroes, and lick the boots of our masters when they introduce the NAU and the Amero as the solution to all of our problems. Eventually, we'll end up with a one-world government. Like statist Communism, this is also the worst hell on Earth imaginable (just the flip side of the same coin of collective totalitarianism), with the additional bonus of treating us to an agonizingly gradual decline where people like you and me see what is happening but may or may not be able to stop it. Until we get our act together, this is where we're headed.

And, uh...now, it's definitely time for me to go to bed.

 

[Meatwasp]

Cageybee (KGB) . is obiously trying to get recruits for his slime agenda. Tells some truth and than slips in the propaganda. Very communistic!

 

[clouds]

ha, I like where this argument went after I went to bed.

 

[constituent]

capitalism is a root of all physical, economic, and information wars. The constant greed, need, and love for capital is always forcing entrepreneurs to get creative so that they can find more way how to gain massive capital while taking it from someone else. capitalism is not a WIN/WIN solution. it is in fact unethical and immoral. that's what Andropov said about Americans to Ronald Reagan.

sounds like the state to me.

and how is communism a win/win?

 

[Meatwasp]

We will advise and consult the discontented and they themselves will be our forces.
(Communist manifesto)