What if the American decline never happens?

[Razor]

He's anti-war, anti-NATO, anti-offshoring.

IE he's anti-establishment. Hillary is more of the same.

I think you mean to say he claims to be anti-war etc. but can he ignore geopolitical pressures if he becomes POTUS?

For eg. Leave NATO? Ditch Jpn. SoKo? Then both W. Europe and E. Asia will move away from American sphere of influence.

Also he says stuff like, "build a wall" and Mexico "will pay". Really?
And this guy doesn't even know what nuke triad is?

 

[Tamil TigerWoods]

I think you mean to say he claims to be anti-war etc. but can he ignore geopolitical pressures if he becomes POTUS?

For eg. Leave NATO? Ditch Jpn. SoKo? Then both W. Europe and E. Asia will move away from American sphere of influence.

Also he says stuff like, "build a wall" and Mexico "will pay". Really?
And this guy doesn't even know what nuke triad is?

Aside from the Mexican wall thing, what has he spurted off on thus far that seems implausible?

 

[Zebra]

Can you tell me why D. Trump is a better choice?
I mean, what are they reasons he is better than hillary at ruling the US?
Is it because he appears to be a "conservative" or is it because he muslims/immigrants/mexicans are "dangerous"?
Is it his economic ideas? Is he going to magically curb the growth rate of american Hispanics?

Its very simple, D. Trump is better, few points why ......

* he will force friendly nations of US to spend at-least 2% of GDP in defence budget.
* he is against all those type of wars, in which US already decided not to win.
* he is famous for his tough stand against all kind of terrorism.
* he is against currency manipulation.
* he has that capabilities to bring back stability in world again.
* he is very soft and took helping approach for home-less people in US, (socialist don't give a damn about their own people and you can't be a great nation until you take care of your needy people).

 

[Razor]

Aside from the Mexican wall thing, what has he spurted off on thus far that seems implausible?

I don't follow these things closely, so I don't know what other fantasies he has spurted out.
But from the videos I saw off him, he comes off as too straightforward to the point of being naive.
He seems to be riding mainly on public sentiment against mexicans/immigrants and muslims.
As much of a lunatic Hillary is, at least she is an experienced lunatic unlike DT, who seems more like big talk.
Lets see what happens though.

 

[Razor]

Its very simple, D. Trump is better, few points why ......

*1 he will force friendly nations of US to spend at-least 2% of GDP in defence budget.
*2 he is against all those type of wars, in which US already decided not to win.
*3 he is famous for his tough stand against all kind of terrorism.
*4 he is against currency manipulation.
*5 he has that capabilities to bring back stability in world again.
*6 he is very soft and took helping approach for home-less people in US, (socialist don't give a damn about their own people and you can't be a great nation until you take care of your needy people).

No it's not "very simple" actually.

I personally don't have a preference for DT or HC, coz neither am I american nor do I live in america.

But some thoughts on your points:

1. That may eventually lead to collapse of NATO etc and diminishing of US influence across world.
2. These wars/conflicts/disturbances are necessary to maintain control of the region, erect puppet systems and derive profit for american corporations. Eg: If america had not not erected faithful puppets in KSA, Jordan, UAE etc all these (arab populated sunni) regions may tend to unite to form a regional hegemon ot they may fragment to form small fiefdoms; either way america loses control which is not good for america supremacy.
3. "famous" by way of what? Big talk? Or he went and fought some terrorists? Just big talk right? I can do that too.
4. What has he done?
5. Big talk... Though there may be some truth to it. But in the process of bringing back the stability, america might lose its prominence, because guys like PRC and Rus or even Eur will not just look and sit idle.
6. No relevance

 

[Razor]

@pmaitra : Will DT bring about the American decline faster or will it be HC?

My money on DT.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra : Will DT bring about the American decline faster or will it be HC?

My money on DT.

Neither DT, nor HRC will bring about the downfall of the USA. The downfall of the USA started with Nixon and his unpegging of the US Dollar from the Gold Standard.

Whoever becomes the POTUS, they will have inherited a decades long mathematically unfounded economic situation which is difficult to get out of.

 

[Razor]

Neither DT, nor HRC will bring about the downfall of the USA. The downfall of the USA started with Nixon and his unpegging of the US Dollar from the Gold Standard.

Whoever becomes the POTUS, they will have inherited a decades long mathematically unfounded economic situation which is difficult to get out of.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this mathematically-lacking "foundation" of the economic situation isn't just limited to the US, is it?

 

[pmaitra]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this mathematically-lacking "foundation" of the economic situation isn't just limited to the US, is it?

No, it is a house of cards built upon a lot of thin air.

Consider this:

• USSR's external debt at the time of its collapse: 45 billion dollars.
• USA's current external debt: 19 trillion dollars, going to be around 21 trillion dollars.

This has been continuation so long only because the US dollar is the international currency of trade. It won't go on long, especially now that the petro-dollar is becoming less lucrative, and the US Treasury Bonds are not being sought after as much as back in the day.

 

[Razor]

No, it is a house of cards built upon a lot of thin air.

Consider this:

• USSR's external debt at the time of its collapse: 45 billion dollars.
• USA's current external debt: 19 trillion dollars, going to be around 21 trillion dollars.

This has been continuation so long only because the US dollar is the international currency of trade. It won't go on long, especially now that the petro-dollar is becoming less lucrative, and the US Treasury Bonds are not being sought after as much as back in the day.

So you are saying that after petro-dollar, there will be high inflation and mass unrest in the US?
What else might happen in your opinion?

 

[pmaitra]

So you are saying that after petro-dollar, there will be high inflation and mass unrest in the US?
What else might happen in your opinion?

It is pretty late now. This is a question that needs a long (and boring) answer.

Let me come back and respond, perhaps tomorrow?

 

[Razor]

It is pretty late now. This is a question that needs a long (and boring) answer.

Let me come back and respond, perhaps tomorrow?

Sure. I'm interested. Thanks.
...............................................................................

 

[Zebra]

No it's not "very simple" actually.

I personally don't have a preference for DT or HC, coz neither am I american nor do I live in america.

But some thoughts on your points:

1. That may eventually lead to collapse of NATO etc and diminishing of US influence across world.
2. These wars/conflicts/disturbances are necessary to maintain control of the region, erect puppet systems and derive profit for american corporations. Eg: If america had not not erected faithful puppets in KSA, Jordan, UAE etc all these (arab populated sunni) regions may tend to unite to form a regional hegemon ot they may fragment to form small fiefdoms; either way america loses control which is not good for america supremacy.
3. "famous" by way of what? Big talk? Or he went and fought some terrorists? Just big talk right? I can do that too.
4. What has he done?
5. Big talk... Though there may be some truth to it. But in the process of bringing back the stability, america might lose its prominence, because guys like PRC and Rus or even Eur will not just look and sit idle.
6. No relevance

Explain why it is not very simple.

The rest part is your own point of view.

And it could be anything, I don't mind.

First let him become President.

 

[pmaitra]

So you are saying that after petro-dollar, there will be high inflation and mass unrest in the US?
What else might happen in your opinion?

On the Petro-Dollar

As we all know, the Petro-Dollar is essentially the Dollar as the require currency to purchase oil, as agreed by the US and the Saudi regime back in the 70s. How does this contrast with the Gold Standard Dollar?

|             | Gold Standard Dollar                                               | Petro-Dollar                                                                                     |
| ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Difference  | Each dollar is backed by a finite amount of gold.                  | Each dollar is backed by the restriction that oil is only available for sale in dollars.         |
|             | Dollars are printed only when more gold is added to the reserves.  | Dollars once printed are in circulation, even if the oil purchased with that dollar is used up.  |
|             | More dollars there are, more gold there is in reserves.            | More dollars there are has nothing to do with how much oil there is.                             |
| ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Similarity  | Dollar has high demand because it is remunerated in gold.          | Dollar is in high demand because it is required to purchase oil.                                 |
|             |                                                                    |                                                                                                  |

So, now we have a few things to notice:

Glut in oil production.
Technological breakthrough in electric motor vehicles.
The above lead to cheap oil.


Cheap oil.
The above leads to less demand for dollars.


Less demand for dollars.
The above leads to weakening of the petro-dollar.​

In such a case, the US will not be able to offer its dollars to other countries in exchange for goods and services. This means, people in the US will have to start manufacturing things within the US itself.

Now, coming to the two points you mentioned:

• Inflation? Yes. Will it lead to mass unrest? Maybe or may not be. It depends.
• Mass unrest? Not if the government can provide jobs. People do not necessarily want to get paid for doing nothing. People do want to work. They just need the jobs.

I don't want there to be mass unrest of anything. I think the US government will eventually have to bring about import substitution policy, like Nehru did in India. That is certainly going to help the country. The US cannot keep borrowing money to keep its GDP figures high.

 

[Tamil TigerWoods]

A society is a product of its people.

White-Americans are militarily incapable, economically debilitating, and socially self-destructive (interracial marriage, drug and alcohol use, premarital sex, lacking a collective ambition). Blacks and Hispanics are economically marginalized and without any military or political power.....and as a result of economic marginalization, are socially dysfunctional (drugs, gangs, crime).

Thus....America will continue to recede into insignificance as China takes reign as global superpower.

 

[Razor]

On the Petro-Dollar

As we all know, the Petro-Dollar is essentially the Dollar as the require currency to purchase oil, as agreed by the US and the Saudi regime back in the 70s. How does this contrast with the Gold Standard Dollar?

|             | Gold Standard Dollar                                               | Petro-Dollar                                                                                     |
| ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Difference  | Each dollar is backed by a finite amount of gold.                  | Each dollar is backed by the restriction that oil is only available for sale in dollars.         |
|             | Dollars are printed only when more gold is added to the reserves.  | Dollars once printed are in circulation, even if the oil purchased with that dollar is used up.  |
|             | More dollars there are, more gold there is in reserves.            | More dollars there are has nothing to do with how much oil there is.                             |
| ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Similarity  | Dollar has high demand because it is remunerated in gold.          | Dollar is in high demand because it is required to purchase oil.                                 |
|             |                                                                    |                                                                                                  |

So, now we have a few things to notice:

Glut in oil production.
Technological breakthrough in electric motor vehicles.
The above lead to cheap oil.


Cheap oil.
The above leads to less demand for dollars.


Less demand for dollars.
The above leads to weakening of the petro-dollar.​

In such a case, the US will not be able to offer its dollars to other countries in exchange for goods and services. This means, people in the US will have to start manufacturing things within the US itself.

Now, coming to the two points you mentioned:

• Inflation? Yes. Will it lead to mass unrest? Maybe or may not be. It depends.
• Mass unrest? Not if the government can provide jobs. People do not necessarily want to get paid for doing nothing. People do want to work. They just need the jobs.

I don't want there to be mass unrest of anything. I think the US government will eventually have to bring about import substitution policy, like Nehru did in India. That is certainly going to help the country. The US cannot keep borrowing money to keep its GDP figures high.

Why did the US base the dollar on the crude oil system, something whose source is far away from the US, from the Europeans etc, something which, I think at that time & for the future times, was only precariously within their power?

 

[Razor]

1. Explain why it is not very simple.

2. The rest part is your own point of view.

3. And it could be anything, I don't mind.

First let him become President.

1. You said in your earlier post that it was simple and gave your points, I said in my reply that it was not simple and gave my points. Read your post and then my reply to it.

2. Yes, it is my opinion, just like the points you made were your opinion. But atleast I backed mine up with some logic; yours is backed by big talk from fake tan D. Trump.

3. Yes, it could be anything, I don't care either

PS: Hillary got pneumonia now, DT has a chance

 

[pmaitra]

Why did the US base the dollar on the crude oil system, something whose source is far away from the US, from the Europeans etc, something which, I think at that time & for the future times, was only precariously within their power?

Good question.

This takes us back to the confiscation of gold in the US, not by virtue of a Congressional Act, but by virtue of an Executive Order.

Spoiler: Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102

What followed was gold was hoarded by the US government.

Now, Dollars printed against this gold was supposed to keep the Dollar stable. So far, so good.

Now, we have a finite amount of gold, and thereby, a finite number of US Dollars.* This means, the economy cannot grow (false assumption, because, the number of Dollars in circulation does not correspond to the economy, just as much a higher GDP does not mean a larger economy).

In any event, this one article entitled "Nixon's Colossal Monetary Error: The Verdict 40 Years Later," gives a good view.

Excerpt (promises):

Domestically, we were promised that the manipulation of quantity and value of a paper dollar would avoid costly recessions, provide high employment, and produce strong economic growth. Internationally, we were promised that the devaluation of the dollar would reduce our trade deficit and improve the international competitiveness of American workers and businesses. And, because trade was only one-tenth of the U.S. economy, all of this could be done while maintaining price stability.

Excerpt (aftermath):

And, what about the promise that devaluing the dollar would magically improve our competitive position? During the past 40 years, the dollar has fallen in value by more than 70% against the euro/German mark and the Japanese yen. The U.S. had a modest net export surplus in 1971 before Nixon started the dollar on its downward path. Today, we have a $405 billion trade deficit.

Excerpt (explains relativity):

That’s right, the whole notion of an energy crisis and the ever more intrusive government regulations dictating energy usage are based on the grand illusion that the price of oil has gone up more than 30 fold, when in fact, it is the dollar whose value has fallen relative to gold, oil, and all other goods and services over the past 40 years.

This article was published in Forbes. This is very surprising.

_____________

*- One way to increase wealth while staying within the Gold Standard would be to increase production, export that in exchange for gold, and thus allow for printing of more dollars. In any event, inflation should be linked to essential commodities, such as food, energy, etc., and not just precious metals.

 

[Razor]

Good question.

This takes us back to the confiscation of gold in the US, not by virtue of a Congressional Act, but by virtue of an Executive Order.

Spoiler: Executive Order 6102

Executive Order 6102

What followed was gold was hoarded by the US government.

Damn, all your gold gone in a day. Only obedient zombie-minds (aka americans) will wilingly comply with that.

Now, Dollars printed against this gold was supposed to keep the Dollar stable. So far, so good.

Now, we have a finite amount of gold, and thereby, a finite number of US Dollars.* This means, the economy cannot grow (false assumption, because, the number of Dollars in circulation does not correspond to the economy, just as much a higher GDP does not mean a larger economy).

In any event, this one article entitled "Nixon's Colossal Monetary Error: The Verdict 40 Years Later," gives a good view.

Excerpt (promises):

Excerpt (aftermath):


This article was published in Forbes. This is very surprising.

_____________

*- One way to increase wealth while staying within the Gold Standard would be to increase production, export that in exchange for gold, and thus allow for printing of more dollars. In any event, inflation should be linked to essential commodities, such as food, energy, etc., and not just precious metals.

If they knew all this why did they go ahead with Oil. Still confused.

 

[pmaitra]

Damn, all your gold gone in a day. Only obedient zombie-minds (aka americans) will wilingly comply with that.


If they knew all this why did they go ahead with Oil. Still confused.

Why did the US go ahead with unpegging of the Dollar from the Gold Standard and switch to oil? The reasons are, or to be precise, the reasons given by Nixon are there in my previous post. More on this at the end.

Pegging of the dollar to oil was done so as to preserve its demand. If oil were available for other currencies, the US dollar wouldn't be so much sought after.

Now, let me go back to the promises Nixon made as to why he left the Gold Standard. He gave certain reasons for doing what he did. Are those the real reasons? That is for you to speculate.