quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - I agree, the Euro is getting much higher value then the Dollar. Meaning, less investment from US companies to the "internationals" , this case Europe. Meaning that the US will most likely have it's companies concentrate only mainly more in the US, meaning, hell damm bad economy.

Not necessarily, first of all a weaker currency will result in a large increase of exports. Germany's recessionary tendencies are as a result of its decreasing manufacturing orders which are due to the strong Euro. Already, the European Central Bank is coming under much criticism for not lowering interest rates, and decreasing the value of the Euro. Instead it is fighting some kind of imaginary inflation that is not affecting most of the countries in the EU. Look at Japan, they have consistently been trying to keep the value of the yen lower than the value of the dollar in order to reap the benefits of the trade balance. With regards to opec switching currency, what impact will that bring? We're talking about countries with GDP's maybe the 10th the size of the US's. But even if it does have an impact it's unlikely that they will switch currencies based upon the value of a currency. If so they would have switched to British pounds long ago. If the value of the dollar goes down, they simply get more dollars for each barrel of oil sold. As long as the dollar remains a solvent currency that can be trusted, it will remain the dominant trading currency. Especially since it has a solid 100 year history behind it. The Euro has a 5 year history or whatever, and with an uncertain future (and an uncertain economic future) I don't see it becoming the new trade currency simply because it has a higher value.

With regards to the issue of US companies investing less overceas, that is likely true. However, this investment will be concentrated in the US which is good. Additionally a weaker dollar will attract foreign investment from countries with stronger currencies and will result in an influx of capital into the country which is also good. Currency trading and the effect of currency valuation on economics is extremely complex and it cannot be broken down to the simple equation of weaker currency = weaker economy.

Edit: It has just been confirmed that the German economy is in a state of recession (2 consecutive quarters of negative growth). For additional read on the problems between the ECB and the German economy (the largest in the EU) read this:

www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1785331

Buck up people! The US economy is comparatively in good shape. Deflation is a worry yes, but it's too early to be spouting claims of doom and gloom about deflation

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on May-17-2003 at 15:21

- Very true Occrider, makes sense, but, aren't the majority of the US companies getting a great majority of their profits from their international investments and sales?!?!.. and Europe is one of hte most important, if not, the most important market for the US.

occrider, they won't switch because of the value of that currency but because of the confidence in that currency. Currently the euro is faring well while the dollar is not, and because the value of the euro is almost identical it makes the transition a lot easier.

There is a very real danger that the euro can become the standard global currency. You've also got to remember that politics and economics can sometimes mix - the US has a lot of enemies around the world who now have an alternative currency. Once more nations join the euro bandwagon others will see it as the sensible decision. That's assuming everything goes well, but you can't underestimate the danger this poses to the dollar.

I'll most certainly continue the economics debate in a little bit, but before that, I actually got off my lazy ass and did a little research into the draft resolutions put forth by the US and great britain with regards to Iraqi oil revenues, (rather than rely on the stupid media as we are so prone to do) and these are the actual excerpts from the resolution that I found:

quote:

8. Requests the Secretary General to appoint a Special Coordinator for Iraq whose responsibilities will involve coordinating the U.N.'s activities in post-conflict processes in Iraq, coordinating among U.N. and international agencies engaged in humanitarian assistance and reconstruction activities in Iraq, coordinating with the Authority, and assisting the people of Iraq through: (a) support for and coordination of humanitarian and reconstruction assistance by U.N. agencies and nongovernmental organizations; (b) support for the orderly and voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons; (c) working with the Authority and the people of Iraq with respect to the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance; (d) facilitating the reconstruction of key infrastructure, in cooperation with other international organizations; (e) promoting economic reconstruction and the conditions for sustainable development, including through coordination with national and regional organizations, as appropriate, civil society, donors and the international financial institutions; (f) encouraging international efforts to contribute to basic civilian administration functions; (g) promoting human rights; (h) encouraging international efforts to rebuild the capacity of the Iraqi civilian police force; (i) supporting international efforts to promote legal and judicial reform; 9. Calls upon Member States and international and regional organizations to contribute to the implementation of this resolution; 10. Supports the formation, by the people of Iraq with the help of the Authority and working with the Special Coordinator, of an Iraqi interim authority as a transitional administration run by Iraqis until a permanent government is established by the people of Iraq; 11. Decides that, with the exception of prohibitions related to the sale or supply to Iraq of arms and related materiel other than those arms and related material required by the Coalition to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions, all prohibitions related to trade with Iraq and the provision of financial or economic resources to Iraq established by Resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions, including Resolution 778, shall no longer apply; 12. Notes the establishment of an Iraqi Assistance Fund, with an international advisory board including duly qualified representatives of the Secretary General, the I.M.F., [appropriate regional institution(s)] and the World Bank, to be held by the Central Bank of Iraq, and to be audited by independent public accountants chosen by the international advisory board; 13. Decides further that the funds in the Iraqi Assistance Fund shall be disbursed at the direction of the Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim authority, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14 below; 14. Underlines that the Iraqi Assistance Fund should be used to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure, for the continued disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of indigenous civilian administration, and for other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq; 15. Decides that the Iraqi Assistance Fund shall enjoy the privileges and immunities of the United Nations; 16. Welcomes the readiness of international financial institutions to assist the people of Iraq in the reconstruction and development of their economy and to facilitate assistance by the broader donor community; 17. Requests the Secretary General, in consultation with the Authority, to continue the exercise of his responsibilities under Security Council resolution 1472 and 1476, for a period of four months following the adoption of this resolution, as necessary to ensure the delivery of priority civilian goods under contracts approved by the 661 Committee pursuant to paragraphs 8(a) and (b) of resolution 986 (1995), to the extent not modified or terminated, or as necessary to fulfill other commitments made pursuant to those resolutions; 18. Decides that all funds remaining in the escrow account established pursuant to resolution 986 (1995) that have not been allocated as of the date of the adoption of this resolution to finance the export of goods to Iraq under paragraph 8(a) or (b) of that resolution, and that have not been committed by the Secretary General pursuant to his authorities under Security Council resolution 1472, shall be transferred promptly to the Iraqi Assistance Fund in order to provide for the urgent needs of the Iraqi people; 19. Decides that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas from Iraq following the date of the adoption of this resolution shall be made consistent with prevailing international market practices, to be audited by independent public accountants reporting to the international advisory board referred to in paragraph 12 above, and decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 20 below, all proceeds from such sales shall be deposited into the Iraqi Assistance Fund, until such time as a new Iraqi government is properly constituted and capable of discharging its responsibilities; 20. Decides further that [X] percent of the proceeds referred to in paragraph 19 above shall be deposited into the Compensation Fund established in accordance with resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent relevant resolutions; 21. Further decides that petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas originated in Iraq, and proceeds of sales thereof, shall be immune from judicial, administrative, arbitration or any other proceedings (including any prejudgment or postjudgment attachment, garnishment, or execution or other action to satisfy a judgment) arising in relation to claims, of whatever kind and whenever accrued, against Iraq or any instrumentality or agents thereof (or the Authority, or its participating states or their instrumentalities or agents), and that all Member States shall take any steps under their respective domestic legal systems necessary to give full effect to this paragraph; 22. Decides that all Member States in which there are: (1) funds or other financial assets or economic resources of the Government of Iraq or its state bodies, corporations, or agencies, located outside Iraq as of the date of this resolution, or (2) funds or other financial assets or economic resources that have been removed from Iraq, or acquired, by Saddam Hussein or other senior officials of the former Iraqi regime and their immediate family members, including entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by them or by persons acting on their behalf or at their direction, shall freeze without delay and immediately cause the transfer of those funds or other financial assets or economic resources to the Iraqi Assistance Fund; and further decides that all such funds or other financial assets or economic resources shall enjoy the same immunities and protections as provided under paragraph 21; 23. Endorses the exercise of the responsibilities stated in this resolution by the Authority for an initial period of 12 months from the date of the adoption of this resolution, to continue thereafter as necessary unless the Security Council decides otherwise; 24. Requests the Special Coordinator to report to the Council at regular intervals on his work with respect to the implementation of this resolution, the first report to be submitted within [] days of the adoption of this resolution. http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...ostwardraft.htm

This all stemms from a c-span radio address I heard of tony blair addressing the house of commons with their questions ... he is the shit and where bush fails, he is the consumate politician that addresseses all the questions I have at heart.
Can anybody argue the actual specifics of the draft resolution to detail their anti-US/Great Britain propoganda?

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on May-19-2003 at 06:09

Ok, so im not gonna read every single post in between here and the beginning, so if im repeating tell me...

anyone who thinks you can look at the Middle East or Central Asia without taking oil politics into consideration is denying a simple truth.

that being said, you cannot assume that involvement in the region relies solely(sp?) on the possible benefits of receiving oil funds. the US does not have any state controlled oil companies(technically) as a majority of the oil producing countries do- and any private oil firms anywhere in the world are often joint concerns between private companies and states. due to this, it in no way means that all profits from the oil go singularly and directly to the US. only countries like Saudi Arabia have nearly 100% of oil profits going directly into government structures.

beyond that, any oil be it from Iraq, the Caspian, or any other *new* reserves may/will have US influence, but then again this all leads to the lessening of the OPEC cartel on oil prices- which benefits everyone who uses oil from non-OPEC countries, like Iraq.

oil and the Middle East are inseperable now...so i dont understand why people are so flabbergasted. is the US supposed to let the newly 'freed' Iraqis control their oil? how will that play out? likely it will lead to that oil money funding schools of Islam similar to those being promoted by Saudi Arabia- which means more extremism and the real concern of everyone opposed to terrorism.


_____________

holy shit...why are you discussing the Euro?
_________________

i fear my point is anulled|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - Very true Occrider, makes sense, but, aren't the majority of the US companies getting a great majority of their profits from their international investments and sales?!?!.. and Europe is one of hte most important, if not, the most important market for the US.

Liquidx, are you talking about american goods and sales abroad? Well yes investments by US companies in overceas markets will decrease. However, if US companies find it more expensive to set up operations abroad where are they going to invest their capital instead? In the US. With regards to internationanl sales think of it this way. A german TA is trying to buy a computer from the US for $100, and let's say the exchange rate is 1:1. In this instance he would have to pay 100 euros for the computer. Well if the dollar devalues and the exchange rate becomes 1/2 Euro for every dollar, then this German TA can now purchase his american computer for 50 Euros, half as many as before! Thus American goods will become cheaper to foreigners and demand for US exports will increase. We aren't getting any less money for our goods because we are still getting the $100 we want. Despite the fact that the dollar is worth less, it is still valued the same domestically since it's still going to cost you the same amount of dollars to buy an apple as it did before. If we start experiencing "domestic devaluation" aka inflation, then prices will go up to reflect the lessening value of the dollar. This is one worry about maintaining a weak currency, however, given the fact that the US economy is facing a threat of DEflation a weaker currency stands to increase exports and keep prices steady. Of course there is a danger in letting the value of the dollar sink too far and other factors which may hurt the economy but as long as the dollar doesn't sink too much it has the potential to do good for the US economy. Economics is not an exact science however so nobody can really say for certain what the net impact it will have.

quote:

occrider, they won't switch because of the value of that currency but because of the confidence in that currency. Currently the euro is faring well while the dollar is not, and because the value of the euro is almost identical it makes the transition a lot easier. There is a very real danger that the euro can become the standard global currency. You've also got to remember that politics and economics can sometimes mix - the US has a lot of enemies around the world who now have an alternative currency. Once more nations join the euro bandwagon others will see it as the sensible decision. That's assuming everything goes well, but you can't underestimate the danger this poses to the dollar.

Yes, confidence in a currency was what I was kind of hinting at when I said the Euro is only 5 years old whereas the dollar has a long history behind it and that countries aren't going to trade with a currency based upon its mere value. The Euro has a high value now yes, but the ECB has already hinted that it won't let its currency to continue to appreciate and crush its export profits. And given the fact that the EU's largest economy is in a state of recession, you can expect lower interest rates and a devaluation of the Euro. My point is that economic stability in Europe is just as precarious as it is in the US if not more. I would predict that it's highly unlikely for major currency switches to occur anytime soon. But you are correct in that the Euro does pose a threat to the dollar as a global currency in the future.

___________________
Retro ...

you dont think bush has an iq of 110? have you ever had an iq test?

i think iq is irrevelant. bush could have an iq higher than 110. you think bush is the man dont you?

there are forces at work here, and i think bush is working the margins as much as he can to secure wealth.

you have this little fictitious hierarchy of power with bush at the top dont you?

you picture the world as a set of similar hierarchies with powerful men seated at the top. there is always an iceberg beneath the surface -- none of you knows what the fuck your talking about. you cannot know, you can only arrange the facts that have been dispensed to you.


i remain apolitical. if you read me closely, you can see this. if not, you have misjudged my tone.

___________________
Art is useless.

to the victor go the spoils, indeed!

>JM<