War is linked to Euro vs Dollar?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: putnam3769
I find it very amusing that people who cannot spell correctly or use proper grammar are disputing the likelihood of this scenario. A number of posters here have contributed links to other sources which advocate the theory that switching from the US Dollar to the Euro would have an adverse affect on the US economy and possibility diminish its role as the world's sole superpower.

To those who disagree I say this: produce proof in the form of links to other respectable/believable sources that this would not occur, or contribute some meaningful statistics that can be used to logically argue that the theory postulated is bunk.

Charrison has repeatedly argued the point, yet has zero credibility with me due to his ineffectual arguments and lack of supporting evidence. This is my opinion, others may disagree. I think that the theory is a valid one, and it certainly does explain the behaviour of the United States, especially when other, more historical events are examined using the above theory.

The clincher for me is the shift in the security policy of the United States to one of pre-emptive strikes and the stated goal of having a dominant role in the world. No country will be allowed to challenge the United States militarily. It follows that given the stated goal of global dominance, it would intervene in any situation that would threaten that dominance, militarily or economically. These are not the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist; they are stated fact by the United States government.

Feel free to disagree with me. This is my first post to the Anandtech forums. I hope to make a few more on this subject before it is retired.

Welcome to AT!

I certainly would like this "discussion" to continue too. I'm not convinced that the Iraq War is a result of this subject, but the subject is very interesting in that it seems to be a valid arguement as the US's Achilles Heal as it were. It would seem prudent, in light of this arguement, that the US should adopt an economic policy of debt repayment, not to would make the problem worse.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: putnam3769<
Charrison has repeatedly argued the point, yet has zero credibility with me due to his ineffectual arguments and lack of supporting evidence. This is my opinion, others may disagree. I think that the theory is a valid one, and it certainly does explain the behaviour of the United States, especially when other, more historical events are examined using the above theory.

MOre like you have closed your eyes to the obvious evidence I presented. Global economics is not about a single event. There are multitude of reasons of why the US is the dominant economy at this point. If you choose to beleive there is only a single reason why the US has the dominant economy, you are the one lacking credibility.

 

[UltraQuiet]

The clincher for me is the shift in the security policy of the United States to one of pre-emptive strikes and the stated goal of having a dominant role in the world. No country will be allowed to challenge the United States militarily. It follows that given the stated goal of global dominance, it would intervene in any situation that would threaten that dominance, militarily or economically. These are not the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist; they are stated fact by the United States government.

When did the US goverment state this. The PNAC is not the US goverment.

 

[Loralon]

A couple of questions:

1) What is the driving fundamental force behind exchange rates?

2) What are the impacts of a depreciation of the USD vs. the Euro?

It seems to me, that if one can answer these questions in some definative manner, one can have a better understanding about whether the original author's proposition makes sense. Thanks for your time!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Loralon
A couple of questions:

1) What is the driving fundamental force behind exchange rates?

2) What are the impacts of a depreciation of the USD vs. the Euro?

It seems to me, that if one can answer these questions in some definative manner, one can have a better understanding about whether the original author's proposition makes sense. Thanks for your time!

Back a number posts ago, I provided a link to a website that had all kinds of info on "Dollarization", I think many of your questions can be answered there.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: putnam3769<
Charrison has repeatedly argued the point, yet has zero credibility with me due to his ineffectual arguments and lack of supporting evidence. This is my opinion, others may disagree. I think that the theory is a valid one, and it certainly does explain the behaviour of the United States, especially when other, more historical events are examined using the above theory.

MOre like you have closed your eyes to the obvious evidence I presented. Global economics is not about a single event. There are multitude of reasons of why the US is the dominant economy at this point. If you choose to beleive there is only a single reason why the US has the dominant economy, you are the one lacking credibility.

Certainly there are many factors, but it seems that the $US props up the US economy and the use of the $US globally(dollarization) in large part props up the $US. The arguement is, if Dollarization is reversed, the value of the $US will fall dramatically. The US economy is in deficit of $0.5 Trillion/year, that means that the US spends $0.5 Trillion more than it sells(Goods and Services) annualy. The only reason that the $US hasn't tanked already is that foreign governments use the $US for major trade purposes, if they stopped using the $US the $US would become seriously devalued.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: putnam3769<
Charrison has repeatedly argued the point, yet has zero credibility with me due to his ineffectual arguments and lack of supporting evidence. This is my opinion, others may disagree. I think that the theory is a valid one, and it certainly does explain the behaviour of the United States, especially when other, more historical events are examined using the above theory.

MOre like you have closed your eyes to the obvious evidence I presented. Global economics is not about a single event. There are multitude of reasons of why the US is the dominant economy at this point. If you choose to beleive there is only a single reason why the US has the dominant economy, you are the one lacking credibility.

Certainly there are many factors, but it seems that the $US props up the US economy and the use of the $US globally(dollarization) in large part props up the $US. The arguement is, if Dollarization is reversed, the value of the $US will fall dramatically. The US economy is in deficit of $0.5 Trillion/year, that means that the US spends $0.5 Trillion more than it sells(Goods and Services) annualy. The only reason that the $US hasn't tanked already is that foreign governments use the $US for major trade purposes, if they stopped using the $US the $US would become seriously devalued.

Interesting argument except the Euro is about equal value to the dollar and is a fiat currency as well.

Our trade debt that you speak of, means we export jobs. If we buy more at home, it hurts other countries more than it hurts us. The world market would fall apart if the US stopped global investment.

Most of the US debt is held by US citizens.

This argument about this this war being about the Euro is simply stupid.

 

[Zebo]

Not true charrison. I had a lengthy response but closed the window. Heres a good link.

40% is owned by the fed which prints money is relected by this.

Only 16% (mutual funds, savings bonds, pension plans added up) is US citizen owned and thats dabateable since any national can particapate. While foreigners make up 22%. I assumed it to be much worse with as much personal debt americans saddle themselves with and your average japanse saves 30% of his income.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Not true charrison. I had a lengthy response but closed the window. Heres a good link.

40% is owned by the fed which prints money is relected by this.

Only 16% (mutual funds, savings bonds, pension plans added up) is US citizen owned and thats dabateable since any national can particapate. While foreigners make up 22%. I assumed it to be much worse with as much personal debt americans saddle themselves with and your average japanse saves 30% of his income.

So you basically said, most of the debt is held by non foreign sources. And yes we do need to have some congress critters than are capable of being fiscally responsable.

Also remember that Japans high saving rate has not lead them to a robust economy.

 

[ChicagoMaroon]

Yawn, anyone who uses indymedia.org as a source is not credible. Like if a conversative used rushlimbaugh.com to support his arguments.

I wrote my BA thesis on the euro/EMU/ECB, and modeled the effect on the separate euro economies of various price shocks. I skeptical of the long-term viability of the euro given that its two largest members, France and Germany, have structurally distinct economies that are governed by one monetary policy. Suicide pact, if you ask me.

For example, there are various economic situations that will cause inflation in France, but not in Germany. What's the ECB to do in that case? If it tightens the money supply and raises rates to stem inflation in France, Germany's economy is strangled. The English rightly so have grave reservations about joining the euro suicide pact.

In short, the dollar is and will be the de facto currency of the world. The euro is essentially the German d-mark in disguise, and Germany may find it will want to shed that disguise someday.

 

[Dari]

what else do you guys expect? This is the new reality. We are not about to let all the hard work we've put into becoming the most powerful nation on earth be squandered by a bunch of pacifists that gained their strenth while we protected them. If this article is true, which it may be considering that there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, then I fully support what our government is doing. By the way, almost every country on this earth is indebted.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari
what else do you guys expect? This is the new reality. We are not about to let all the hard work we've put into becoming the most powerful nation on earth be squandered by a bunch of pacifists that gained their strenth while we protected them. If this article is true, which it may be considering that there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, then I fully support what our government is doing. By the way, almost every country on this earth is indebted.

So people should die to fix or protect the economy?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dari
what else do you guys expect? This is the new reality. We are not about to let all the hard work we've put into becoming the most powerful nation on earth be squandered by a bunch of pacifists that gained their strenth while we protected them. If this article is true, which it may be considering that there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, then I fully support what our government is doing. By the way, almost every country on this earth is indebted.

So people should die to fix or protect the economy?

If our economy or freedom is under attack, then yes it should be protected.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Dari
what else do you guys expect? This is the new reality. We are not about to let all the hard work we've put into becoming the most powerful nation on earth be squandered by a bunch of pacifists that gained their strenth while we protected them. If this article is true, which it may be considering that there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, then I fully support what our government is doing. By the way, almost every country on this earth is indebted.

So people should die to fix or protect the economy?

Yes, perhaps. After all, money = power, without money the US could not afford to maintain it's army or levels of spending and it would lose power in the world.

 

[sandorski]

Interesting.

 

[Alistar7]

MASSIVE GROUPS OF IRAQIS CHEERING US SOLDIERS AND THROWING FLOWERS AT THEM LIVE ON CNN

The Info Minister did not make it to work today either......

 

[nicebutt]

Nice try about the EU currency but I disagree.
Even if there is some truth to it, the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves either.
As far as Europe goes they hate the US because of our freedom. They love dictators i.e. Kaiser Wihelm, Hilter, and Mussolini.
You just witnessed history ... not to add Saddam to the list.
The Iraqis are becoming very happy that we are protecting the US $. It is the president's job to protect the US.
Go to this link and listen to the archives pick "Angy from Iraq" and Mohammed From Irag"

http://www.warroom.com/

-------------------------
sowhat

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

The clincher for me is the shift in the security policy of the United States to one of pre-emptive strikes and the stated goal of having a dominant role in the world. No country will be allowed to challenge the United States militarily. It follows that given the stated goal of global dominance, it would intervene in any situation that would threaten that dominance, militarily or economically. These are not the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist; they are stated fact by the United States government.

When did the US goverment state this. The PNAC is not the US goverment.

Acutally, I read about that months before I heard of the PNAC. IIRC, it was a big story in August 2002, it was on the front page of the National Post here (and in case you want to rant about "liberal media", remember that the National Post is the mouthpiece of the canadian right)

I would find you a link, but the NP only keeps articles online for 14 days after they're published...

 

[putnam3769]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

The clincher for me is the shift in the security policy of the United States to one of pre-emptive strikes and the stated goal of having a dominant role in the world. No country will be allowed to challenge the United States militarily. It follows that given the stated goal of global dominance, it would intervene in any situation that would threaten that dominance, militarily or economically. These are not the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist; they are stated fact by the United States government.

When did the US goverment state this. The PNAC is not the US goverment.

Acutally, I read about that months before I heard of the PNAC. IIRC, it was a big story in August 2002, it was on the front page of the National Post here (and in case you want to rant about "liberal media", remember that the National Post is the mouthpiece of the canadian right)

I would find you a link, but the NP only keeps articles online for 14 days after they're published...

Here is the link http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Is the United States Goverment a credible enough source for you?

Charrison: You are correct when you say that no single event would ruin the United States economy. It would take a string of events to cascade into a slide that could not be easily stopped. I believe that the switch from Euros from the American Dollar would do serious harm to the economy, and be a major event in that string I mentioned earlier. I feel that this theory is valid given the new security policy of the United States, the less than convincing official stated reasons for war with Iraq, and the economi logic of the argument.

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: nicebutt
Nice try about the EU currency but I disagree.
Even if there is some truth to it, the Civil War was not about freeing the slaves either.
As far as Europe goes they hate the US because of our freedom. They love dictators i.e. Kaiser Wihelm, Hilter, and Mussolini.
You just witnessed history ... not to add Saddam to the list.
The Iraqis are becoming very happy that we are protecting the US $. It is the president's job to protect the US.
Go to this link and listen to the archives pick "Angy from Iraq" and Mohammed From Irag"

http://www.warroom.com/

-------------------------
sowhat

I didn't see "Angy from Iraq", but I listened to "Mohammed from Iraq" and it was a good listen
Although I doubt most of the protestors are commies or whatever.. most of 'em probably don't care one way or another and are just there to rebel against the status quo.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: charrisonThis argument about this this war being about the Euro is simply stupid.

I asked for it before, and I will repeat it.... bring NUMBERS, otherwise your points are hollow. Bring also some rules of economy.

You seem to think that just because a country spends more, its economy should be better..... given that logic, you could think that is would be impossible for a company like Microsoft (annual sales of aprox 28,000 millions) to take over a company like General Motors (annual sales of aprox 186,000 millions)......

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: charrisonThis argument about this this war being about the Euro is simply stupid.

I asked for it before, and I will repeat it.... bring NUMBERS, otherwise your points are hollow. Bring also some rules of economy.

You seem to think that just because a country spends more, its economy should be better..... given that logic, you could think that is would be impossible for a company like Microsoft (annual sales of aprox 28,000 millions) to take over a company like General Motors (annual sales of aprox 186,000 millions)......

Why did you dredge up this dead thread? ChicagoMaroon provided a couple nice points on why this thread is waist deep. Dollars and Euro's are valued on the international markets. The value of the dollar goes down and US products become cheaper on international markets. Cheaper US products lead to increased consumption of those products and growth of the american economy. Growth of the US economy leads to a higher GDP and stronger financial position and will increase the value of the dollar on the open market.

You people act like if they start using Euro's for international transactions that suddenly the dollar won't be accepted. The fallacy of that arguement is stagaring.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: charrisonThis argument about this this war being about the Euro is simply stupid.

I asked for it before, and I will repeat it.... bring NUMBERS, otherwise your points are hollow. Bring also some rules of economy.

You seem to think that just because a country spends more, its economy should be better..... given that logic, you could think that is would be impossible for a company like Microsoft (annual sales of aprox 28,000 millions) to take over a company like General Motors (annual sales of aprox 186,000 millions)......

Why did you dredge up this dead thread? ChicagoMaroon provided a couple nice points on why this thread is waist deep. Dollars and Euro's are valued on the international markets. The value of the dollar goes down and US products become cheaper on international markets. Cheaper US products lead to increased consumption of those products and growth of the american economy. Growth of the US economy leads to a higher GDP and stronger financial position and will increase the value of the dollar on the open market.

You people act like if they start using Euro's for international transactions that suddenly the dollar won't be accepted. The fallacy of that arguement is stagaring.

The lower USD is only good for a short period, because the devalue dollar become less stable for trading purposes and consumsion of goods would be higher (inflation). And, there is no better person to anwers questions like this is Greenspan.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: charrisonThis argument about this this war being about the Euro is simply stupid.

I asked for it before, and I will repeat it.... bring NUMBERS, otherwise your points are hollow. Bring also some rules of economy.

You seem to think that just because a country spends more, its economy should be better..... given that logic, you could think that is would be impossible for a company like Microsoft (annual sales of aprox 28,000 millions) to take over a company like General Motors (annual sales of aprox 186,000 millions)......

After you take a basic economy class, please re-evaluate your position.

 

[freegeeks]

After you take a basic economy class, please re-evaluate your position.

Funny, there are multiple links here to backup the claim that using the euro in the oil trade would be devastating for the dollar (and US economy) and your only argument is -- Not true because .......well, ..... , because I said so.

did you won the Nobel prize for economy or something???

The only one who has no credibility in this discussion is you Charrison.