One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
The Economist: "Get Ready For A World Currency By 2018" (Part 2)
Page 1 of 2 next>
Jul 10, 2017 23:35:25   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
09/24/1998 One world, one money.

A global currency is not a new idea, but it may soon get a new lease of life
http://www.economist.com/node/166471


IN DIFFICULT times, people are allowed, even encouraged, to think the unthinkable.

Some of the economists who propose capital controls as a remedy for recession in Asia claim to be doing this—but they are flattering themselves.

Unthinkable?

Malaysia just did it.

Dozens of countries still use capital-account restrictions.

And it is a cliché of the orthodox “sequencing” literature that a variety of such controls should be retained until other reforms are complete.

Really, to think the unthinkable, you have to be bolder than this.


So here is an idea:

Global currency union.

Let nobody call it boringly feasible, or politically expedient.

Yet, like all the best unthinkable ideas, it has more going for it than you might think—in principle, at least.


The idea is not new.

Richard Cooper of Harvard University proposed a single world currency in Foreign Affairs in 1984, and he was not the first to think of it.

It seemed an outlandish idea, and still does.

But much has happened lately to make it worth a moment's thought.


The usual way to ask whether countries would be better off sharing a single currency—

That is, whether they constitute an “optimal currency area”—is to examine the following trade-off.

a. On one side is the undoubted convenience of a single money as a lubricant for trade and cross-border investment.

b. On the other is the loss of the exchange rate as a shock-absorber for times when one or more of the countries face pressures

(an abrupt fall in demand for their exports, say, or a sudden rise in labour costs) that the others are spared—a so-called “asymmetric shock”.

c. In setting cost against benefit, again according to the standard view, the crucial factors are openness to trade and freedom of movement of factors of production.

d. A small open economy has more to gain from the convenience provided by a single currency.

e. On the other hand, if labour (especially) is reluctant to migrate, the need for the exchange-rate shock-absorber is all the greater.

Weighing all this, most economists conclude that the 11 countries that are about to adopt the euro are not in fact an optimal currency area.

The world as a whole is not even close.


So what has changed?

The main thing is the current global emergency.

This is so serious a crisis that it is likely to prove a paradigm-shifting event, though straws were in the wind already.

The emerging-market disaster poses the question, How is the world to live with globally integrated finance?

In addition, it casts doubt on what once seemed a good answer:

That floating exchange rates are the best way to stabilize the world economy.


1. Shockingly unstable

a. According to the traditional model, a country with unduly high labour costs, and therefore a troublesome current-account deficit, could expect to see its currency depreciate;

b. This would cut real wages, making imports dearer and exports cheaper, thus neatly restoring the economy to equilibrium.

c. But in a world where international flows of capital overwhelm international flows of trade, this does not work.


2. Floating exchange rates destabilize trade and investment by wrenching relative prices away from their fundamental values

(that is, from the values that would put the corresponding exchange rates at purchasing-power parity).


3. In the emerging-markets crisis that currently threatens the world economy, exchange-rate movements have not been absorbers of shocks but amplifiers and even creators of them.

Governments of small open economies have long known that it is not an option to “leave the exchange rate to the market”.

Monetary policy must always keep at least one eye on the currency.

4. But governments have also learnt, in a second big change, that intermediate exchange-rate regimes do not work either.

That was the lesson of the European Monetary System debacle of 1992-93 (and, arguably, of the downfall of the pegged-but-adjustable regimes used in Asia until last year).

5. Semi-fixed systems cannot withstand the assault of integrated capital markets:

They are prone to self-fulfilling panics.


In other words, they too are destabilizing.


But what does that leave? Let's see.

a. Pure floating is no use.

b. Semi-fixed is no use.

So there are two possibilities.

1. One is to turn back the clock on financial integration:

Then pure-floating or semi-fixed systems might once again be used successfully.

That would be enormously costly, especially to the developing countries;

And it would be very difficult, because integration is partly driven by technological progress, which is hard to reverse.

Still, it is a fair bet that a lot of countries will follow Malaysia's example and give it a try.


2. Otherwise, it seems, the remaining course is to combine increasing integration with perfect fixity of exchange rates—meaning currency union.


The fashion for currency boards reflects some of this thinking.

Exchange-rate flexibility is more trouble than it is worth, advocates say, so abandon it once and for all.

Alas, currency boards suffer big drawbacks all of their own.

Whereas a currency union has a central bank to act as lender of last resort, a country with a currency board does not.

So these regimes are vulnerable to runs on banks.

Currency boards are a poor test of the larger idea.


The all-or-nothing, float-or-merge analysis also provides the case in economic logic for the euro: strive for integration, it says, no holds barred.

Unfortunately, EMU is a somewhat flawed test as well.

It is a political project as much as an economic one, so it will not reveal everything about how well a currency union among independent nation states might work.

But it will reveal a lot, and its symbolic importance will be immense.

If it fails, not only will that cause enormous political harm to the European Union, but the pressure for global financial barriers will be greatly strengthened.

If it succeeds, the case for a global currency union will seem much more interesting.


Fine, you say, but how would the world ever get from here to there?

Hard to say, admittedly.

Find the answer to that, and the idea would be thinkable.

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 00:23:26   #
Sicilianthing
 
Doc110 wrote:
09/24/1998 One world, one money.

A global currency is not a new idea, but it may soon get a new lease of life
http://www.economist.com/node/166471


IN DIFFICULT times, people are allowed, even encouraged, to think the unthinkable.

Some of the economists who propose capital controls as a remedy for recession in Asia claim to be doing this—but they are flattering themselves.

Unthinkable?

Malaysia just did it.

Dozens of countries still use capital-account restrictions.

And it is a cliché of the orthodox “sequencing” literature that a variety of such controls should be retained until other reforms are complete.

Really, to think the unthinkable, you have to be bolder than this.


So here is an idea:

Global currency union.

Let nobody call it boringly feasible, or politically expedient.

Yet, like all the best unthinkable ideas, it has more going for it than you might think—in principle, at least.


The idea is not new.

Richard Cooper of Harvard University proposed a single world currency in Foreign Affairs in 1984, and he was not the first to think of it.

It seemed an outlandish idea, and still does.

But much has happened lately to make it worth a moment's thought.


The usual way to ask whether countries would be better off sharing a single currency—

That is, whether they constitute an “optimal currency area”—is to examine the following trade-off.

a. On one side is the undoubted convenience of a single money as a lubricant for trade and cross-border investment.

b. On the other is the loss of the exchange rate as a shock-absorber for times when one or more of the countries face pressures

(an abrupt fall in demand for their exports, say, or a sudden rise in labour costs) that the others are spared—a so-called “asymmetric shock”.

c. In setting cost against benefit, again according to the standard view, the crucial factors are openness to trade and freedom of movement of factors of production.

d. A small open economy has more to gain from the convenience provided by a single currency.

e. On the other hand, if labour (especially) is reluctant to migrate, the need for the exchange-rate shock-absorber is all the greater.

Weighing all this, most economists conclude that the 11 countries that are about to adopt the euro are not in fact an optimal currency area.

The world as a whole is not even close.


So what has changed?

The main thing is the current global emergency.

This is so serious a crisis that it is likely to prove a paradigm-shifting event, though straws were in the wind already.

The emerging-market disaster poses the question, How is the world to live with globally integrated finance?

In addition, it casts doubt on what once seemed a good answer:

That floating exchange rates are the best way to stabilize the world economy.


1. Shockingly unstable

a. According to the traditional model, a country with unduly high labour costs, and therefore a troublesome current-account deficit, could expect to see its currency depreciate;

b. This would cut real wages, making imports dearer and exports cheaper, thus neatly restoring the economy to equilibrium.

c. But in a world where international flows of capital overwhelm international flows of trade, this does not work.


2. Floating exchange rates destabilize trade and investment by wrenching relative prices away from their fundamental values

(that is, from the values that would put the corresponding exchange rates at purchasing-power parity).


3. In the emerging-markets crisis that currently threatens the world economy, exchange-rate movements have not been absorbers of shocks but amplifiers and even creators of them.

Governments of small open economies have long known that it is not an option to “leave the exchange rate to the market”.

Monetary policy must always keep at least one eye on the currency.

4. But governments have also learnt, in a second big change, that intermediate exchange-rate regimes do not work either.

That was the lesson of the European Monetary System debacle of 1992-93 (and, arguably, of the downfall of the pegged-but-adjustable regimes used in Asia until last year).

5. Semi-fixed systems cannot withstand the assault of integrated capital markets:

They are prone to self-fulfilling panics.


In other words, they too are destabilizing.


But what does that leave? Let's see.

a. Pure floating is no use.

b. Semi-fixed is no use.

So there are two possibilities.

1. One is to turn back the clock on financial integration:

Then pure-floating or semi-fixed systems might once again be used successfully.

That would be enormously costly, especially to the developing countries;

And it would be very difficult, because integration is partly driven by technological progress, which is hard to reverse.

Still, it is a fair bet that a lot of countries will follow Malaysia's example and give it a try.


2. Otherwise, it seems, the remaining course is to combine increasing integration with perfect fixity of exchange rates—meaning currency union.


The fashion for currency boards reflects some of this thinking.

Exchange-rate flexibility is more trouble than it is worth, advocates say, so abandon it once and for all.

Alas, currency boards suffer big drawbacks all of their own.

Whereas a currency union has a central bank to act as lender of last resort, a country with a currency board does not.

So these regimes are vulnerable to runs on banks.

Currency boards are a poor test of the larger idea.


The all-or-nothing, float-or-merge analysis also provides the case in economic logic for the euro: strive for integration, it says, no holds barred.

Unfortunately, EMU is a somewhat flawed test as well.

It is a political project as much as an economic one, so it will not reveal everything about how well a currency union among independent nation states might work.

But it will reveal a lot, and its symbolic importance will be immense.

If it fails, not only will that cause enormous political harm to the European Union, but the pressure for global financial barriers will be greatly strengthened.

If it succeeds, the case for a global currency union will seem much more interesting.


Fine, you say, but how would the world ever get from here to there?

Hard to say, admittedly.

Find the answer to that, and the idea would be thinkable.
09/24/1998 One world, one money. br br A global ... (show quote)


>>>>>>>


Global Stabilization Fund is trickery and deceit by the Bankster Families and their minions!

GCR = Global Currency Reset under way now..... phase in for the next phase

BRICS warming up

Basket of currencies expands then shrinks as they consolidate in phases

Beta tests become routine like Cyprus bail in

Bank runs begin

Chaos follows

Then every bank gets torched !

i cant wait

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 09:34:14   #
PeterS
 
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>>>>


Global Stabilization Fund is trickery and deceit by the Bankster Families and their minions!

GCR = Global Currency Reset under way now..... phase in for the next phase

BRICS warming up

Basket of currencies expands then shrinks as they consolidate in phases

Beta tests become routine like Cyprus bail in

Bank runs begin

Chaos follows

Then every bank gets torched !

i cant wait


Sounds like something right up your ally...

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 09:37:34   #
PeterS
 
Doc110 wrote:
09/24/1998 One world, one money.

A global currency is not a new idea, but it may soon get a new lease of life
http://www.economist.com/node/166471


IN DIFFICULT times, people are allowed, even encouraged, to think the unthinkable.

Some of the economists who propose capital controls as a remedy for recession in Asia claim to be doing this—but they are flattering themselves.

Unthinkable?

Malaysia just did it.

Dozens of countries still use capital-account restrictions.

And it is a cliché of the orthodox “sequencing” literature that a variety of such controls should be retained until other reforms are complete.

Really, to think the unthinkable, you have to be bolder than this.


So here is an idea:

Global currency union.

Let nobody call it boringly feasible, or politically expedient.

Yet, like all the best unthinkable ideas, it has more going for it than you might think—in principle, at least.


The idea is not new.

Richard Cooper of Harvard University proposed a single world currency in Foreign Affairs in 1984, and he was not the first to think of it.

It seemed an outlandish idea, and still does.

But much has happened lately to make it worth a moment's thought.


The usual way to ask whether countries would be better off sharing a single currency—

That is, whether they constitute an “optimal currency area”—is to examine the following trade-off.

a. On one side is the undoubted convenience of a single money as a lubricant for trade and cross-border investment.

b. On the other is the loss of the exchange rate as a shock-absorber for times when one or more of the countries face pressures

(an abrupt fall in demand for their exports, say, or a sudden rise in labour costs) that the others are spared—a so-called “asymmetric shock”.

c. In setting cost against benefit, again according to the standard view, the crucial factors are openness to trade and freedom of movement of factors of production.

d. A small open economy has more to gain from the convenience provided by a single currency.

e. On the other hand, if labour (especially) is reluctant to migrate, the need for the exchange-rate shock-absorber is all the greater.

Weighing all this, most economists conclude that the 11 countries that are about to adopt the euro are not in fact an optimal currency area.

The world as a whole is not even close.


So what has changed?

The main thing is the current global emergency.

This is so serious a crisis that it is likely to prove a paradigm-shifting event, though straws were in the wind already.

The emerging-market disaster poses the question, How is the world to live with globally integrated finance?

In addition, it casts doubt on what once seemed a good answer:

That floating exchange rates are the best way to stabilize the world economy.


1. Shockingly unstable

a. According to the traditional model, a country with unduly high labour costs, and therefore a troublesome current-account deficit, could expect to see its currency depreciate;

b. This would cut real wages, making imports dearer and exports cheaper, thus neatly restoring the economy to equilibrium.

c. But in a world where international flows of capital overwhelm international flows of trade, this does not work.


2. Floating exchange rates destabilize trade and investment by wrenching relative prices away from their fundamental values

(that is, from the values that would put the corresponding exchange rates at purchasing-power parity).


3. In the emerging-markets crisis that currently threatens the world economy, exchange-rate movements have not been absorbers of shocks but amplifiers and even creators of them.

Governments of small open economies have long known that it is not an option to “leave the exchange rate to the market”.

Monetary policy must always keep at least one eye on the currency.

4. But governments have also learnt, in a second big change, that intermediate exchange-rate regimes do not work either.

That was the lesson of the European Monetary System debacle of 1992-93 (and, arguably, of the downfall of the pegged-but-adjustable regimes used in Asia until last year).

5. Semi-fixed systems cannot withstand the assault of integrated capital markets:

They are prone to self-fulfilling panics.


In other words, they too are destabilizing.


But what does that leave? Let's see.

a. Pure floating is no use.

b. Semi-fixed is no use.

So there are two possibilities.

1. One is to turn back the clock on financial integration:

Then pure-floating or semi-fixed systems might once again be used successfully.

That would be enormously costly, especially to the developing countries;

And it would be very difficult, because integration is partly driven by technological progress, which is hard to reverse.

Still, it is a fair bet that a lot of countries will follow Malaysia's example and give it a try.


2. Otherwise, it seems, the remaining course is to combine increasing integration with perfect fixity of exchange rates—meaning currency union.


The fashion for currency boards reflects some of this thinking.

Exchange-rate flexibility is more trouble than it is worth, advocates say, so abandon it once and for all.

Alas, currency boards suffer big drawbacks all of their own.

Whereas a currency union has a central bank to act as lender of last resort, a country with a currency board does not.

So these regimes are vulnerable to runs on banks.

Currency boards are a poor test of the larger idea.


The all-or-nothing, float-or-merge analysis also provides the case in economic logic for the euro: strive for integration, it says, no holds barred.

Unfortunately, EMU is a somewhat flawed test as well.

It is a political project as much as an economic one, so it will not reveal everything about how well a currency union among independent nation states might work.

But it will reveal a lot, and its symbolic importance will be immense.

If it fails, not only will that cause enormous political harm to the European Union, but the pressure for global financial barriers will be greatly strengthened.

If it succeeds, the case for a global currency union will seem much more interesting.


Fine, you say, but how would the world ever get from here to there?

Hard to say, admittedly.

Find the answer to that, and the idea would be thinkable.
09/24/1998 One world, one money. br br A global ... (show quote)



So do you think that the economist is somehow prophetic? With Trump in charge a one world currency wouldn't include the US so exactly what's the point of your post? Do conservatives suddenly now care what goes on in the rest of the world? I find that incredibly hard to believe...

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 11:17:10   #
Sicilianthing
 
PeterS wrote:
Sounds like something right up your ally...


>>>>>>>

Damn Right, I've been studying these ScumBags for 20+ years and they're up to no good.

In fact I'm writing a letter to Trump he asked for about this... we'll see what happens next.

1 clue is if he's really on our side is if he actually starts an Audit the Fed event.

Then all Hell's going to break loose, but if he doesn't then he's working for them under the New American Century Corporation.

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 12:08:44   #
the waker Loc: 11th freest nation
 
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>>>>


Global Stabilization Fund is trickery and deceit by the Bankster Families and their minions!

GCR = Global Currency Reset under way now..... phase in for the next phase

BRICS warming up

Basket of currencies expands then shrinks as they consolidate in phases

Beta tests become routine like Cyprus bail in

Bank runs begin

Chaos follows

Then every bank gets torched !

i cant wait




Right,
It won't do us any good holding 20 trillion in debt, it's not like it's just going to go away.

Might screw over the BRICS banks if they flip to a Cryto-currency, as it would still be easier to manipulate.

The real question, is who holds the cards, who would be in control of the new banking system?

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 12:20:47   #
Sicilianthing
 
the waker wrote:
Right,
It won't do us any good holding 20 trillion in debt, it's not like it's just going to go away.

Might screw over the BRICS banks if they flip to a Cryto-currency, as it would still be easier to manipulate.

The real question, is who holds the cards, who would be in control of the new banking system?


>>>>>>>>>>

The ones who would be in control of the Global Currency Scheme Plot Ploy are the same Usual Suspects
8 families of the Federal Reserve Board.

I can post them again if you like... many dispute this fact and they say I'm wrong but I'm not...

Yes many other banks are all in the profit sharing but not the bulk of the Raping.

All other Banks are split up into the AOR's of each of the 8 member families and are managed accordingly like a Franchising et al.

It's really weird but this is how it works.

8 families own the entire Global Banking and exchange network Flat OUT !

The Following 8 families are still in Total Control today and have been working on this One World Currency for 100's of years...

________________________________

The first misconception that most people have is that the Federal Reserve Bank is a branch of the US governmment. IT IS NOT. THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. Most people believe it is as American as the Constitution. The Constitution actually forbids it's existence. Article 1, Section 8, states that Congress shall have the power to create money and regulate the value thereofff, not a bunch of international bankers! Today the FED controls and profits by printingg worthless paper, called money, through the Treasury, regulating its value, and the biggest outrage of all, collecting interest on it! (the so-called national debt, via the federal income tax)

The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges US taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud. Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well-kept secret, has been revealed: 1. Rothschild Bank of London 2. Warburg Bank of Hamburg 3..Rothschild Bank of Berlin 4. Lehman Brothers of NY 5. Lazard Brothers of Paris 6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of NY 7. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy 8.. Goldman Sachs of NY 9. Warburg Bank of Amsterdam 10.Chase Manhattan Bank of NY

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America where our forefathers were fighting thheir own government, they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt. How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. He had comitted to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Act through Congress just before Xmas, when much of Congress was on vacation..........

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 12:22:25   #
the waker Loc: 11th freest nation
 
PeterS wrote:
So do you think that the economist is somehow Ukrainic? With Trump in charge a one world currency wouldn't include the US so exactly what's the point of your post? Do conservatives suddenly now care what goes on in the rest of the world? I find that incredibly hard to believe...




Wow, after what Obama did over the last 8 years, that's balls.
What makes you think Conservatives don't care about the rest of the world?
Just because we didn't agree with the US involvement in the Ukrainian Revolution to place bases near Russia's warm water ports, or invading a Sovergn nation like Syria to fight along side of the 13% of Syrians, that actually make up the Syrian Rebel army?
Why exactly do you think we went into these nations?
Why do you think Kerry had to make a deal with Iran?
Oil?
Or the billions of dollars to made from trading the oil by utilising the Petro dollar/US dollar?

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 12:25:51   #
the waker Loc: 11th freest nation
 
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

The ones who would be in control of the Global Currency Scheme Plot Ploy are the same Usual Suspects
8 families of the Federal Reserve Board.

I can post them again if you like... many dispute this fact and they say I'm wrong but I'm not...

Yes many other banks are all in the profit sharing but not the bulk of the Raping.

All other Banks are split up into the AOR's of each of the 8 member families and are managed accordingly like a Franchising et al.

It's really weird but this is how it works.

8 families own the entire Global Banking and exchange network Flat OUT !

The Following 8 families are still in Total Control today and have been working on this One World Currency for 100's of years...

________________________________

The first misconception that most people have is that the Federal Reserve Bank is a branch of the US governmment. IT IS NOT. THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. Most people believe it is as American as the Constitution. The Constitution actually forbids it's existence. Article 1, Section 8, states that Congress shall have the power to create money and regulate the value thereofff, not a bunch of international bankers! Today the FED controls and profits by printingg worthless paper, called money, through the Treasury, regulating its value, and the biggest outrage of all, collecting interest on it! (the so-called national debt, via the federal income tax)

The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges US taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud. Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well-kept secret, has been revealed: 1. Rothschild Bank of London 2. Warburg Bank of Hamburg 3..Rothschild Bank of Berlin 4. Lehman Brothers of NY 5. Lazard Brothers of Paris 6. Kuhn Loeb Bank of NY 7. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy 8.. Goldman Sachs of NY 9. Warburg Bank of Amsterdam 10.Chase Manhattan Bank of NY

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America where our forefathers were fighting thheir own government, they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt. How did it happen? After previous attempts to push the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, a group of bankers funded and staffed Woodrow Wilson's campaign for President. He had comitted to sign this act. In 1913, a Senator, Nelson Aldrich, maternal grandfather to the Rockefellers, pushed the Act through Congress just before Xmas, when much of Congress was on vacation..........
>>>>>>>>>> br br Th... (show quote)




True,
they have also been the ones fighting a Crypto-currency to this point, and have No say as of now with the BRICS banks.

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 12:30:10   #
Sicilianthing
 
the waker wrote:
Wow, after what Obama did over the last 8 years, that's balls.
What makes you think Conservatives don't care about the rest of the world?
Just because we didn't agree with the US involvement in the Ukrainian Revolution to place bases near Russia's warm water ports, or invading a Sovergn nation like Syria to fight along side of the 13% of Syrians, that actually make up the Syrian Rebel army?
Why exactly do you think we went into these nations?
Why do you think Kerry had to make a deal with Iran?
Oil?
Or the billions of dollars to made from trading the oil by utilising the Petro dollar/US dollar?
Wow, after what Obama did over the last 8 years, t... (show quote)


>>>>>>>

Bingo !

You nailed it...

Oil and Gas Pipeline infrastructure from Pond to Port and Regime Change to make sure the Licensing is traded on the globex mercantile network...

The Royalties are paid out to the families and their minions.

This rabbit hole gets deep from here and they Murdered millions to do it...

Imagine this:

You're at home or on your farm chilling or working and along comes a BullDozer D9 or something a few trucks with machine gun men and they say;

'Hey you need to leave, we're putting a pipeline through here'

you say Fuck YOU I own this land....

they shoot / murder Death K**l you and everyone else in your spot and demolish your unit.

They burry you on the side in a ditch... along with all the other neighbors who did the same.

This is the horror the Stupid American Pie Doesn't get...

And Repeat

And Repeat

And Repeat

In every Oil or gas and Mineral place on earth these families can drill on....


We do not belong there
We need to get out now
Trump needs to get us out of all these wars and murdering or the blood will be on his hands too...

It's cooked and
It's over !

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 12:32:55   #
Sicilianthing
 
the waker wrote:
True,
they have also been the ones fighting a Crypto-currency to this point, and have No say as of now with the BRICS banks.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bingo and they've got all their buddies on SlimeStreet (wall) to manipulate any of the other Currencies and ETF's etc...

It's been going on for 100's of years and it's cooked.

Trump is either in lock step with them and the FED or he's under Duress.

It's cooked and it's over...

I say call it in and activate M*****as and begin the process of taking our Republic back.


How much longer do people want to wait ?

Wait for what ?

WTF ?

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 17:02:53   #
PeterS
 
the waker wrote:
Right,
It won't do us any good holding 20 trillion in debt, it's not like it's just going to go away.

Might screw over the BRICS banks if they flip to a Cryto-currency, as it would still be easier to manipulate.

The real question, is who holds the cards, who would be in control of the new banking system?

Oh, once we have new money debt won't matter. Didn't you know that?

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 17:12:05   #
PeterS
 
the waker wrote:
Wow, after what Obama did over the last 8 years, that's balls.
What makes you think Conservatives don't care about the rest of the world?
Just because we didn't agree with the US involvement in the Ukrainian Revolution to place bases near Russia's warm water ports, or invading a Sovergn nation like Syria to fight along side of the 13% of Syrians, that actually make up the Syrian Rebel army?
Why exactly do you think we went into these nations?
Why do you think Kerry had to make a deal with Iran?
Oil?
Or the billions of dollars to made from trading the oil by utilising the Petro dollar/US dollar?
Wow, after what Obama did over the last 8 years, t... (show quote)

First Walker, don't change my words. Second, I think you guys don't care about the rest of the world because you keep telling me you don't care about the rest of the world. Nationalism, and America first. Everyone else can go fuk off correct. As for why we went into those countries--I think little George thought they would all fall in love with liberal democracy just as we have. The miscalculation is that half of us don't like liberal democracy and the other half only likes democracy if it's completely sectarian. So the powers that be weren't thinking too clearly when they decided to invade and are thinking domino democracy would be the cure...

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 19:01:46   #
Sicilianthing
 
PeterS wrote:
First Walker, don't change my words. Second, I think you guys don't care about the rest of the world because you keep telling me you don't care about the rest of the world. Nationalism, and America first. Everyone else can go fuk off correct. As for why we went into those countries--I think little George thought they would all fall in love with liberal democracy just as we have. The miscalculation is that half of us don't like liberal democracy and the other half only likes democracy if it's completely sectarian. So the powers that be weren't thinking too clearly when they decided to invade and are thinking domino democracy would be the cure...
First Walker, don't change my words. Second, I thi... (show quote)


>>>>>>>

This is suppose to be a Republic not a Democratic collective of states.

The only Democratic process in this Republic should be the V****g of issues and not the Unconstitutional Funding and Wordology or Trickery of the Authoring in the Bills or Laws

You get that ?

We're going to fight a war to restore the Republic

Reply
Jul 11, 2017 19:16:35   #
PeterS
 
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>>>>

This is suppose to be a Republic not a Democratic collective of states.

The only Democratic process in this Republic should be the V****g of issues and not the Unconstitutional Funding and Wordology or Trickery of the Authoring in the Bills or Laws

You get that ?

We're going to fight a war to restore the Republic


And where did I say we were a democracy? The question was "Why exactly do you think we went into these nations?" and the answer was because little George thought he could spread democracy throughout the middle east. What he didn't take into account is that they are more sectarian than we are making a liberal style democracy impossible. As for us being a republic you are certainly correct. But we are a republic built around democratic principles and governed by a constitution. Most modern nations are democratic republics where this fails in the middle east is they reject the concept of secularism and insist on sectarianism making them just one more form of tyranny--and nothing else...

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.