d00gie

WTF Jac? Load of crap, methinks.

Guests aren't even supposed to be able to post. Feel free to register an account and post some opposing view that is of substance (i.e. non-inane). 'sillyiqd" = disinfo agent.

Let me ask again -- HOW ARE GUESTS STILL ALLOWED TO POST?!?!?

This recent missive from Martin Armstrong gives (as usual), an incisive look into the state of things based on how the world really works: http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/The%20Rising%20Frustration%20with%20the%20Debt%20Crisis%2011-11-2010.pdf'>http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/The%20Rising%20Frustration%20with%20the%20Debt%20Crisis%2011-11-2010.pdf If you don't know the MA story, you should. Check this: http://www.martinarmstrong.org Martin Armstrong is currently in prison. Indicted in 1999 on charges of defrauding Japanese investors. He was in jail for seven years for contempt of court before pleading guilty in 2007 to the fraud charge for which he received an additional five year prison term. Armstrong claims his legal problems started when he failed to play ball with "The Club". His imprisonment is one of the longest under a contempt of court order without a trial. Coincidentally, prior to his guilty plea, his final appeal for release (relating to indefinate imprisonment for contempt of court) was denied by (recently promoted) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Yes. Correct. Well, twice as rich... Oh -- and open an account -- these guest-started threads are annoying, and I thought weren't even supposed to be *possible*. MODS????

I will be thrilled when the mods respond to my multiple reports of inane guest posts on this thread.

Hmm. Since those bastards stopped reporting M3, it's hard to tell exactly what happens with "eurodollars", i.e. FRNs held outside the U.S. that could be exchanged for dinars held in the U.S. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm I *don't* think that the number of dinars held by non-sovereign nation or central bank holders (i.e. in the tens to low hundreds of billions?) is going to cause the degree of dislocation you're envisioning. By "influx of wealth", are you thinking that the Fed/Treasury would have to monetize new treasuries to come up with the cash?

The first question that comes to my mind is, does the Treasury hold the dinar, or the Fed? Also, not entirely clear to me, if it's on the Fed's balance sheet, where forex shows up in the monetary measures. If the Treasury holds it, they could use it over a longer period of time to absorb FRN's from elsewhere, pay bills, and even retire some treasuries. The relative shortage of new treasuries would serve to keep interest rates down (which they MUST do to keep interest rate swaps -- THE largest category of derivatives -- from detonating.) My initial thought for the Fed is they could immediately retire the 1.2T (notional) in worthless Fannie and Freddie paper that they've added to M0 (AMB) in the last 2 years. That would absorb a chunk of it.

Down to your last dinar. (Post RV)

Unfortunately, the 100K gold certificates only circulated inside the Fed and the Treasury -- the public never held them. But the 10,000 dollar FRNs did. Actually, although you could actually spend a 10,000 FRN note today for 10,000 (it's still a legal tender), a 10,000 dollar bill goes for way more than 10K now. This link will eventually go south, but right now it's good for 26+ days: http://cgi.ebay.com/10-000-TEN-THOUSAND-DOLLAR-BILL-10000-PMG-VF-35-/130457149896?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e5fda21c8 And that's not even a nice, crispy uncirculated one.

All hyperbole aside, I truly would appreciate an answer to this. I've never had the time to chase it and run it to the ground.

Thanks Urban. I do hope that my indignation doesn't overshadow the 'tough love' of having to pierce the fabric of someone's entire worldview with the truth.

No, actually good to know. Glad it was you testing it, and not some random guest twit. Maybe someone will fix it.

Aargh.

An excellent point. I worked about 15 years in bioinformatics and geodesy and image processing. Up until I started digging into this subject, I'm sad to say I think I probably never collected a paycheck that didn't come from the federal coffers, one way or another. No, the entire discipline is not worthless, just as Math, Physics, Biochemistry, etc. are not. The real issue is that fiat currencies (which, at least, in the US, are unconstitutional 'bills of credit') and fractional reserve banking (lending what you don't have, and collecting interest on it) are criminal frauds (in the legal sense) which are allowed to operate under the Color of Law. These frauds have operated for so long, and so profoundly distorted the political, financial, educational, media, and other societal systems away from what they would be under the Rule of Law, that it is fair to say that, intentionally or not, they have indeed altered the very reality in which we would otherwise have found ourselves. Currency and credit which could not have come into existence, were the Rule of Law being observed, fundamentally alter the dynamic of what is "economically viable". I've unfortunately worked on things that I thought to myself "man, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of this", and so (again, unfortunately, in hindsight) I am acutely aware of the types of things these monetary distortions have made possible. I single out Economics for special disdain, perhaps, because it is the technical discipline that renders the monetary fraud (and thus the entire societal distortion) possible. One of the most useful statements about the identification of 'deliberate engineering of over-arching conspiracy' is right in the Declaration of Independence: when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design I think it's fair to say that the Founding Fathers were not "Conspiracy Nuts", and not just because the process for refining aluminum for tinfoil hats hadn't been invented yet. I have given you two very concrete examples of 'glitches in the Matrix', concerning things about which you have been *very* well trained and schooled, which at the very least should induce sufficient cognitive dissonance to make you go, "hmm." If your mind is open, you might be able to take the next step, which is to honestly investigate how these antinomial "facts" managed to get left behind. And if you undertake this investigation critically, it will be impossible not to ask yourself, "How else have I been misled?" If you assume nothing, and attempt to answer this question without reference to what you *think* you know, I assure you that you *will* stumble across individual instances in a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object, statistically significant enough in number to evince a Design. That, and a number of other things. Undoubtedly the book is ridiculed in "respectable" circles, and while the book is not perfect, that would be a mistake. The book I would recommend to you for a better understanding of oil economics and geopolitics is "A Century of War" by William Engdahl. Speaking of G. Edward Griffin, you might watch this interview with Norman Dodd, who was the staff director for the Reece Committee on Tax-Exempt Foundations in the 1950's. Ignore the titles and introduction, and simply *listen to what he has to say*.

TYVM.

Yes, I used the term "US Government" advisedly...

I guess Federal Reserve Notes are called "petrodollars" for no reason, then... In a very small nutshell, from 1943 to 1971, international FRN redemption by foreign nations and central banks was for the gold in Fort Knox, for most of this time at FRN$35 per ounce. (For you and I, we could not redeem FRNs for gold, and it was a felony to possess any significant quantity of monetary non-numismatic U.S. gold coinage or gold certificates.) This was agreed to at Bretton Woods, at the same meeting in which the IMF and World Bank were created. On Aug. 15, 1971, after massive warfare and welfare spending on Vietnam and the "Great Society", the U.S. unilaterally defaulted on its promises to pay, basically telling the rest of the world to pound sand. Since then, all currencies have floated against each other, redeemable for nothing at all. The main dynamic that has continued to make the FRN valuable is that oil is traded worldwide *only* in New York and London, and *only* in USD/FRNs. Any attempts to circumvent this arrangement have been met with military force. So, yes, the US Government has been hip deep in the oil business for a LONG time, and much longer than since the early 70's. Read "A Century of War" by William Engdahl.

The US is absolutely desperate at this point to try (futile as it will be) to prop up the FRN/USD and the economy. The US *wants* us to convert our IQD to FRN/USD. The artificial increase in demand for FRN/USD will tend to prop up the USD index, which, should it drop below 71, could have the bottom fall out. Then, there's the 35% tax boost (pun intended), which will reduce the amount of worthless Treasuries that they have to either pawn off on, say, China, who isn't buying nearly as many anymore, or otherwise monetize through backdoor channels such as JPM, City of London, etc., (oops, I mean "households", as shown in the last Fed Z.1) as they have also been doing. Then there's the attendant spending on real estate, to prop up that collapse. (The spending on hookers, booze and Corvettes goes without saying. Woohoo! Oil "Wealth" effect!) But if people are smart, they'll take delivery of gold, or even better, silver American Eagles in a barter exchange. That would be an actualization of the "wealth" into a store of value that is effective during economic crises of all stripes, in one of which we are most certainly enmeshed.

This would be extremely useful. I imagine it's on here *somewhere* already. Anyone?

I'm sorry, but this is wrong. Inflation is an increase in price levels, caused by an increase in the money supply, and wealth effects occur anytime there are asynchronous changes in prices. As with the incorrect definition of the U.S. Dollar, economist(s) have been brainwashed with an incorrect, cart-before-the-horse definition of inflation based on price rather than money supply. The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (2nd ed. is 1989 vintage, none newer yet that I know of, I could be wrong) is the standard arbiter of the use of words in the English language. For the word "inflation", the first relevant definition is: "6. Great or undue expansion or enlargement; increase beyond proper limits; esp. of prices, the issue of paper money, etc. spec[ifically] An undue increase in the quantity of money in relation to the goods available for purchase; (in lay use) an inordinate rise in prices." (emphases added) So it *specifically* says that it is an undue increase in the quantity of money in relation to available goods. It also says that "an inordinate rise in prices" is a *lay* definition. As in colloquial, or imprecise, or non-professional, or if you like, un-professional. Here are the examples of usage the OED gives under this definition: The 1838 Barnard quote says: "The property pledge can have no tendency whatever to prevent an inflation of the currency." (emphasis added) Under this, the 1864 Webster's definition says: "Undue expansion or increase, from over-issue; said of currency." (emphasis added) The 1922 Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Inflation had the effect of reducing the pre-war unit of value." (emphasis added) The 1949 London Times says: "Inflation is used to describe the situation in any country where there is an excess of currency and credit in relation to the work to be done, an excess of purchasing power and effective demand in relation to its goods available, with prices and wages, and prices again, rising in consequence." (emphases added) This last definition is important, because it cuts to the heart of the misuse of the term. It is *descriptive* of a "situation", NOT *definitive*. Indeed all the other uses such as "inflation of prices" are merely *imprecise, descriptive, colloquial uses* of the term which do not convey *meaning*, but merely *sense*. Even definition number 8, "inflation-proof" says "to protect from the effects of monetary inflation." (emphases added) Changes in price ARE NOT "inflation" or "deflation". They are changes in price. Period. Changes in price due to changes in the money supply are not inflation/deflation -- inflation/deflation IS the change in the money supply itself. I don't always agree with everything that Gary North writes, but the following, from his article "If Deflation is Coming, Sell Your Gold" ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north680.html ) is spot on: Austrian School economists define inflation as follows: "an increase in the money supply." All other schools of thought define inflation as follows: "an increase in our favorite price index." Austrian School economists define deflation as follows: "a decrease in the money supply." All other schools of thought and define deflation as follows: "a decrease in our favorite price index." (This should not be construed to be a blanket endorsement of Austrian economics, which suffers from one flaw common to the other schools -- that usury is "okay" and that it is socially and morally acceptable to exploit the purported "time value of money" to realize gain without honest work.) I am also deeply reticent to quote Milton Friedman, whose false-right money printing paradigm is as laissez-faire as the Republicans' false-right warfare socialism is "republic"-an. I.e., NOT. However, one thing he said is dead-on: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." The emphasis here is not on "price", but on "money". In other words, the correct definition of inflation describes something which is directly quantifiable by actual records (the "money" supply), whereas the mealy-mouthed "living economics" so-called "definition" of "inflation" is not directly quantifiable, but only expressible in worthless "price indices" which exist merely to give their promoters more ways to lie about the true state of the economy (and, of course, as a jobs program for otherwise productively unemployable "economists".) This is a distinctive hallmark of Keynesian, Fabian, Orwellian "economics" -- nowhere in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money is the word "inflation" defined. I do apologize for imposing the brunt of the sins of an entire academic discipline on you, and I don't get the sense that you're an apologist. My frustration is that I've had more than one Ph.D. "economist" parrot with rote, machine-like regurgitation, "But, but -- the standard definition is a general increase in prices. (stupid non-Economist)" It's the only answer they have, because they and all their American Economic Association and Central Bank funded hack friends, (not to mention "The Literature", funded by the same Socialists) have been bombarded and misled with these garbage notions since they took Econ 101. Their brains literally lock up, because they can't imagine that their entire reality is a fabrication. "But, but -- this one goes to 11. (stupid non-Heavy Metal Musician)" [No offense here is meant to Heavy Metal Musicians by unfortunate and unfair analogy with "economists".] So where did this bogus "Inflation is an increase in the general price level" so-called "standard" so-called "definition" come from? It's certainly not a correct use of the English language. Somewhere in the 20th Century, this insinuated its way into the "dismal science" imposed Newspeak view of the world. Whence came it? When did the textbooks change it? Ah, the "limitless gold" argument. Indeed the inflation of the money supply in Spain due to the influx of gold and silver from the New World caused prices to rise in a destructive manner. However, Spain still managed to spend it all. There was no "lender of last resort" to keep the party going and exacerbating, even magnifying, the damage by providing an artificial (and fraudulent) excessive supply of circulating medium. I'd put the question back this way: who should I trust to preserve the scarcity of currency (and thus its function as a store of value) -- a bunch of "monetary scientists" subject to all the human flaws of error, whimsy, caprice, greed, lust for power, and venality -- or the nuclear strong force that consistently holds 47 or 79 positively charged protons within a femtometer of each other?

Huh??? So... Should I call you Dingus McStupid when it comes in at a rate > FRN$2 that will actually pay for all of Iraq's obligations to quite a few countries?? I guess all the movement in the last two weeks -- events that have NEVER happened in the last 6 years -- is totally meaningless. If you have an actual point, make it, otherwise STFU.

Awshucks. (blushes) This subject, at the juncture of history, economics, and law, is THE root issue with what is seriously fcuked up with the world. Let me float a few hundred trillion in bad checks, and I can give you the illusion of prosperity, too, while profiting immensely from the resultant welfare, warfare, and debt enslavement.

Apparently, it's not.