skeptic1138

When this event never happens (and I assure you it will not) will you question if your religion is real, or will you just take it to mean the prophecy was mis-interpreted?

Yes Hezbollah is as you say. But they are being sent into Syria to fight FOR the Assad government not against them. Is that what you are saying? As for Obama sending weapons I have not seen any evidence of that as yet, we may start to and the EU has recently authorized it as well. I just posted a clarification for those that did NOT go and read the article. That's all. I assume we did the test for one or two reasons, maybe both. We might not have been sure if it would have sufficient penetrating power to work so needed to find out if this was in fact an option. Or we might already have know and did it specifically so the Iranians would know and perhaps encourage them to negotiate a bit more seriously. First the clause in 13303 about things other than the DFI fund says NOTHING in that is related to allowing US citizens to own Dinar, since they had that right (or for any other currency) all along. Further in such documents noting is "understood to mean", everything is spelled out in legal detail. It also does not say anything about a broad legal shield for contractors and mercenaries. The gurus have just run wild with this in an effort to claim owning dinar somehow was planned by Bush. Keep in mind that the Bush administration were the ones that thought the war would last at most six months and cost at most $50B. Their short term plans were wildly wrong and yet folks want to credit them with some ten year plan. No way. Of course Iraq has an interest in IQD, not sure what you meant by that. As for faith and prophecy, you are correct I don't buy a bit of it. The problem with Biblical prophecy is that it is always after the fact. When Iraq does not end up ruling the world, the faithful will just pick a new interpretation of this as they have always done. A Bible prophecy can never be disproved to a believer as they just claim it was incorrectly interpreted and they are all so vague and abstract that many many such interpretations are possible. Nothing I say here will cause you to question your faith, as you did not come to your faith by reasoning. I have no problem with that, to each their own. By the same token claims of prophecy etc that can not remotely stand up to scientific scrutiny will never convince me either. Looking at the multitude of religions and how they have evolved over time, the hypothesis that humans created gods and religinos fits that data quite well. The hypothesis that some one of them is actually correct and the foundation of the universe is some sort of being does not fit that data very well, nor meshes with what (little) we know of cosmology.

Should have been "of course" not "of douse", spell check slipped one past me again...

A few billion dinar?, sure (i.e. a few million dollars) to get new plates made and run off more currency then they usually need for yearly replacement. But the idea that this has to be synced up with the GOI's budget makes no sense as long as both currencies would exist side by side for a year or two, which is always how the RD articles all said it would be as I recall.

Assuming the double negative was not intended, yes I think the IQD can not be the foreign reserve currency for the ME. A reserver currency has to float, and no country that has a single sector and fairly small GDP is likely to float their currency since it opens them to volatility.

Semantics? i.e. meaning, would seem to be important. Points 1 and 2 were just clarifications, no real disputes. Its point 3 about EO 13303 that is more of an issue, since despite its constant surfacing in dinar-land, I don't see the connection. It does reference a few other EOs, so to be sure you would have to go look at those as well, which I did not (though the url I provided does list them all).

A few quick comments. 1) Its hard to keep the players straight in the ME, but as far as I know the Hezbollah fighters have been sent in to support Assad against the oppoisition in Syria. It sounded from your post like you might have that backwards, or maybe I just didn't parse it correctly. 2) We did not destroy a real underground nuclear site, but a mock up of one, i.e. to see if our biggest bunker busting bombs would in fact do the job if need be (and the answer seems to be yes, which is good of course). 3) I think the presidential order you are thinking of is 13303 not 13033. The second one is from Clinton about government pay scales. The first one (13303) is the one constantly claimed to allow dinar investment, but it is only about protecting the DFI fund from liens from law suits. No order is needed to allow a US citizen to purchase any currency they wish as far as I know, and I don't see anything in this order (its only 1 page) impacting such ownership.

You're most welcome.

Of course that doc also says the CBI's primary goal is price stability not appreciation.

If the goal is knowledge, then a big part of that is knowing what is true (or at least might be true) and what is false. Am I not contributing to that by pointing out false statements? If by contributing you mean showing how a huge RV will work, I don't see how it can work, so I can't do that. Specifically on the procedures to alter the exchange rate, it looks to me that the CBI is fully autonomous and need not get permission from the BIS or even the GOI. Read the third page (page 9) of the CBI law http://cbi.iq/documents/CBILAW-EN_f.pdf

Does appending "this is just my opinion" on the end of a post insulate you from all questions? Does it mean that things you claim as facts in support of your opinion are also just your opinion? For example he says early in the OP: Do you read that SWFG meant that to be read as "I'm going to make a guess as to the process, but its just my opinion and not based on any actual facts"? I don't think so. It seems clear he is stating a fact, one I dispute specifically around the claimed role of the BIS. So I asked him for some supporting evidence. None has been offered (or was offered when he first posted this (word for word) back in Jan. Of douse. It was just a figure of speech with an implied "in order to resolve this" appended. I didn't mean to imply SWFG is under some requirement to answer my question.

How is just asking for some evidence that what he claimed (as to the claim that the BIS approves changes in exchange rates) showing animosity? That claim seems very contrary to the roles the BIS provides to central banks as presented on BIS.org . So I asked. No such evidence has been offered and then as a second thought I googled the post and found it is from last Jan. If you read animosity into asking for support for claims people make, I think that is a somewhat unusual usage.

So far, no one has produced a report at all, let alone one from a credible source, that actually makes some sort of estimate about gold in the ground in Iraq. Its just reports of comments made by people such as the one you posted where we have no idea how much translation went into "huge" or what that might actually mean. It also takes a long time to develop a mining industry (i.e. they are large scale industrial operations). So Iraq may well have significant mineral resources, but oil is going to remain the top revenue source. Gold and other minerals getting up to a few billion dollars worth a year (i.e. a few percent of oil revenue) would be a great accomplishment (which I do not mean to minimize). Also while this may seem like a tiny technical detail, there is a an issue of accounts relative to gold deposits that might be mined one day and how that might impact the exchange rate. What dominates the exchange rate for a pegged currency is the money supply compared to the central bank reserves (a bit of which are indeed gold the CBI has bought). But gold from state owned lands (or state owned mineral rights) would (like oil revenue) go to the GOI. That's good for Iraq of course and can be used for any budget item including just giving it to the people (like Qatar does with a portion of its revenue), but it only gets into the CBI reserves if they exchange it for dinars, and that action keeps the money supply and reserves in the same proportion as before this exchange, so it does not impact the rate. I think it might require some sort of special law for the GOI to just give the CBI funds to add to their reserves. Maybe that's possible, but passing any law in Iraq seems somewhat problematic. If Iraq ever goes to a floating exchange regime, and manages to keep the dinar stable when doing so, then a growing minerals industry could positively impact the rate to some extent, but then lots of other factors can influence the rate of floating currencies so I doubt Iraq is going to do so anytime soon at least (say within 10 years).

I guess getting some sort of supporting evidence of the BIS's claimed role here is not going to happen. This OP by SWFG made the rounds of the dinar site last Jan (just pick a whole line, put it in quotes and google for it) and no links or evidence or support of any kind was offered with those either. Oh well.

Just because the gurus claims of a GCR are nonsense doesn't mean that there can't be any changes on the world stage. There are very powerful forces trying to hold the Eurozone together and keep the Euro going, but its possible they might not be successful and at some point there might be some sort of reshuffling. That would be huge, but is nothing like the claimed GCR.

To take the context out of dinars to something else to illustrate my point. One person might promote the idea that our energy future will be in ground based wind farms, while another might say airborne wind generators, or space based solar, or miniature fission reactors or massive fusion reactors or... There are arguments on many sides of this issue. But if someone says the answer to transportation energy is already here, just fill the tank on your current car up with water and it will run just fine, that is not an opinion, it is clearly wrong. Should that last point be in the same category as the others? I don't think so.

Just in case those thanking Eagle1 for this latest hallucinogenic ramble might think there is some truth to all this, consider this fundamental point. The whole reason that a reserve currency is used is due to fiat currency. Reserve currencies are by definition floating as you don't want to hold a reserve that is only an intermediate as it in turn is backed by something else, just hold that something else in reserve instead. If all currencies were backed by commodities then by definition there are no reserve currencies anymore as then every currency is backed by something of direct value, i.e. no intermediates. So clearly Eagle1 has no understanding of how currency works. Strict asset backed currencies have two huge problems, which (at least as I understand it) is why they are not used. First it means the money supply value can not change unless new supplies of these assets are found. Which means the money supply can not grow to support a growing economy. Secondly it means that the price of these assets is fixed (if for e.g. a dollar is a a gold certificate worth 1/1600th of an ounce of gold, then the dollar price of gold is by definition fixed at 1600 dollars per ounce). But supply and demand for all these assets still goes up and down, which means the price of everything else is forced to fluctuate all over the place, which is bad for everyone. I said "strict asset backed" as you can (as the US did) print more money than you have assets to back them up, making a mockery of the asset backed idea, which (again as I understand it) is one of the reasons we went off the gold standard since we effectively had done so long before Nixon officially declared it, by printing far more dollars than we had gold to back it. But the whole GCR silliness is claiming we will go to strict asset backing where a currency is a direct stand-in for some specified amount of some asset. Just as a point anyone can go look up, but Eagle1 clearly could not be bothered to do. Foreign central banks that want their gold reserves held in the US do not use Fort Knox as that is used for US holdings alone, but the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which is used for both US and foreign holdings. Eagle1 doesn't say where Iraq got all this massive amount of gold of course (the CBI reports they have about 31 tones, the US has something like 5,000 tones, yet the IQD will according to Eagle1 become a reserve currency for the dollar). Its gibberish. The GCR is 100% fiction.

There are conspiracy theories on both extremes about this group, which may point to none of them being correct. I doubt that the bankers are discussing things like how to make even more obscure and incomprehensible financial products, as there are too many people from too diverse sectors. I would hope, and see some indication based on reports of past meetings, that the topics are largely about how to counter trends in the world which are not good for anyone yet on which we don't seem to make much progress. The secrecy and unofficial nature hopefully allows the participants to say what they really think, which is a good thing for their peers across the world to understand and is rather hard to get from the normal media channels and official statements.

Please explain. What am I dogging? I do not comment in nor always read Adam's chat thread. I think the comment about how silly it was to think the global financial software is what is holding up the RV was a comment on a post relayed from Eagle1, and I stand by it.

Indeed. When we organize ourselves into structures like governments we do not seem able to learn from history.

Someone else here claims I'm Dinarck. Just because other users can go read things like the Basel III docs themselves rather than taking the guru's word for what they say, and do a bit of arithmetic (2+2 is the same for everyone after all) does not make them the same person. If it really matters to you perhaps you can get the mods to do an IP comparison, though that is not always definitive given NAT deployment. You might also ask them if name calling is allowed. I wae having a perfectly cordial conversation with Darin, then you showed up.

Sorry I don't follow you. Reach what point? Their respective exchange rates are very similar. SK's M2 is 12x bigger than Iraq's as SK's GDP is 10-12x bigger and more diverse. As GDP grows the money supply has to ramp up proportionately.

Please show me where in the Basel III docs it says anything about this. Basel III is about stricter requirements for banks. South Korea's currency floats (with the trading range controlled). They have a $1.5T USD GDP and foreign reserves of $300B USD. Because South Korea sells a ton of diverse stuff to the world there is plenty of demand for their currency. So very different than Iraq. But it does show you can have a viable growing economy with lots of international trade with a low exchange rate.

Bashing me just shows you have no reply, you can not support the crazy things you post. Hardly a surprise of course.

None of which says anything about Iraq having gold deposits equal to the entire rest of the world. That just isn't possible. Do they have minerals and perhaps gold as well, sure. Will it eclipse oil? Not unless oil prices undergo a vast decline, which would be devastating for Iraq. What are you talking about? Of course there is PRIVATE wealth in Iraq. But their currency is valued based on the foreign reserves of the CBI, which are ~$70B USD worth as you say. That's how a pegged currency works.