Updated thoughts from Enoch8...sat oct.1

[Highlander]

So first you're just going to ignore everything I said and move on. Ok, up to you. But lets be clear you did not answer any of my points.

Yes I am aware of flat money. If you live in isolation then definition I made bold can work, but that is not the case for countries that want to import, export, and exchange currency. Then the sum total of stuff that it represents (not gold, but the basket of stuff you can buy with it) must be consistent with its exchange rate to other currencies and their economies and be supported by the country. i.e. why are we not happy with how China pegs its currency? If it doesn't matter and is just arbitrary why are we so upset with them?

No. All these things will allow them to support a growing economy going forward but they do not offer support for a currency today, which wouldn't be a flat currency even if such things could back a currency.

No actually they can't. They can only take on as much as the rest of the world thinks they can pay, i.e. the size of their economy.

Some people actually have to go to bed and sleep so they can go to work the next day! I am sorry you don't feel I answered any of your points. It is obvious they we just disagree on economics just like the economist in Iraq see this event and the capabilities of Iraq differently. It isn't that big a deal because as look would have it none of us are right or wrong until after this event is over and we have the benefit of hindsight!

[Kay]

Well avery good chat ..indeed !!!

[Darin]

So first you're just going to ignore everything I said and move on. Ok, up to you. But lets be clear you did not answer any of my points.

Yes I am aware of flat money. If you live in isolation then definition I made bold can work, but that is not the case for countries that want to import, export, and exchange currency. Then the sum total of stuff that it represents (not gold, but the basket of stuff you can buy with it) must be consistent with its exchange rate to other currencies and their economies and be supported by the country. i.e. why are we not happy with how China pegs its currency? If it doesn't matter and is just arbitrary why are we so upset with them?

No. All these things will allow them to support a growing economy going forward but they do not offer support for a currency today, which wouldn't be a flat currency even if such things could back a currency.

No actually they can't. They can only take on as much as the rest of the world thinks they can pay, i.e. the size of their economy.

No offense, but why do you strike me as a guy who gets a bigger ego by correcting everyone else's minor mistakes?

And on another side note, why do some people attack some of the real researchers so HARD? No wonder why many of them no longer post here...

I understand that if they're wrong, they need to be corrected, but at least bring a better attitude when doing so.

[Francie26]

I don't think this guy knows what he is talking about concerning the powers of the CBI. The CBI has the CBI Law link on its website, and why would it provide that link if it wasn't a valid law? The CBI Law gives the CBI the power to do all the things he said the CBI can not do.

-

Oh, thank you, Markinsa!! Thank you!! Thank you!! Thank you!! I had begun to feel that old miserable hopeless feeling again, and now it is gone!! As soon as you said this, it just went whisht!! and then was gone. LOL Just teasing, but I really do feel much, much better after being reminded that CBI has the full authority of law behind Shabibi's decisions. In fact, I suspect Shabibi will need to get this done in the next few weeks (around Thanksgiving probably. That's Adam's prognosis, which makes me also believe it should be around that time). Of course, if it happened today, I'd just deal with it.

I'm going to comment on the above and take the risk that the whole forum will laugh me to the exit and tar and feather me :-).

But....

if I hold 1 mio dinars, and the RV comes in at 1$ then the US banks would happily exchange them into US$ for me. They will get the equivalent in value, which will move to their reserves and can be used as further backing for their fractional banking methods, right?

It does come from thin air. Money is not backed by anything but the economical activity of us humans. Not gold. Not silver.

The US doesn't need to print anything. It's all lazy digits in a computer.

So, the US is now holding onto my dinars. If the rate goes further up ( as Adam Montana believes... he thinks we'll have a floated RV, with 10cents first and further increases which will in effect pay for the increase in value), the US bank holding my dinars will increase value.

Am I wrong?

Nope.

[keepmwlknfny]

But everything that Enoch8 has stated on these calls is 100% true. We have the UN treaties that allow for the monetizing of assests and bills of exchange to exist. The funds at these levels are not accounted for by the CBI the way the account for the funds that their banks hold or that the people of Iraq hold. They absoulutely can do a revaluation of .86 up to 1.30 and support it because of the way international banking is set-up. They don't play by the same rules that lets say you and I do personally or in our businesses.

Highlander,

I like your style....coming to the table with some solid information....very rare these days...I have a question for you though....where is this proof of the UN treaties that would allow/or that specifically state that Iraq can monetize their assets such as oil/gold/natural gas to back the value of their currency?? Just curious because this gets brought up alot but if this were easily possible then how come these other oil producing nations arent doing the same to bring the value of their currency up??

[Highlander]

But everything that Enoch8 has stated on these calls is 100% true. We have the UN treaties that allow for the monetizing of assests and bills of exchange to exist. The funds at these levels are not accounted for by the CBI the way the account for the funds that their banks hold or that the people of Iraq hold. They absoulutely can do a revaluation of .86 up to 1.30 and support it because of the way international banking is set-up. They don't play by the same rules that lets say you and I do personally or in our businesses.

Highlander,

I like your style....coming to the table with some solid information....very rare these days...I have a question for you though....where is this proof of the UN treaties that would allow/or that specifically state that Iraq can monetize their assets such as oil/gold/natural gas to back the value of their currency?? Just curious because this gets brought up alot but if this were easily possible then how come these other oil producing nations arent doing the same to bring the value of their currency up??

I can't upload the document into the forum from the united nations as it is over 5MB. If you will send me a private message with an e-mail I will happily forward you a couple of documents to chew on. Maybe a moderator has a larger upload capability and could post it for all to read.

The name of the document for those who are willing to dig in the UN site themselves is Bills_of_Exchange_expl_Note-1.pdf.

And the one from www.bis.org is: BISrpfx10t.PDF this one scratches the surface on that is referred to as shadow banking.

sorry I don't have the links to the UN site for the PDF as I download all important documents as they have a tendency to move on me later if I try to live by links alone!

[Highlander]

But everything that Enoch8 has stated on these calls is 100% true. We have the UN treaties that allow for the monetizing of assests and bills of exchange to exist. The funds at these levels are not accounted for by the CBI the way the account for the funds that their banks hold or that the people of Iraq hold. They absoulutely can do a revaluation of .86 up to 1.30 and support it because of the way international banking is set-up. They don't play by the same rules that lets say you and I do personally or in our businesses.

Highlander,

I like your style....coming to the table with some solid information....very rare these days...I have a question for you though....where is this proof of the UN treaties that would allow/or that specifically state that Iraq can monetize their assets such as oil/gold/natural gas to back the value of their currency?? Just curious because this gets brought up alot but if this were easily possible then how come these other oil producing nations arent doing the same to bring the value of their currency up??

Sorry just realized I didn't answer your other question which is a very good question by the way. I don't know what their thought process is and honestly that is part of the bickering in Iraq. You see china was brought up here in this thread earlier and the point was made why are we unhappy with them. Well as we all know we are unhappy with them because they are artificially holding the value of their currency down which is causing a trade imbalance with the United States. Now I know some people would say "why doesn't the IMF make them fix it?" Well here is the ugly truth, the IMF doesn't have the power to make a country alter its exchange rate if that country is article 8 status in the IMF. Iraq is article 14 right now which means they can't go international and they can't monetize certain assests like countries that are article 8. Now in order for Iraq to get to article 8 they have to be withing the guidelines and boundaries set by the IMF.

You asked for example about the other middle east neighbors of Iraq.

It isn't just about exchange rate it is also about the politics of the countries as well. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are still a monarchy and welfare state. Meaning they sustain the people off what they choose to give to them.

But if you look at Turkey they are moving towards a democratic society and free market economy (which is what Iraq has stated they want)

Now look at the differences in the exchange rates of the countries and you will see a pattern develop.

Kuwait with a population of only 3+ million people can give more to the people from the oil and still live better as a monarchy then you and I could even dream about.

Saudi Arabia trys to do the same thing but has a much higher poplulation and without a free market eceonomy they end up with a much lower exchange rate then Kuwait.

Turkey lands between the 2 mentioned above in population but has very little natural resources and they bounce around in their exchange rate to reflect the free market economy.

Now what makes Iraq different? They have the possibility of having all of the above!

I know this is rushed as I have to get back to work but this seriously would take about 5 days worth of calls at 2 hours a pop to fully explain it all. I hope this gets you started!

[keepmwlknfny]

Sorry just realized I didn't answer your other question which is a very good question by the way. I don't know what their thought process is and honestly that is part of the bickering in Iraq. You see china was brought up here in this thread earlier and the point was made why are we unhappy with them. Well as we all know we are unhappy with them because they are artificially holding the value of their currency down which is causing a trade imbalance with the United States. Now I know some people would say "why doesn't the IMF make them fix it?" Well here is the ugly truth, the IMF doesn't have the power to make a country alter its exchange rate if that country is article 8 status in the IMF. Iraq is article 14 right now which means they can't go international and they can't monetize certain assests like countries that are article 8. Now in order for Iraq to get to article 8 they have to be withing the guidelines and boundaries set by the IMF.

You asked for example about the other middle east neighbors of Iraq.

It isn't just about exchange rate it is also about the politics of the countries as well. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are still a monarchy and welfare state. Meaning they sustain the people off what they choose to give to them.

But if you look at Turkey they are moving towards a democratic society and free market economy (which is what Iraq has stated they want)

Now look at the differences in the exchange rates of the countries and you will see a pattern develop.

Kuwait with a population of only 3+ million people can give more to the people from the oil and still live better as a monarchy then you and I could even dream about.

Saudi Arabia trys to do the same thing but has a much higher poplulation and without a free market eceonomy they end up with a much lower exchange rate then Kuwait.

Turkey lands between the 2 mentioned above in population but has very little natural resources and they bounce around in their exchange rate to reflect the free market economy.

Now what makes Iraq different? They have the possibility of having all of the above!

I know this is rushed as I have to get back to work but this seriously would take about 5 days worth of calls at 2 hours a pop to fully explain it all. I hope this gets you started!

Check your profile....

I can see the difference in the other ME countries as far as the type of economy they have set up, but what about some of the other oil producing countries like brazil, venezula or hell even the US....I mean its been stated that WE actually have the largest reserves in the world but yet we allow the dollar to decline instead of propping it back up tremendously....so I figure if its really that easy to do, then why havent we done it?

[Darin]

Check your profile....

I can see the difference in the other ME countries as far as the type of economy they have set up, but what about some of the other oil producing countries like brazil, venezula or hell even the US....I mean its been stated that WE actually have the largest reserves in the world but yet we allow the dollar to decline instead of propping it back up tremendously....so I figure if its really that easy to do, then why havent we done it?

We would pump our own crude if:

It was just as easy in the M.E. (Cost is cheap to extract crude from their ground versus ours)

Crude was not sold in Petrodollars (Why compete with ourselves? I know you've argued this point yourself)

OPEC countries were not buying US Bonds (Debt)

Without doing any research...

What type of economies & governments do Brazil & Venezuela have? (Gotta factor that in)

We turn to history to compare/contrast the unique situation(s) the GOI & CBI are in.

We turn to other present-day economies to do the same..

They're are moments they're similar and moments they're not. Long-story short, we're speaking of a unique situation.

Lets look at a big picture here:

They sit on a vast amount of natural resources (i.e. crude, natural gas, and much more)

They are near other potential threatening neighbors (i.e., Iran)

The U.S. has entered two wars with that country

The 2nd war was more of a success and they're now rebuilding.

We've been there for 8+ and going years..

Their interests are in our interests..

They must be playing a pretty vital role in the world. And if they're that important, I am sure their economy will flourish as well (just a matter of "when").

In time, we'll see this all unfold.. But I am sure it requires patience.

[Highlander]

I can see the difference in the other ME countries as far as the type of economy they have set up, but what about some of the other oil producing countries like brazil, venezula or hell even the US....I mean its been stated that WE actually have the largest reserves in the world but yet we allow the dollar to decline instead of propping it back up tremendously....so I figure if its really that easy to do, then why havent we done it?

You are exactly correct it isn't that easy to do. You see if Iraq actually does a revaluation then they are actually transferring the wealth to the people and not the bankers. If the bankers have the wealth the people are then forced to pay never ending debt to the bankers. You will have to have a mortagage, car loans, credit cards the list goes on and on. That is the illusion that they created for us. You are also correct that the United States could be asset based with not only our oil reserves but with all of our natural resources and a free market economy. But if you monetize those assests then the bankers make less money as there is not as great a need for them. You have to understand that the Federal Reserve that we have now is the 3rd time the US has had that type of banking. It was called a Federal Reserve the first time and our government got rid of them. Then they came back as a central bank and again our government got rid of them. But as the old saying goes...Third time is a charm! See below for a brief history on what the Federal Reserve did with the currency.

In 1963, the words "PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" were removed from all newly issued Federal Reserve notes. Then, in 1968, redemption of pre-1963 Federal Reserve notes for gold or silver officially ended. The Coinage Act of 1965 removed all silver from quarters and dimes, which were 90% silver prior to the act. However, there was a provision in the act allowing some coins to contain a 40% silver consistency, such as the Kennedy Half Dollar. Later, even this provision was removed, and all coins minted for general circulation are now mostly clad. The content of the nickel has not changed since 1946.[citation needed]

All circulating notes, issued from 1861 to present, will be honored by the government at face value as legal tender. This means only that the government will give the holder of the notes new federal reserve notes in exchange for the note (or will accept the old notes as payments for debts owed to the federal government). The government is not obligated to redeem the notes for gold or silver, even if the note itself states that it is so redeemable. Some bills may have a premium to collectors.

You see even prior to legally removing the Unites States from the gold standard by Nixon in 1971 the Federal Reserve had already effectively started that process on the citizens of the United States back in 1963. Now that would lead you to France calling their debt and demanding to cash in their notes they held for gold. Which will then lead you to the deal between the United States and the Middle East and the creation of the Petro Dollar! And oh what a web you are entering now. You see we needed to create a need for the US Dollar to force France to keep their notes because we didn't have the gold to give France for the notes that they held. So by striking the deal with the middle east, which accounts for 70% of the worlds oil production, to only sell oil for the dollar we effectively held the world hostage that they must keep the dollar in their reserve accounts. Hence we created an artificial demand for the dollar which has propped the value of the US Dollar up ever since. It is on pure demand for our currency that we base our value today. If they were to ever monetize the wealth of our country it would diminish the need for the Bankers which diminishes their profits. This web was wove over the United States a long time ago. Iraq has a chance right now in this moment in time to choose a different path for itself. They received a fresh start so to speak in their system. If they do a LOP or even a Hybrid LOP of lets say 100 to 1 they are choosing the path of the United States and indebting the people to slavery to the banks as the banks will hold the wealth. But if they choose to monetize their wealth and circulate it to the people (and no this has not been done in history but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been or couldn't have been) and do a straight up revaluation their economy would explode! They truly would be the strongest and wealthiest nation on earth within the next 5 years IMO.

That is why trying to get a feel for the timing of this event has driven so many insane across the net. It is a very complicated process with so many factors involved it would make all our heads spin. You see no economic policy is ever made with a political influence. In trying to understand why an economic policy was implemented you have to first understand who benefitted from that policy to understand the motives of the policy. Economics is always politically motivated and driven. Understanding the motives of the politics may allow for some insight into the economics.

I hope this answers your question even a little bit. What we are saying basically is to truly be a democratic society and not a dictatorship or monarchy then the needs of the people need to come first. For the people by the people. And that is the difference between the countries IMO. It all comes down to power, who wants it and who has it. And truthfully it should land somewhere in the middle between the government and the bankers. They say the sign of a good deal is when neither party is fully satified with it. Then you know you have done the right thing!

[Zekiel]

Check your profile....

I can see the difference in the other ME countries as far as the type of economy they have set up, but what about some of the other oil producing countries like brazil, venezula or hell even the US....I mean its been stated that WE actually have the largest reserves in the world but yet we allow the dollar to decline instead of propping it back up tremendously....so I figure if its really that easy to do, then why havent we done it?

Actually, in a very real sense, the US does exactly that, to some extent. How do you think we hold the dollar value as we do, without hyperinflating instead of simply slowly dimishing the value, as one would think it would? There is a basis of the value of the debt bonded..... which brings me to some points xyz made....

To XYZ...... Any cornerstone of thinking, that money has any intrinsic value, is a cornerstone, rooted in error and false belief. So to argue with XYZ is illogical. The basis of rational is in error in the very root and foundation of erroneous belief, that money has intrinsic value. It has Zero intrinsic value..... only decree of the king, so to speak.

A good reference to this, is a book called, "The Woe of Babylon", which explains the history of money, back to King Hammurabi and ancient Samaria. This is all about the history of money and is a very good read.

[xyzzy]

Some people actually have to go to bed and sleep so they can go to work the next day! I am sorry you don't feel I answered any of your points.

I am 100% in favor of glorious sleep!

You did however take the time to post a response and find a flat money link and copy and past from it and add some comments, just that none of that address the post to which you were responding. And that is also ok, however it is in my view indicative of a type of argumentation I see very frequently around this issue, where instead of responding to a particular issue, yet another issue is brought up. The second issue may well be valid, flat money IS a relevant topic, but it does not answer the previous issues.

It is obvious they we just disagree on economics just like the economist in Iraq see this event and the capabilities of Iraq differently. It isn't that big a deal because as look would have it none of us are right or wrong until after this event is over and we have the benefit of hindsight!

Indeed hindsight (if we ever get to apply it here!) will make it all clear. But I don't really think differing views of economics are the issue, even though that also may well be the case. To my mind the big-RV crowd is largely doing reverse engineering of a sort. Instead of looking at the situation and asking what do we think will happen, they look at the situation and try to come up with an explanation, no matter how convoluted, that shows a big-RV might happen. Of course no one is perfectly objective, but I see a big RV being assumed and looking for how to rationalize it rather than even attempting to start from a neutral postion and ask what might happen.

[xyzzy]

I'm going to comment on the above and take the risk that the whole forum will laugh me to the exit and tar and feather me :-).

But....

if I hold 1 mio dinars, and the RV comes in at 1$ then the US banks would happily exchange them into US$ for me. They will get the equivalent in value, which will move to their reserves and can be used as further backing for their fractional banking methods, right?

It does come from thin air. Money is not backed by anything but the economical activity of us humans. Not gold. Not silver.

The US doesn't need to print anything. It's all lazy digits in a computer.

So, the US is now holding onto my dinars. If the rate goes further up ( as Adam Montana believes... he thinks we'll have a floated RV, with 10cents first and further increases which will in effect pay for the increase in value), the US bank holding my dinars will increase value.

Am I wrong?

No, that is in large part how it works I think. But there is a big catch. Les say there is 1T dinar held by speculators in the US (200,000 people with 5M each doesn't seem like a big stretch). We take our dinars to the bank and cash in. Whether or not the bank want to hold dinars for an investment is a distinct issue, but just for foreign exchange the bank will send the dinars to the Fed and the Fed will create new dollars in the banks account. This is where the dollars pop into existence from nothing. But the rub with this is that increasing the money supply is inflationary. Inflation on top of recession is a real killer so I don't think the Fed is going to want to do this and will indeed want most of these dinars to go back to Iraq for exchange for real dollars (that we or others paid for oil basically). The Fed only has about 180B of foreign reserves, so even if they use a chunk of these exchanged dinars to build up a foreign reserve for dinars I think the amount wanted to exchange will far exceed their appetite. Which all ends up with far more dinars coming back to Iraq for exchange than Iraq has dollars (or Euros) to support, at least at $1 per dianr. At a dime I think its questionable but possible that it works, at a penny it isn't much of a problem I think.

[Highlander]

I am 100% in favor of glorious sleep!

You did however take the time to post a response and find a flat money link and copy and past from it and add some comments, just that none of that address the post to which you were responding. And that is also ok, however it is in my view indicative of a type of argumentation I see very frequently around this issue, where instead of responding to a particular issue, yet another issue is brought up. The second issue may well be valid, flat money IS a relevant topic, but it does not answer the previous issues.

Indeed hindsight (if we ever get to apply it here!) will make it all clear. But I don't really think differing views of economics are the issue, even though that also may well be the case. To my mind the big-RV crowd is largely doing reverse engineering of a sort. Instead of looking at the situation and asking what do we think will happen, they look at the situation and try to come up with an explanation, no matter how convoluted, that shows a big-RV might happen. Of course no one is perfectly objective, but I see a big RV being assumed and looking for how to rationalize it rather than even attempting to start from a neutral postion and ask what might happen.

You seem to be under the impression that I am advocating a huge revaluation for Iraq and putting me in the same category as those that are pumping the 3+ rates across the net. That is not at all what I have presented here for you all over the last 24 hours.

What I have stated is that there are multiple avenues that Iraq could take and tried to expand the research for people to make their own decisions.

Your statements indicate the only avenue you see is a full blown redenomination and that is certainly your right to have that opinion. As it is my right to have spent thousands of hours on research, looking at this objectively as one can when it comes to money, and came to my conclusion that there is more than one possible outcome for this event and we have to wait it out to see which one comes to fruition. But however this event turns out I have prepared my mind and spirit for the outcome and have planned for multiple possibilities.

[xyzzy]

No offense, but why do you strike me as a guy who gets a bigger ego by correcting everyone else's minor mistakes?

None taken, I'm not responsible for what strikes you one way or the other. I also don't think what I am pointing out are "minor mistakes", but giant errors.

And on another side note, why do some people attack some of the real researchers so HARD? No wonder why many of them no longer post here...

I understand that if they're wrong, they need to be corrected, but at least bring a better attitude when doing so.

I have not attacked the people posting what I think are errant views, but the views they express. I on the other hand get quite a lot of attacks just like yours. Why is that?

[xyzzy]

Actually, in a very real sense, the US does exactly that, to some extent. How do you think we hold the dollar value as we do, without hyperinflating instead of simply slowly dimishing the value, as one would think it would? There is a basis of the value of the debt bonded..... which brings me to some points xyz made....

To XYZ...... Any cornerstone of thinking, that money has any intrinsic value, is a cornerstone, rooted in error and false belief. So to argue with XYZ is illogical. The basis of rational is in error in the very root and foundation of erroneous belief, that money has intrinsic value. It has Zero intrinsic value..... only decree of the king, so to speak.

A good reference to this, is a book called, "The Woe of Babylon", which explains the history of money, back to King Hammurabi and ancient Samaria. This is all about the history of money and is a very good read.

You have missed the point I think. I am not arguing that money has intrinsic value, I am arguing that the world is a system of economies and that you can not arbitrarily set any value you like for your currency if you wish to trade with and interact with the rest of the world. My point about asking why we are upset with China was not to get into the details, but just to point out that the peg China sets is clearly related to the sizes of their/our money supply and trade and the relative sizes of our respective economies etc If one were to take the "Iraq can set any value they want" point of view, then this should work equally well for China should it not, and any value they like will work just fine. But that is clearly not the case. You can't just make a gigantic change to one aspect of an economy (like the value of the money supply by 1000x) and not expect huge repercussions not only in that economy but in all the others it interacts with. If those repercussions are too large, then the change won't actually work and the system will breakdown.

[Darin]

None taken, I'm not responsible for what strikes you one way or the other. I also don't think what I am pointing out are "minor mistakes", but giant errors.

I have not attacked the people posting what I think are errant views, but the views they express. I on the other hand get quite a lot of attacks just like yours. Why is that?

Here is an example of something you just did...

You basically whine that Highlander did not quickly answer your question and instead talked about a different issue. You called her out & tried to make it appear as if she was avoiding the question. Which, I highly doubt, but with a little bit of patience she did get back to you.

As for your second part.... People who are providing information where they have done countless hours of research should not be ridiculed or nitpicked for minor discrepencies. When someone is doing countless HOURS of research, for FREE for that matter, they should not have to feel like anything less than 100% accuracy is unacceptable. We are all human and make mistakes, errors, etc. As for the attacks, I guess the saying can go like this.. "No one likes a party pooper" or "No one likes a negative Nancy."

Long story short: We would all be NAIVE to believe a R/D (LOP) is not possible. We can form our own opinions with valid information in front of us. But hey! Guess what? This is something out of our control so we can speculate and hope for the best. We could sell off now, and likely take a loss. We can hold on to the IQD w/ patience and hopefully net a return. We have no idea which route this will go, how long it will take to play out, and when the best time to cash-out will be. So, I prefer reading on "how it can be done" versus this is why they need to LOP or will LOP. The "how it can be done" is rather interesting, educational, and something I can walk away happy to have been educated about even if the end result is a LOP. I guess I find the positive possibilities more fascinating than the depressing LOP. And I by no means am leaving my head in the sand, as I am prepared for any outcome as well.

[keepmwlknfny]

We would pump our own crude if:

It was just as easy in the M.E. (Cost is cheap to extract crude from their ground versus ours)

Crude was not sold in Petrodollars (Why compete with ourselves? I know you've argued this point yourself)

OPEC countries were not buying US Bonds (Debt)

Without doing any research...

What type of economies & governments do Brazil & Venezuela have? (Gotta factor that in)

We turn to history to compare/contrast the unique situation(s) the GOI & CBI are in.

We turn to other present-day economies to do the same..

They're are moments they're similar and moments they're not. Long-story short, we're speaking of a unique situation.

Lets look at a big picture here:

They sit on a vast amount of natural resources (i.e. crude, natural gas, and much more)

They are near other potential threatening neighbors (i.e., Iran)

The U.S. has entered two wars with that country

The 2nd war was more of a success and they're now rebuilding.

We've been there for 8+ and going years..

Their interests are in our interests..

They must be playing a pretty vital role in the world. And if they're that important, I am sure their economy will flourish as well (just a matter of "when").

In time, we'll see this all unfold.. But I am sure it requires patience.

Well Im not even going as far as why we arent pumping our own oil, even though we are somewhat, just the simple fact of all that oil being in our possession and we arent even pumping it out on a large scale, so why cant that oil in the ground be monetized just as Iraq supposedly can do?

I understand there are other forces involved here and it would basically eliminate the need for the US to be so dependant on the world using it as a reserve currency and as the standard petrodollar, but I view that as a good thing....that is if we are able to monetize all the oil and resources we have!

I just think it would better suit us if the US took this route instead of being in the current situation we are in....damn bankers!!

[Darin]

Well Im not even going as far as why we arent pumping our own oil, even though we are somewhat, just the simple fact of all that oil being in our possession and we arent even pumping it out on a large scale, so why cant that oil in the ground be monetized just as Iraq supposedly can do?

I understand there are other forces involved here and it would basically eliminate the need for the US to be so dependant on the world using it as a reserve currency and as the standard petrodollar, but I view that as a good thing....that is if we are able to monetize all the oil and resources we have!

I just think it would better suit us if the US took this route instead of being in the current situation we are in....damn bankers!!

Well, I am sure we could monetize the oil in our ground, but what would be the point when we are importing as much crude as we are?

We could start pumping in a larger scale, but, we're shooting ourselves in the foot going that route (so to speak).

Being dependant? I don't think we'll really ever be independant again as we would need import from foreign countries to survive (Food, crude, etc).

But, as we advance our technology and start driving 500 mpg cars (or fully electric), other nations may need our oil as the M.E. and other nations run out.

At this time, we may start exporting crude with the help of advanced technology on drawing the crude out of the ground (i.e., multi directional drilling).

[Zekiel]

No, that is in large part how it works I think. But there is a big catch. Les say there is 1T dinar held by speculators in the US (200,000 people with 5M each doesn't seem like a big stretch). We take our dinars to the bank and cash in. Whether or not the bank want to hold dinars for an investment is a distinct issue, but just for foreign exchange the bank will send the dinars to the Fed and the Fed will create new dollars in the banks account. This is where the dollars pop into existence from nothing. But the rub with this is that increasing the money supply is inflationary. Inflation on top of recession is a real killer so I don't think the Fed is going to want to do this and will indeed want most of these dinars to go back to Iraq for exchange for real dollars (that we or others paid for oil basically). The Fed only has about 180B of foreign reserves, so even if they use a chunk of these exchanged dinars to build up a foreign reserve for dinars I think the amount wanted to exchange will far exceed their appetite. Which all ends up with far more dinars coming back to Iraq for exchange than Iraq has dollars (or Euros) to support, at least at $1 per dianr. At a dime I think its questionable but possible that it works, at a penny it isn't much of a problem I think.

This is an errant belief that has been propagated by the Federal Reserve, since 1917 and 1929, respectively, which was rooted in a fear, that if people have money, there might be a run on the banks, which led historically, to the Federal Reserve Bankers of 1929 to pull money out of circulation and ultimately led to the Great Depression.

That belief basically defies all basic logic in the simplicity of the ultimate, 'Universal Law' of Economics 101.,... namely, the Law of 'Supply and Demand'.

The concept is rooted in a mistake in the placement of the chief cornerstone of economics, to say, if the people are allowed to have money, it is 'Inflationary'.

That is a misnomer. It fails to take into account, that by definition, inflation is a rising of prices, brought on by too many dollars chasing too few goods and services.

That is based on a finite line of thinking, which is largely in error, in and of itself.

Here is why:

More money and buying power in circulation will in fact, cause a temporary inflation, but at the same time create a higher profit margin, because the 'Demand' side of Econ 101, determines that the 'Supply' side does not meet the new demand. But that is temporary, because, it also creates a greater perceived profit, which in turn attracts new businesses, in a 'Free Market' society, hence, more competition in the market place, with a larger supply of goods and services, at more competitive prices.

That effectively reduces the price of goods, due to "Free Enterprise'. This reverses inflation and boosts the buying power of the Dollars, which reverses the 'Temporary Inflation' effect.

There is another interesting law in the dynamics of money, which is based on the Rothschild model of "Energy Currency Economics".

That law is a law of physics, that when applied to economics and money, vs. buying power, it is relative to electricity, energy or power.

Have you heard, "Enoch's Law"?

It goes as follows:

"Energy produced into a state of over production, always reduces the cost of power, because the cost of the energy required to produce more power is also reduced."

How this applies to money and the force of cash flow, relates directly, in real economics. It means simply put, that more money into circulation is not inflationary unless the 'Free Market' is artificially suppressed. Artificial Suppression of an economy, by shorting the people's cash buying power, is basic to many Oligarchies and Socialist doctrines, and to say to give money to the people is inflationary, is therefore, Socialist, in nature.

So...... XYZ...... are you advocating Socialism? Or are you simply buying into the doctrines of Socialist Regulation, such as those of the Federal Reserve Bankers?

Open your mind, my friend, and you will learn the truth.

[keepmwlknfny]

Actually, in a very real sense, the US does exactly that, to some extent. How do you think we hold the dollar value as we do, without hyperinflating instead of simply slowly dimishing the value, as one would think it would? There is a basis of the value of the debt bonded..... which brings me to some points xyz made....

The US monetizes its assets to back the dollar?? How so?? I guess more specifically im speaking about the oil/resources we have....not the debt that other countries buy....

Well, I am sure we could monetize the oil in our ground, but what would be the point when we are importing as much crude as we are?

Simply to save the USD from dropping further in value or to bring it back up to where it was....

[Darin]

This is an errant belief that has been propagated by the Federal Reserve, since 1917 and 1929, respectively, which was rooted in a fear, that if people have money, there might be a run on the banks, which led historically, to the Federal Reserve Bankers of 1929 to pull money out of circulation and ultimately led to the Great Depression.

That belief basically defies all basic logic in the simplicity of the ultimate, 'Universal Law' of Economics 101.,... namely, the Law of 'Supply and Demand'.

The concept is rooted in a mistake in the placement of the chief cornerstone of economics, to say, if the people are allowed to have money, it is 'Inflationary'.

That is a misnomer. It fails to take into account, that by definition, inflation is a rising of prices, brought on by too many dollars chasing too few goods and services.

That is based on a finite line of thinking, which is largely in error, in and of itself.

Here is why:

More money and buying power in circulation will in fact, cause a temporary inflation, but at the same time create a higher profit margin, because the 'Demand' side of Econ 101, determines that the 'Supply' side does not meet the new demand. But that is temporary, because, it also creates a greater perceived profit, which in turn attracts new businesses, in a 'Free Market' society, hence, more competition in the market place, with a larger supply of goods and services, at more competitive prices.

That effectively reduces the price of goods, due to "Free Enterprise'. This reverses inflation and boosts the buying power of the Dollars, which reverses the 'Temporary Inflation' effect.

There is another interesting law in the dynamics of money, which is based on the Rothschild model of "Energy Currency Economics".

That law is a law of physics, that when applied to economics and money, vs. buying power, it is relative to electricity, energy or power.

Have you heard, "Enoch's Law"?

It goes as follows:

"Energy produced into a state of over production, always reduces the cost of power, because the cost of the energy required to produce more power is also reduced."

How this applies to money and the force of cash flow, relates directly, in real economics. It means simply put, that more money into circulation is not inflationary unless the 'Free Market' is artificially suppressed. Artificial Suppression of an economy, by shorting the people's cash buying power, is basic to many Oligarchies and Socialist doctrines, and to say to give money to the people is inflationary, is therefore, Socialist, in nature.

So...... XYZ...... are you advocating Socialism? Or are you simply buying into the doctrines of Socialist Regulation, such as those of the Federal Reserve Bankers?

Open your mind, my friend, and you will learn the truth.

From what I have bolded above. This concept bothers me in regards to how the CBI has gone forward with their increase of their money supply.

Each foreign currency exchanged for the IQD does not strengthen the value as it only increased the amount in circulation.

Why add to the money supply if you can boost the value? What are the benefits by maintaining a pegged rate against a currency that is slowly being devalued?

It would seem that the CBI could acquire another $50 billion and what they would do is simply print (physical or digital) another $50 billion worth of currency instead of using it to increase the value (which would nearly mean the value should be doubled).

Why the suppression from a rising value? Has anyone ever given a great answer to that question?

The US monetizes its assets to back the dollar?? How so?? I guess more specifically im speaking about the oil/resources we have....not the debt that other countries buy....

Simply to save the USD from dropping further in value or to bring it back up to where it was....

So, we could pump more of our crude & that would mean that it would inversely reduce the amount we import (reduction of foreign demand & drive down dollar value).

We could export it, but that would be basically pointless as we're importing a vast amount already.

Bring back the value? Increase production, reduce the money supply from foreign banks (govts), and slow down printing of money.

But, if it were only that easy, right?

[Zekiel]

The US monetizes its assets to back the dollar?? How so?? I guess more specifically im speaking about the oil/resources we have....not the debt that other countries buy....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is done by Congressional approval of a Bond, to print money, under contractual obligation to the Federal Reserve, against not only the taxpayer, pledge to repayment by taxation, but obviously, since there is much more bond than the US taxpayer is capable of repaying through simple taxes, it is also a potential factor, to consider, that a larger portion of the 'Bonding' by US Treasury and authority of Congress, the larger portion of such 'Bonding' is therefore 'Collateral Based', meaning non liquid assets, (Example: Futures in US Natural Resources), which reflect ability to cover such 'Bonding' by collateralizing or monetization..... (Like selling our wealth to subsidize liquidity.) This is a strategic plan, that has resulted in many of the problems we have today, in as much as $600 + Trillion in Derivatives in selling and bundling.... IE marketing and exporting debt.

The true national Debt of America is not only $14 Trillion. Unfunded liabilities and other debts when added together are closer to $200 Trillion. My point here, is that this is virtually impossible, without causing hyperinflation, unless there is some basis of value in the origin of the original bond, and lender of last resort.

Simply to save the USD from dropping further in value or to bring it back up to where it was....

Yes , if this were not true, we would also be in multi digit hyperinflation. So, in effect, it has enabled the Fed to export debt to hold a value, without putting that wealth into the hands of the people.

That is a plan which is being perpetuated, which is doomed to ultimate failure, "Money As Debt" vs, the path that it appears Iraq may potentially be taking, which under Sharia Banking Laws, Usury is forbidden..... so Iraq has a unique opportunity to be a good example of how a true fiat system of "Money As Value" system, vs a "Money As Debt" system, the world powers in banking and economics, are currently cursed by.

Highlander makes a great essay, earlier, that demonstrates, that indeed, the US, though it has never revalued it's money, it had indeed put easily 1000 times the money into circulation, which is the same effect as a revaluation.

My contention, is that this would not be inflationary, except that as Highlander puts it aptly, the control of it is placed into the hands of banking cabals and the hegemony, and holding the population into indentured servitude, to repayment of a debt, they neither created nor do they owe. Inflation is directly proportional to the interest, charged , that there is never enough money placed into circulation, to ever repay the interest or retire the national debt, to the lender of last resort.

Check Federal Reserve Prime Rates, and compare that to the historic averages of the increases and costs of goods and services, (Inflation), and you will see the interest rate charged to our country is directly proportional to inflation, and the inability that creates, to retire debt to the lender of last resort..... the US Federal Reserve.

So yes.... the US is indeed monetizing the undrilled oil, etc. in a form of agreement, that relates to a 'Non Compete' clause, (IOW, No Drill Agreements or subsidizing non competition agreements, such as what Highlander is referring to, in the Saudi Arabia Agreements, and OPEC Agreements, of the 70s) . Those are contracts and hold value in real dollars!

Believe it or Not !!! You just can't make this stuff up.

Great thread you all. Thanks for the intelligent and honest discussion.

[Darin]

So yes.... the US is indeed monetizing the undrilled oil, etc. in a form of agreement, that relates to a 'Non Compete' clause, (IOW, No Drill Agreements or subsidizing non competition agreements, such as what Highlander is referring to, in the Saudi Arabia Agreements, and OPEC Agreements, of the 70s) . Those are contracts and hold value in real dollars!

Believe it or Not !!! You just can't make this stuff up.

Great thread you all. Thanks for the intelligent and honest discussion.

Wow - simply mind blowing stuff right here.

Ironically, as you state it, the value of USD is supported by monetizing something "we have" but we're not going for ourselves. Weird how that works, yet it makes sense.

[xyzzy]

Here is an example of something you just did...

You basically whine that Highlander did not quickly answer your question and instead talked about a different issue. You called her out & tried to make it appear as if she was avoiding the question. Which, I highly doubt, but with a little bit of patience she did get back to you.

This is all your interpretation. I said nothing about "quickly" merely that she did respond, but not topically. Take that any way you want.

As for your second part.... People who are providing information where they have done countless hours of research should not be ridiculed or nitpicked for minor discrepencies. When someone is doing countless HOURS of research, for FREE for that matter, they should not have to feel like anything less than 100% accuracy is unacceptable. We are all human and make mistakes, errors, etc. As for the attacks, I guess the saying can go like this.. "No one likes a party pooper" or "No one likes a negative Nancy."

I am not ridiculing anyone, nor discussing minor discrepancies. Your interpretation however fits with your desire to hear what sounds like a plausible explanation as to why you will be rich, regardless of how truthful it might or might not be and classify everything else as being negative. Good luck with that, but since I am not responsible for your expectations I am not responsible for how they compare to what is posted. Since I am hear to have a interesting discussions on what might actually be real, you might want to put me on ignore.