Comments:Fears grow about U.S. dollar stability

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


DollarEdit

The dollar is finally gonna pop. A replacement currency ALREADY needs to be implemented, but with these developments... Contralya 02:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? A "replacement currency"? You want our current currency to have more value, but then you propose a solution that would bankrupt the country temporarily. Great. irid t i e 02:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If the US government would het their fingers out of their asses and stop spending money on useless wars and materials, then maybe it would be higher. Maybe stop sending American jobs to foreign countries too. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hear hear!! irid t i e 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that that a new currency is the only way to solve the problem, I was just thinking about how much the dollar was worth sixty years ago, people would get payed only a couple dollars per hour and not be poor... Contralya 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Your not taking inflation into account I think... Think about it: if you were to suddenly slash the last zero of everybodies paycheck (so you now earn, say 200 "new" dollars a month), and all prices lost there last zere (so a cinema ticket would now cost ca. 1,50 "new" dollars), would anybody be richer or poorer than they are today ?. Regards Sean Heron 12:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, but if the currency was implemented after the current crisis passes, it would better be able to compete with other currencies. And, it would probably be closer to what it was 50 years ago. Contralya 14:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Open Market OperationsEdit

Spending has nothing to do with it. At least, not directly.

The only thing that can cause inflation of any significance is an increase in the money supply. In the United States, that means the Fed goes into Open market operations.

What the lower target rate means is that they will indeed increase the supply of money in an attempt to bring the cost of it down. So in other words, the devaluation of the currency is neither surprising nor particularly alarming. It's exactly what the Fed set out to do; and they have the power to suck money out of the economy should they choose to do so.

All this talk about the collapse of the dollar lacks any kind of historic perspective. The rate of inflation in recent years is not nearly so bad as it was in the 60's, 70's, and early 80's [1].

The talk of the dollar's demise is greatly exaggerated. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the current Open market operations are so reckless as to cause a complete monetary collapse. Countries have survived with double-digit inflation before--it was not so long ago that America did.

Amargo Scribe 04:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but, what about china foreclosing on 900billion dollars? What about all of this stock market stuff, the social security stuff, and the big oil deals that may be made in Euros?

Joe Burd 01:45, 21 September 2007 (EST)

Irrelevant. First of all, social security has nothing whatsoever to do with inflation. Second, the China thing is, as far as I can tell from the article linked to in this article's sources, has more to do with trade negotiations than anything else. The stock market may indeed respond to fluctuations in the dollar value, but it cannot cause them. As for supposed big oil deals that may be made in Euros, I don't entirely understand the point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that the United States will start to make such deals using only Euros? If not, then what are we talking about here? Each country already uses its own currencies for the most part; and each country is free to exchange those currencies for ours and vice versa. Where, exactly, is the crises? Amargo Scribe 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The main reason that the U.S. economy can take a beating, but remain stable is not necessarily under the control of the Federal Reserve, but rather as a result of several factors, most notably being the U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Economic Commission agreements that took place between the U.S. and House of Saud between 1972-1974. The U.S. promised Saudi Arabia military cooperation and protection, and the House of Saud agreed to only do oil business exclusively in U.S. currency. Saudi Arabia has always been the largest oil producer and the leader of OPEC. It is also the only member of the cartel that does not have an allotted production quota. It is the 'swing producer', meaning that it can increase or decrease oil production to bring oil draught or glut in the world market. As a result of this situation, Saudi Arabia practically determines oil prices. Soon after the agreement with Saudi government, an OPEC agreement accepted this, and since then all oil has been traded in US dollars. Hence the oil standard became the dollar standard. Those historic agreements ensured the U.S. dollar's status as the world reserve currency and that also meant that any nations wanting to conduct business with OPEC had to stock-pile use U.S. currency. In recent years, a number of oil-producing countries have started moving away from the dollar hegemony, always with good results for that nation, and that's been a major point of concern for the U.S. In May, Kuwait began doing business in Euros, mainly, and U.S. currency as a secondary option and the move's had an excellent impact on Kuwait's economy. Here's some food for thought... Six months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, the Oil Ministry said that the nation was preparing to move away altogether from U.S. currency and sell their oil exclusively in Euros. Even Alan Greenspan said, in his new book, that the war with Iraq was always about oil and ensuring the stability of the U.S. dollar hegemony. In 2004, Iran announced that it was forming an International Oil Bourse, that would also have included Venezuela and Russia, that would also do business exclusively in Euros. Suddenly, the U.S. wants to start another war on false pretenses, but Iran is currently the 4th largest oil producer in the world and, coupled with other significant nations, could outright threaten the dollar's status. On this note, if enough oil-producing nations stop trading in U.S. currency, that could definitely contribute toward and eventually trigger the dollar's collapse. In terms of the Fed's dramatic cuts, those moves will further decrease international confidence in and support for the U.S. dollar, as well as U.S. treasury and bond markets in general. Then, you also have to take into account China's role and ability to destabilize the U.S. economy through significant foreclosure measures. There are in fact many variables to consider and, without a doubt, the U.S. dollar is at an all time low in terms of it's credibility, value, and status as reserve currency.

Amero will be "replacement currency" and will replace U.S., Canadian & Mexican currenciesEdit

I have a lot of information about this on my blog, Disinformation Today, but the governments of North America, collectively, have been taking steps for several years now to create a "North American Union". North American leaders have speculated for years, and especially since the formation of the EU and its currency, the Euro, that a new union might have to be built in order to ultimately compete with the new European currency. This will become more true when, eventually, Britain joins the union and their currency is added to the overall value of a brand new, improved Euro.

Presently, these steps are being taken through existing agreements like NAFTA and Smart Borders and through new agreements such as the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America. In fact, you do some research into the matter, you'll see there's already a number of new initiatives on the table to merge borders, security, infrastructure and money.

On a mainstream note, CNN's Lou Dobb's frequently talks about these issues and a lot of facts can be found on CNN.

So, when someone suggested, as a comment to this article, that a "replacement currency" be rolled out, it's not a stupid suggestion by any means whatsoever.

It's a reality in the works.

Lol, you believe a mere rumor! There is no way they could keep that secret. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amero People jumping to conclusions are how conspiracy theories get out of hand, like Roswell, were do you think the government experiments with new aircraft designs? It's all in the article.Contralya 10:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe Burd 09:43, 21 September 2007 (EST)

You're comparing a new currency to conspiracy theories and Roswell? Let's a grip, folks. And just because Wikipedia likens it to the latter, it doesn't make it true. Do a bit more research like, for example, Google the Amero as well as SPP agreement I already mentioned. Is the Euro a big conspiracy, too?
As big a conspiracy as weather or not FDR knew about pear harbor and didn't warn the military so there would be more support for the war he wanted. Face it, just because a lot of people believe it, doesn't make it true (like sharks hunting humans). A lot of people saying something doesn't make it true (like Russians being communist). I would like to see an official government source for this Euro talk, all ANYONE but theorists has done is deny it and the evidence is stacked against it. There is little evidence for it and it is mostly speculation. Did you read the article I put the link up for? Why do people think that JUST because there were some coins means that there is a secret 'amero' being prepared? I am sure there are lots of prototype coins for all kinds of things. I bet they have a trans-Atlantic coin (who knows what it's name would be).

I remember once I saw a bill for 1 mill with bush on the front and oil Darrick's on the back!Contralya 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The TruthEdit

If you wanna know the truth about the Federal Reserve, download Zeitgeist. Once you watch it, none of this stuff will surprise you. Raphael s 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The truth? Bah! LOADS of speculation and guesses. Not hard facts. Contralya 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

commentsEdit

With comments there need to be moderators to keep the trolls down, as Slashdot has shown. Deleting the entire comments page seems overkill for one troll post on it. Also, deleting comments may be abusable. Trolls happen whenever there are comments pages; that said comments are a major win, so trolls must be dealt with properly. I like the Slashdot model and think Digg is a cesspool of groupthink, but either is better than deleting comments pages because of bits of nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.119.166 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Quite interesting."Edit

Quite interesting. —154.20.59.144 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)