No "news" is good, unless the weather... just the facts man!

Personally, I think that what the "now-worldwide, now-interconnected community of humans" can best do ... is to drive home the point that "World War III serves no one, and neither do these 'non-wars.'" That, "this is no longer what we want to spend our public money (not to mention our national credit) to do." That people who continue to be obsessed with this thing are going to lose their positions.

Yes, we are perfectly aware of human nature. We are aware that we live in a world filled with psychopaths, and worse. We know that wars are fought for the spoils of war. We know that none of us can give up (true) "defense." But we also know that "this is not 'defense.'"

We also know that we have a common interest ... a common interest that is only destroyed by War. And, that we have the ability to talk about these common interests and to influence the people whom we have chosen to place in positions of power over us. The pen is mightier than the sword.

You don't vote for that!

However it is does serve those who initiate it. The patriotic and gullible go off to die whilst they increase their wealth, influence and power - and in most cases for the US the continuation of the fiat currency - the Petro-Dollar since after all Nixon in his infinite wisdom (and probably backing of the "Federal" Reserve) took us off the gold standard, then again that was just another gain to their power - going back to the Gold Reserve Act / Executive Order 6102 (thanks FDR.............) the US MUST have a conflict and keep up conflicts in the world, lest the Dollar collapses since it is essentially a worthless piece of paper controlled by a non-government entity.

You also do not need a proverbial sword to start a war, now the pen is all that is needed to start one.

Doesn't really matter whether you voted for it or not - just like I am sure those in the 1930s didn't vote to have their gold taken away from then under the threat of incarceration.

We all die so bring on the clean slate, is called evolution... we stinking pirates keep sticking R's in there!

“Whether we are based on carbon or on silicon makes no fundamental difference; we should each be treated with appropriate respect.”
― Arthur C. Clarke, 2010: Odyssey Two

“Why give a robot an order to obey orders—why aren't the original orders enough? Why command a robot not to do harm—wouldn't it be easier never to command it to do harm in the first place? Does the universe contain a mysterious force pulling entities toward malevolence, so that a positronic brain must be programmed to withstand it? Do intelligent beings inevitably develop an attitude problem? (…) Now that computers really have become smarter and more powerful, the anxiety has waned. Today's ubiquitous, networked computers have an unprecedented ability to do mischief should they ever go to the bad. But the only mayhem comes from unpredictable chaos or from human malice in the form of viruses. We no longer worry about electronic serial killers or subversive silicon cabals because we are beginning to appreciate that malevolence—like vision, motor coordination, and common sense—does not come free with computation but has to be programmed in. (…) Aggression, like every other part of human behavior we take for granted, is a challenging engineering problem!”
― Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works

[screencast]ZBAijg5Betw[/screencast]

"Serbia wants to annex part of Kosovo using 'Crimea model': president"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-se...-idUSKBN15022Y


I would like to see the UN/EU/US TRY to say it won't be a legit move though - then again I am sure the US will try to argue that somehow 'it doesn't count' - like the Crimean Referendum didn't count. It only counts of course if it is always in the US' favor otherwise....

The simple fact of the matter is: "there isn't enough gold."

For many years, people were well-paid in the gilded dungeons of New York City to move gold bars from one room to another in the same vault ... until it occurred to someone that this was stupid. The dollar multiple-dollars that I spend at Starbucks an independent thriving local coffee shop each day are not "valuable" because of any lump of metal in the vaults of New York City. (Much less, "which room it is in at this particular moment in time ...") My dollars are valuable because I can buy coffee with it. Period.

Within any country, "that country's currency" rules the roost. In international trade, any currency in the currently-accepted "basket" of reserve currencies can be required. As long as the receiving trader is confident that the currency which (s)he selects will retain its purchasing power for use in future transactions, any one will do. It is decided by the mutual agreement of both parties concerned: no government can tell them what they must decide upon, as long as it is convertible to the native currency of both countries. (So they can pay taxes on it ... )

The one thing that cannot be allowed to happen is to "run out of money." The supply of money cannot be tied to the availability of a physical resource: there must be sufficient currency-units available each day to denominate all of the transactions (for coffee or otherwise) that take place that day. This is also the essential fallacy of "bitcoin." There is no intrinsic value to money. It is simply a unit of exchange. Therefore, it must always be available in sufficient quantity to denominate the day's transactions.

Each and every day, trillions (if not quadrillions ...) of "currency units" are required to do this. The money changes hands literally at the speed of light. But, "every party concerned is satisfied, at the moment that they need to be," and that is why the entire system works.

The "gold standard" was discarded for two obvious reasons: (1) there is not enough gold, and (2) "gold ... and the world supply thereof ... has nothing to do with it." What gold we have is better spent coating electrical contacts on printed circuit boards.

Obviously, the United States Government is abusing its present status in the "reserve currency" basket by "magically borrowing from itself," but this power is not unrestricted. Traders are not, in fact, bound to the United States Dollar. The United States is a (very important) part of a community of nations, and its sovereignty begins and ends at its borders.

If international traders had ever lost confidence in the United States Dollar, they could have excluded it ... or simply, stopped accepting it ... at any time. They could have thrown it out of the "basket." The fact that they have not (yet) done so, indicates that they do not (yet) see fit to do so.

Their interests are never divorced from those of the nations with which they trade. Americans consume millions of pounds of coffee. They buy electronic widgets with reckless abandon. In spite of their government , they are an enormous market. No country can make any sort of "drastic move" against any other country without severe repercussions to itself.

Sometimes, things go against the United States. For instance, the "Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)" treaty is dead because China(!) rejected it. American diplomats are bleating with the Chinese right now to convince them to change their minds, but, "it ain't gonna happen," and there's absolutely nothing that USA can do to 'force the issue.'

Maybe not enough gold, but surely the US has enough resources, silver and other rare metals to try to offset some of the gold, now it is a moot point because of the 'quantitative easing' that has been pursued (basically just printing more dollars) - no amount of precious metals found in the US will ever be enough to cover it, so the US is writing checks that it cannot cash - and again acts like a brat when called out by others about it.

Something has to give here, and I won't be surprised that in my lifetime the USD will no longer be the reserve currency of the world. It is likely that either the Pound might return or Euro.

Until that happens though, the continuation of the Petro-Dollar will continue as long as possible and the powers that be will stop at nothing for more military excursions.

I'm not very well versed in economics, but IMO, currencies should be backed by the production of each country; i.e. the more a country produces and the more valuable its products are (the more value-added they have), the more valuable its currency should be.

A logical and correct view - but that is sadly how the US doesn't operate. I can't really think of what the US produces. Cellphones are done by third parties in foreign lands (i-phone manufactured by Foxconn (Taiwanese co. based in Mainland China). Cars are built in Mexico - processors from Intel are made in Malaysia, and these are just a few. Sure you now will have Ford going back - but thats just one company.

I honestly can't say just WHAT the hell the US produces anyways - of value I mean. Only thing that they have been producing for the past decade is pointless wars, great!

Actually, gentlemen ... it all comes down to this:

Currency isn't valuable because (supposedly) you can exchange it for [gold]. It's valuable because, "right here, right now, you can buy a cup of coffee (thank God ... ... my life is saved for one more day) with it."

The supply of "currency units" must be ... unlimited. After all, you'd feel very ill-used if the barista rejected your purchase because there wasn't enough [pick_a_metal any_metal] in "room #43 of some vault in New York."

(In fact, you would fall asleep on your feet, for lack of coffee.)

- - -
You say your gas-tank is empty? So sorry! "Room #37 is fresh out of gold bars, and the paeons won't be able to move bars from room #143 into yours for at least an hour, so I guess you'll just have to sit it out ..." Too bad that you were on the way to the hospital in a desperate effort to save your dying sister. (You get the idea ...)

The problem is the US has gone way beyond it. Assigning value to a piece of paper is fine again if you can cover it - the US dollar is now just assigned to the production of oil from the Saudis though. Unless I am a complete nutbar, isn't a country supposed to tie their country to what THEY produce and not from production of resources by a foreign country? Hey, maybe I am wrong then.

The US has outsourced so much, and printed so much of it's currency that other developed countries will at one point will stop and say - "hang on, why the hell is the US dollar the reserve currency still? What does the US actually produce? Either start producing something, or we are switching. Pegging your dollar to petrol via the Saudis does not count."

And you know what? They will be right.

I am looking at this at a more global perspective, not some peon moving gold bars around. I can go out and buy a cup of coffee here in Dallas too, anyone can - great, but on a much more grander scheme of things - it is different. Circulating the dollar within the US is one thing - you can only do so much of that until we end up like Venezuela - then again, the situation there is different since the Bolivar was solely based on petrol and no diversification, plus massive mismanagement.

Back on topic - I would not put it past the US to continue and in fact try to create more crisis around the world for the continued propping up of the dollar - until at one point something will have to give.

I think that you are entirely correct to observe that "industrial production cannot be overlooked." The American Dollar™ was "as good as gold™" only so long as "America could out-produce(!) the rest of the world, hands down."

"Money," although not properly or meaningfully tied to any physical resource (such as 'gold' ...), also remains "a human artifact," not "an abstract thing." Yessirree, the time will surely come when someone asks "The Wendy's™ Question" ... "Where's the beef?!"

It's a perfectly legitimate question that any business(wo)man would certainly ask, if they were: "born ... but not yesterday."

I quite-frankly expect that the practice of "pegging" will very soon become much less frequent than it presently is. I personally think that it has so-far been "a concession to the perception of stability" that has been flagrantly abused, and which therefore is today much more difficult to justify to shareholders . . .