MacHamish wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:00:29 -0700, "John P. Mullen" <jomullen@zianet.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> <snip>
 >>
>>
>>Well, it is the USD that if falling, not the Euro that is rising. 
>>Unemployment and high tax burdens are not new problems in Europe, though 
>>the Euro could be allowed to fall a little to help matters.  In Europe, 
>>anyhow.  Wouldn't do much for the US.
> 
> I'm afraid you're missing the point.
> 
>

I guess so.

:-)

>>I'm more concerned about the religious kooks in the US.  They have 
>>better weapons and live in my backyard.
>>
>>:-/
> 
> 
> This I'll have to put you add you to my list of fools..
> 
> 

You don't live next door to these idiots.

Proximity makes a difference.

:-)

Seriously, have you thought about the millions of lives that have been 
harmed by the policies of the RR?

You do realize that the so called Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are 
mostly driven by the desire for revenge, don't you?

Especially since GWB has given them so much to seek revenge for.

:-/

>>
>>Well, in the short run, there is a small group of people in China who 
>>are making immense profits and are calling the shots.  Even if they are 
>>receiving fifty cents on the dollar, their cut is so huge that they do 
>>not care about the loss in true revenue.  However, eventually the 
>>workers will have a greater say and when that happens, it will be 
>>necessary to get a better return for the exports.
>>
>>SO, eventually, the market will win out, as you say, but at this time, 
>>in China, governmental policy need not be tied closely to market forces.
> 
> 
> Well, your point is rather too simplified, but I agree the situation will be
> better for China AND the global economy when the workers have more
> purchasing power.
>

Right.  But remember that China is not in the hands of its people and 
that, for the time being, decisions are made on a basis of how they will 
affect the ruling class more than how it will affect China as a whole.

>>
>>Yes, but it will require changes in thinking.  Take drugs for example 
>>(no pun intended).  At this time, research in drugs is almost completely 
>>funded by sales within the USA.  Foreign sales are close to the 
>>production costs and much lower.  This has worked because the position 
>>of the USA as a major producer of goods and services has assured high 
>>wages and US citizens could afford the higher prices.  However, with the 
>>movement of production facilities off shore, the number of people with 
>>high wages is dropping quickly.  The drug companies will eventually have 
>>to market drugs within the US in a way similar to overseas markets.
> 
> 
> Life requires constant changes in thinking.  If the US has to cease being
> the source of all goodies in the world, such as new medical breakthroughs,
> to stick with your example, then the slack will either have to be picked up
> on someone else's tab, or it will stagnate, and we'll go backwards.  What is
> the justice in the USA funding all this research while the left is out their
> criticizing the system that makes it possible and then carping about the
> fact that it just might come to an end? 
> 
>

Well, the US is not the source of all goodies.  For example, it seems 
incapable of producing a vaccine against the Asian flu.  Also, I'm not 
carping, just pointing out that changes will be necessary at all levels 
in US society.

>>>"For the moment" is what counts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, except we are moving on to the next moment.
> 
> 
> Yes, and the question is, will the history of it be written in Arabic or
> English?  You better hope for English.
>

Actually, I'm thinking the tossup is between Hindi and Mandarin.

:-)


>>
>>When the US gave up the gold standard, the price was fixed at $32 an 
>>ounce, far below its market value. The value of a dollar is based on the 
>>ability of the US to honer that commitment implied in that dollar.  It 
>>is the US's loss of ability to honor that commitment that is the problem.
> 
> 
> No, the US hasn't lost the ability to honor that commitment.  

Well, some people are beginning to wonder about that.

> It's just that the markets have set the commitment lower than previously, 
 > the reason being that the world is awash in dollars.  Why?
 > Because of fiat money, specie.
> That's why I trace all of this to the elimination of the gold standard.
> 
> 

It is more related to the effective coining of money by the credit card 
companies.

And the incredibly deep money pit called "Iraq."

>>
>>True, but Bush will be in for four more years.  Our only hope is Congress.
> 
> 
> War by committee?  How can you possibly endorse such a thing?  

I'm suggesting the prevention of further wars by committee.  This will 
cost the US.  Without the ability to effectively rattle his saber, Bush 
will have far less ability to negotiate tough deals, but when a person 
shows an inability to handle sharp objects, it is not wise to give him 
scissors.

> But I'll take
> your "true" as your recognition the the task at hand is to defend our
> freedoms against a medieval dealth cult based in bizarre superstitions.
> Welcome aboard, John.
> 
> 

Yes.  Let da Shrub be the last member of the S&B to become president.

>>Unless the bankers themselves make the suggestion.  Bankers like 
>>stability, too.
> 
> 
> There is no chance that central bankers would grant China such an unfair
> competitive advantage.  It wouldn't even be in China's best interests.
> 
>
How would pegging to the Euro be unfair?  Bankers want money that 
doesn't loose value faster than fresh fish.  Unless the USD flattens 
out, they are going to be looking for something else.

>>
>>
>>China's government sets the exchange rate as it sees fit, regardless of 
>>market forces.
> 
> 
> Right, and that's part of the problem.  Market forces are distorted.  The
> inputs are corrupt.
> 
> 

No argument there!

>>
>>Like Vietnam during the JFK years.  The US supplied munitions and 
>>training, but no actual combat troops.   Each side supplies a third 
>>world country or faction with munitions and such and the two fight it 
>>out with that support, instead of the principals fighting directly.
> 
> 
> I see.  There are already a number of low level proxy wars in play in places
> like the Philippines, Malaysia, Chechnya, The Sudan, Kosovo, to name some
> that come to mind.  All of them involve Islamic jihadists.
> 
> 
> MacHamish M$(D??(Br

Yes, but over 99% of Islamic people are not involved in the terrorism.

BTW, "Jihad" means "Resistance," which includes non-violent resistance 
and other strategies.  Terrorism is generally frowned upon by members of 
Islam, as it is by most Christians.

As I pointed out before, the problem is the militant fundamentalists on 
both side who are willing to resort to force to get their way.  The only 
major difference is that the radical Islamic fundies have the guts to 
fight directly, while the other extremists find ways to get others to do 
their fighting and killing.

John Mullen