digg

Join DiggAbout

The Dollar is Doomed and the Fed's Days are Numbered watch!

youtube.com — In this very recent interview Jim Rogers says Asia is the wave of the future, the dollar is a terribly flawed currency and he doesn't want to own any, oil will certainly pass $200/barrel soon, and the (privately owned) Federal Reserve will disappear within the next decade.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • londubh, on 07/09/2008, -46/+10Doomed. DOOOOMED I tell ya! Bwa ha ha ha ha!
  • Hercules, on 07/09/2008, -10/+78Jim Rogers is a pretty smart, rich guy.

    I don't think he can predict the future any better than me, but my hope is that the Fed goes the way of the dinosaur soon as well.
    • mrzack, on 07/10/2008, -8/+14Mr. Rogers is a hedge fund MILLIONAIRE. I think he can accurately predict the future better than you Hercules. He's an adventure capitalist. He doesn't just sit behind a desk and look at numbers and charts, he actually goes to emerging markets to look around.
    • ozziegt, on 07/10/2008, -2/+12You must not live in the USA then. Or at least have any kind of substantial investment / money there.
    • Popsgg, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6I agree no one can predict the future. I think its possible for both China and America to grow. As technology advances we will see increased productivity and efficiency. Just like the industrial revolution, everyone can benefit concurrently. I think the idea that in order for one nation to rise others have to fall is an old way of thinking and only applies to a world with stagnant technology.

      Plus you lose creditability when you wear a peach bow.
    • UMDirector, on 07/10/2008, -8/+5He could do to read "The Black Swan"...basically nobody can predict anything.
      • directrix13, on 07/10/2008, -2/+8I don't think "The Black Swan" can accurately predict nobody being able to predict anything.
    • nicepants, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Rich people have a lot of dollars, but if the dollar is doomed......
      • Memitim, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3That's why they invest their money overseas. Trickle-out economics at work.
    • baaj, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Suspect anything that has MILLIONAIRE in caps
    • shitforbrains, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1I wonder if it hurt. You know, when he pulled his ideas out of his ass.
  • cashman57, on 07/09/2008, -21/+81The sooner the federal reserve dies the better. They have allowed our Congress to run up multi-trillion dollar deficits and have diluted our currency to the point we are seeing record prices in dollars.
    What isn't being told is the fact an American Eagle gold coin purchased when "W was inaugurated will buy more gasoline today.
    They don't like it when you point out what a crappy job they are doing.
    We need to dump the federal reserve and hire a Treasury Secretary who can actually understand what the Constitution means when it talks about gold and silver.
    • mike17032, on 07/10/2008, -17/+16Gold standard, lulz.
      • 10scott10, on 07/10/2008, -11/+21yeah, gold is just something else with no true value.
        we just like it because it is shiny and doesn't corrode.

        we assign value to it.
        just like we do to the dollar.


        not gonna change anything.
      • Kyrgizion, on 07/10/2008, -3/+11Except that the worth of money is arbitrarily decided because they can always make more, and that the worth of gold is limited and also maintained by its (somewhat artificial, but much less than with money) scarcity.
      • 10scott10, on 07/10/2008, -6/+8same with gold.

        gold mines affect the price.

        as do losses of gold.

        it is not a fixed worth.

        what you want is to set the value against other world currency. that way it always has the same equivelent value.


        and why did this post not indent further?
      • ostracize, on 07/10/2008, -2/+13@10scott10
        The point of a gold standard (or silver, or copper, or watermelons, or whatever), is you can't just produce more of it with the click of a mouse. A ___ standard is necessary to put a restraint on spending and preventing the people from getting into a debt which they cannot possibly pay off when the money isn't put into the system in the first place. With a gold standard, a government can only spend what they have already backed up in a tangible substance. Not whatever the hell they feel like.

        A gold standard has some problems like you mentioned, but fiat currency is just perpetual debt making us all proverbial slaves to the people we owe money to.

        And the post didn't indent further because there is a maximum depth to threads on Digg.
      • Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -5/+4@Ostracize: Actually Inflation makes debt easier to pay off, not harder.
      • Blandyman, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Temo1: How so?
    • krische, on 07/10/2008, -5/+31No, Congress has allowed our Congress to run up multi-trillion dollar deficits. They approve the budgets, so instead of standing up for fiscal responsibility; they just rolled over and wrote GWB a blank check.
      • wynja, on 07/10/2008, -9/+9No, the congress would not be able to run a multi-trillion dollar deficit if the Federal Reserve didn't keep printing money for them. It is a circle jerk and the biggest scam perpetrated on the citizens of the US in it's entire history.
      • krische, on 07/10/2008, -1/+13So its the Federal Reserve's fault for giving Congress the money they demanded?
      • erydan, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7ummm, isn't the treasury department the one that is in charge of printing money?
      • Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -3/+7@Wynja: The Federal Reserve does not print money. Idiot.
    • eleete, on 07/10/2008, -5/+4Amen !!
    • mathtd, on 07/10/2008, -4/+13The Fed doesn't have anything to say about Congress running deficit.
      • MWeather, on 07/10/2008, -5/+7Who prints the money congress doesn't have?
      • mchisari, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6China.
      • MWeather, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6They just buy the printed money.
      • Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6@MWeather: The treasury department handles the currency. And no, the government does not print money to spend in times of budgetary deficits. It borrows money by issuing government securities (i.e. bonds).
      • kemp34, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5@Temo: the Fed can print money and buy US Treasury securities.
    • zippy757, on 07/10/2008, -4/+16the fed and congress are unrelated. That's by design.

      Get your facts straight.
      • chillmandan, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2that would require him to take a macroeconomics class, which he obviously hasn't. I'm really glad the fed is regulating our economy and not the Digg community.
    • 1longtime, on 07/10/2008, -2/+9To the gold standard advocates:

      None of you understand. No single country can return to the gold standard. Any country that locks their currency in on gold will be at the mercy of other countries that can still manipulate their currency by producing inflation and deflation at their convenience.

      It's ALL COUNTRIES or none, and no one has a plan for HOW to move everyone (ie-- every country in the world) back to gold.
    • geekwithsoul, on 07/10/2008, -7/+3"hire a Treasury Secretary who can actually understand what the Constitution means when it talks about gold and silver."

      Umm -- the only place the Constitution mentions gold and silver is the following:

      "Section 10
      No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters
      of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but
      gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder,
      ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any
      Title of Nobility."

      Since this only applies to states, and not the fed. govt, exactly what the hell are you talking about?
      • kemp34, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Well that was dumb for them to word it like that and I think their intention was that legal tender would be based on gold or silver coin in all of the sovereign states. This confusion is made possible today due to the extreme concentration of power at the Federal government level outside of what was intended by the Constitution.
      • clintontj72, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Nice how you forgot Section 8:
        To coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the standard and Weights and Measures.

        The Federal Government has the exclusive authority to coin money and not the states. That is what those two sections say. However, how can anything BUT gold and silver coin be used in the country since every part of the country is one state or another? The historical record is clear that metal backed money was intended. The Constitution has not been amended to reflect a change. Since the Constitution is the highest law in the land...it still stands that gold and silver should be used in the states and therefore the country. Lesser statutes CANNOT trump the Constitution. You may wish it was so, but the question is...are we a country of Law or not? If a seperate 'currency' is desired...amend the Constitution and do it right!
    • Abomonog, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6You people do realize that if the Fed goes belly up we are going to see inflation comparable to Germany circa 1933. We do need to change the way our currency works but if the Fed dies it will have been to late to do this.
    • chillmandan, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1The fed's sole job is to control and limit inflation. If we were to get rid of them you can say goodbye to our economy.
  • StingingNettle, on 07/10/2008, -1/+26I read his "Hot Commodities" book when it first came out. It was really good and took a lot of the complications out of things. Just wish I had money to put it to use. :)
  • sdfguy, on 07/10/2008, -41/+1OH MY GOD THE ECONOMY, ***** *****, IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR, BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY CRISES OCCURING!!!!!!

    VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE THAT MAKES YOU FEEL SAFE

    MCCAIN 08 FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
    • Pittance, on 07/10/2008, -2/+16Ok, that's it. No more crack for you today.
      • sdfguy, on 07/10/2008, -11/+3you're right, i really should just block the politics section on digg.

        lolburn.
      • vbullinger, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7WTF? You just burned yourself.

        Oh, and yes, please block the politics section: that would save us all from your asinine comments.
    • clintontj72, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2I'm a Republican and McCain can kiss my rear end!!! I will NOT vote for that piece of garbage!
  • thedsack, on 07/10/2008, -16/+124Thank for the news that we all got from Ron Paul a year ago...
    • legendxx, on 07/10/2008, -0/+39You mean 20 years ago.. He says it every year.
      • 10scott10, on 07/10/2008, -20/+7along with killing public education, and pretty much every signle government service.
      • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/10/2008, -4/+24Public education sucks anyway. Most government services cause more problems than they fix.
      • digitizit, on 07/10/2008, -1/+18Yeah, because public schools are SO good! Here's an idea....instead of sucking off of the government tit why don't we, as a PEOPLE, take responsibility for ourselves and our children? Who says the government has to educate our kids? With people like George Bush as part of the government, I really don't want that influence on my child. My parents were not rich and made loads of sacrifices to put me into the best private schools they could. Dad still drives a beater 88 Buick so that my brother can go to a private school.

        The government has yet to do anything really well. Just look at the state of our country right now, and tell me that it doesn't need a MAJOR overhaul. We, as a country, have become lazy and used to relying on the government to do things for us. It's time for us to take back some responsibility.
      • vbullinger, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9You mean 30 years ago. He's been saying these things since the '70s.

        10scott10. That's sounds like a good thing.

        I hate public education. Wish I was never a part of it. If my wife and I can figure out a way to do it, our kids will be home-schooled.

        They got exactly what they wanted: a Department of Education. They planned that about a hundred years ago: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-737320178 ...
    • austang, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9Hmmm.. too late to swap him out for mccain?
    • LukasSmith, on 07/10/2008, -21/+320 years ago and the end is still not here. Obviously Ron Paul is a whacko. Different economists have different theories. Just because some nutcase has a Emo vision of the economic future doesn't mean that all economists believe it or that it will actually happen. I was just reading one economist who said that the Euro and Dollar will be on par in the future. He may be wrong but who are we too say? Alan Greenspan? Speaking of Alan Greenspan he was wrong too several times. So yeah lets call these well respected economists what they are, dime fortune tellers and not worry until a 12 pack of toilet paper costs $24.00. Because when you can't afford toilet paper that is a real problem.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -7/+1LOL. Seems like every Progressive was ahead of Ron Paul by about 7 years and getting called tin-toil-hat's by Libertarians.

      Thanks for catching up Paul followers. I voted for Ross Perot twice -- so I like the idea of a maverick, just not one who is a Libertarian with simple-minded ideas.

      Next breakthrough for Ron Paul genius is the Wheel!

      I went to my website and stuffed my head with that entire page he has on economics. Dang you guys are easily impressed. Not that this is so very relevant, but it is just annoying that the people who LOVE Ron Paul for his honesty, don't recognize his economic policies as the same damn thing as Mexico's economic policies. He's just a more severe form of laissez-faire government than the Republicans.

      Listen, there is no free market. There are regulates markets and anarchy. In Anarchy markets, you get powerful monopolies that distort government and raise prices. Oil. Healthcare. Communications. War. Etc. We are already 80% of the way to a Ron Paul economic system.

      It is extremely depressing to listen to Ron Paul advocates who discover fire -- it really is.
  • mike17032, on 07/10/2008, -35/+12Dream on rontards.
    • Jexie, on 07/10/2008, -2/+11Whats to dream about? its already happening, your dollar isn't worth *****, your jobs are going away, you don't manufacture anything anymore. What exactly is propping up the US economy now?
      • salinemist, on 07/10/2008, -7/+2Must be something, since we're 2/3rd's of the World's GDP, suckas!
      • kemp34, on 07/10/2008, -1/+52/3 of world GDP are you drunk?
      • yoda17, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2AOL
      • Jexie, on 07/10/2008, -0/+22/3? where'd that figure come from? The American economy is gigantic and losing ground more and more each day. There are too many Americans willing to rest on their laurels, so to speak, to recognize how fast things are changing. Give it another 40 years with that attitude and you'll be sewing up Nike's for kids in China.
    • insanebrain, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Wake up Mcanio. ..
    • clintontj72, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Go back to sleep...just keep watching the programming on your black box. No problems...no problems...mmmm...the blue pill...so safe...mmmm...safe...happy...

      Keep being a repeater...your 'knowledge' is NOT knowledge...you are a parroting Repeater. Most people are repeaters...we have all done it at one time or another. However, if you start to read in depth history, economics and more...not the repeated myths...you will find the truth. Yes, the truth IS SCARY, but nonetheless Truth!

      The decision is yours mike...blue pill or red pill...

      Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
      Mohandas Gandhi
  • ChayesFSS, on 07/10/2008, -9/+20I couldn't take all of the tentacle rape over in the far east myself...
    • Rotzooi, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4You read my mind, dude.
    • cenic, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3ChayesFSS, I suspect that this is your honest perception to the Asia and Japan in general. Its ridiculous the outlandish tabloidish stories that educated people in the West believe about Japan and Asia. Basing your opinion on a society based on subculture is the equivalent of me saying all American's like to see torn rectum because goatse.cx is so popular there or that all Brazilians are *****-eaters because of 2girls1cup.
      • evilesttoast, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4I've been to Japan and you cannot deny it is the weirdest ass place you have ever seen.
      • cenic, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1I live in Japan and it isn't any more weird than the US or any modern society for that matter. And to say that you are an export of cultural normals simply because you visited a country is crazy.
      • ChayesFSS, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5I was in Tokyo last year and enjoyed myself quite a bit, this doesn't mean that I can't poke a little fun at their totally different culture... I mean have you seen all of those male hosts with the big hair?
      • cenic, on 07/10/2008, -4/+0Totally different? Its strange to see the colonialist attitude you have in propagating the concept of "Other" by saying another culture is weird in this century.

      • penguinofspades, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6it was a joke! it was a ***** joke! relax! not every American has such a narrow minded view of the world. *****...
      • covertbadger, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7@cenic

        "Its strange to see the colonialist attitude you have in propagating the concept of "Other" by saying another culture is weird in this century."

        Oh stop being such a melodramatic halfwit. To someone who has been brought up in Western civilisation, Japanese society IS weird. So is African culture. So is Eastern European. It's obtuse to claim otherwise, and I accuse you of trying to martyr yourself in the name of political correctness. 'Weird' doesn't have to have a derogatory meaning, in this context it simply means different and less comprehensible. Take a farm boy from Ohio and drop him in Akihabara, and he'll say it's weird. Doesn't mean he has a colonialist attitude, just means he finds it very different to what he's used to.
    • feanix, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3Score 1 for ignorance!
    • baconz, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4are you a doe-eyed schoolgirl that likes to wear skirts?
  • dwright99, on 07/10/2008, -20/+3How cute, he wants his children to speak Mandarin. What's that old fart doing with two little girls anyways.
    Try fixing the problems in the U.S.
    • talonjasra, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Ni hao!
    • StormCommander, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Wow wow wow

      this is THE Jim Rogers... he's not some random guy
  • hydroplane, on 07/10/2008, -17/+55Goodbye dollar, hello Amero.
    • insanebrain, on 07/10/2008, -0/+9That's the whole idea.. . kill your own coin. . steal as much as you can while it still has some value. And after the crash, create a new one.
  • Rotzooi, on 07/10/2008, -28/+13Self-fulfilling prophecies ftw!

    /buried as inaccurate, will unbury if he turns out to be right in a few years' time.
    • wynja, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2/buried for invoking the self-fulfilling prophecy clause and then denouncing it in the same comment.
  • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -30/+10Jim Rogers and ron paul are lunatics..The dollar will be fine and the Fed isn't going anywhere..Don't know about Rogers but Dr Nut has been predicting this for like 10 years now
    • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3Keep dreaming for a rude awakening.
      • Amiga501, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4Yes, because that makes for a great conspiracy. We are all sleeping in our shoes, except for YOU and your "special friends", who not only know of the impending disaster, but archive a hero status by trying to warn others of the impending doom.

        For those of us living in reality, I can only say to you. "Shut the ***** up, and go away."
      • Logicexe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Why would he dream for a rude awakening? That makes no sense.
      • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Sportstar is dreaming if he thinks the dollar will be fine. He is asleep and is in for a rude awakening.

    • vbullinger, on 07/10/2008, -2/+530 years. Makes him even more of a prophet when he's right. Same with the draft. He's been warning about that, too. That'll be coming, too.
  • ColorBlind, on 07/10/2008, -14/+4I wish.
  • reed311, on 07/10/2008, -31/+12Buried for inaccurate Ron Paul spam/fear mongering.
    • sdfguy, on 07/10/2008, -12/+7there are just a ridiculous number of ronpaultards on here.
    • wynja, on 07/10/2008, -8/+2/buried for invoking Ron Paul in a logical discussion about the impending economic depression.
    • vbullinger, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7Buried for trolling.
  • sultanica, on 07/10/2008, -15/+31This has been common knowledge for the last decade to the global community. The empire is withering in its final death throes.
    • Duositex, on 07/10/2008, -12/+25This is BS. How different is your life today than it was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or 20 years ago with the exception that the price of gas is higher? I look around and things don't really seem all the different. I don't see mass panic. I see everyone going about their lives just like they always do. I get tired of reading about impending doom EVERY SINGLE DAY. I've been reading about it and hearing about it on television as long as I can remember and here I am today with everything pretty much status quo. The sky is not falling.
      • jakeou812, on 07/10/2008, -11/+6Keep your head in the sand then. No one asked you to come.
      • salinemist, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4With a crisis there is no need for central control.
      • NorthMass, on 07/10/2008, -4/+7America's economy is going to crash and burn soon thanks to a $50 trillion deficit, it just hasn't happened yet. It is a ticking time bomb basically.
      • PhilliesBlunt, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3It's very calm inside the eye of a hurricane.
      • jsavage58, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2The difference my friend is DEBT. Look at income/debt ratios 20 years ago and look at today.

        The governments Insurmountable DEBT. Forget obilgations to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.. It's pretty much end game on that mess

      • covertbadger, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4@jsavage

        In 1940 US debt was about 45% of GDP. In 1950 it was about 80%. In 1990 it was about 42%. Today it is about 37%. So why is the debt insurmountable now, when it wasn't at all these other points in modern history?
      • Eric3k, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Duositex you are absolutely right. But just to play with the kids... Germany totally collapsed after the war. Now it took a war and total defeat to get that way...but now it is a G8 nation. The kids think they know a lot... they just got out of high school... or in some cases college.
      • phathead, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1kids i hear u...they think they can actually learn something or pick up on something the generation before them couldn't figure out. Its like a fresh pair of eyes looking at a problem you know.

        The Fed is the most corrupt organization in this country so the faster we can make it come down the better. Keep your head in the sand and all the fingers in the dam will stop the flood.

        http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1215705364.php

        FYI Germany was rebuilt with your tax money under the marshal plan and we gave them tons of our technology to boot...probably why we are whiners that our competitiveness has gone away. CAUSE U OLD ***** MORONS GAVE IT AWAY AND SADDLE US WITH YOUR DEBTS.
    • AntBing, on 07/10/2008, -8/+11The sky is falling! RUN!!!
    • CCUboogernjit, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1but where do I run I see the sky everywhere NOOOOOO!!!!
      • phathead, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Asia... follow Jim Rogers

        Piggy back ride!
    • Navicerts, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4I see a huge difference in the currency exchange rate when i travel over seas. I have to pay ~$1.60 to get 1 euro. It used to be about 1/1 ratio if my memory serves me correctly (and im only 29).
      • rockefeller2, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I did alot of traveling about 7 years ago. I compare exchange rates that were pretty much stable in 2000-2001 and they are all at least 30% off.

        Check out China's exchange rate:
        http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD ...

        I guess most people don't notice it because they never leave the country.
    • richmomz, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2The Empire is nowhere near collapsing - it's just going to get a LOT uglier...
  • atbnet, on 07/10/2008, -33/+18No, sorry it isn't going anywhere. Why is this ***** on the frontpage?
    • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -9/+7Because the Pautards have created a "Digg Bury Brigade" to do nothing but promote pro paul posts and bury negative comments..They can't get over how badly their boy lost.. if you visit some of their website you can see them discussing it
  • booshack, on 07/10/2008, -11/+7Yep.
  • WhistlinTom, on 07/10/2008, -17/+41Ron Paul.
    • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -8/+10Ron Paul Lost Son
      • Carnage6669, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3hence the issue at hand.... with no solution might i add
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7I don’t think so. He has accomplished a big first step. RP opened my eyes. For years I thought we could always trust the Republicans. Bush has blown that apart. Did you see the debates when RP scored big applause and McCain just grinned like some kind of retard! If the Democrats had a lick of sense they would play that over and over.
      • gn0stik, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Paul Ronson Lost
    • tehmark, on 07/10/2008, -6/+4Ron Paulson
    • uberfr4gger, on 07/10/2008, -4/+5Rue Paul
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -7/+6Wait, this "Ron Paul" got 12 diggs.

      Is that a statement, a verb, or you folks just like hearing the name? I'm hoping one day I can get a lot of diggs for "Navel Lint."

      I love the enthusiasm. I like that a lot of young folks like change. I'm worried that a lot of people hear him state the obvious and thinks he invented the idea. Ron Paul would create an even bigger playground for the super wealthy with his hands of the market ideas -- but I suppose that some people have to step onto each and every land mine to discover that they go boom. What about the next land mine? That will go boom as well.
  • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -10/+45Love how teenagers argue with a world reknowned economist who has proven himself right over and over again with great arguments such as:
    "no it won't"
    And "I know you are, but what am I?"
    • RedSaber, on 07/10/2008, -3/+9Salut mec ;)

      That's what teenagers are for: arguing the system.

      Haven't you realized that yet? Without teenagers, much of the world would be crumbling right now. Because in their teenage years, humans fight against a system that has been in place for years and does not work, against the system put in place by previous generations. Our grand-parents did, our parents did and now it's our time to do so.

      Now, neither of us are from the US I think, but I can assure you: we have to fight for our common prosperity: the US, Canada, and Quebec.

      There's nothing new about the fact that China is rising.

      L'économie est avant tout une question d'innovation. Si tu fais simplement accepter ta déchéance et tu tombes dans la morosité, le cynisme, tu assures la chute de ton économie. Il faut se battre contre le cynisme et promouvoir la passion adolescente. That's the only way our economies will stay on top and our entrepreneurs be creatives.

      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Actually, arguing against this man is promoting the established system against a transformation.

        La passion adolescente, quand tu vieillis, s'appelle la stupidité.

        C'est agir avec conviction dans la plus profonde ignorance.
      • Jexie, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5I hate to break it to you, Quebec is just a province of Canada, not a separate entity. That's like announcing we need to fight for the common prosperity of the US and Texas.
      • evaburrito, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3At Jexie, I hate to break it to you, but there are massive cultural boundaries within countries. Its ok for someone to mention the significance of the one they most relate to.
      • Redge, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2RedSaber, les gens dorment au gaz, c'est pour ça que c'est facile de tomber dans le cynisme. Comme disait Georges Carlin (RIP), un cynique est un idéaliste déçu. Je suis bien d'accord avec lui.

      • RedSaber, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3Achale, je comprends.

        Cependant il faut comprendre que le système n'est pas quelque chose qui est "plus grand que nous". Sa "transformation" n'est pas quelque chose qui est "inéluctable", ca reste une transformation purement basée sur l'activité humaine. En ce sens, la "teenager passion" que les gens décrivent ici concernant "protecting the american economy" est absolument justifiable et je vais dans leur sens.

        La passion adolescente, mal contrôlée, devient la stupidité, mais comme disait Alexandre Jardin: "Celui qui se perd dans sa passion a moins perdu que celui qui perd sa passion."
        En ce sens, il faut pas que l'Amérique perde sa passion d'innovation et sa passion combative. Même en récession.

        Jexie: ZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZ Quebec is a different nation, and someday a different country. But that was not even my point. If you have nothing to say more then to comment on that little part, then say nothing and please, stay in your cave and don't go out in the real world.
      • RedSaber, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Redge... mouais... je peux juste être d'accord avec Carlin à ce niveau ;)

        It's too bad he's gone. I can't see anyone who would be able to take his place right now... in a time when we need that kind of reality-check the most.
      • Jexie, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Good luck with the different nation stuff, there was a different time when that may have been true. Quebec is becoming as Americanized as any other place in Canada or the world now. Quebec seperatists/'distinct society' types are as amusing (and rare now) as Alberta separatists.
        Quote the great George Carlin all you like, I think after 400 years your status is quite written in stone now, keep dreaming though.
      • yeti22, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Je ne parle pas Francais.
      • LeRenard, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1"I think after 400 years your status is quite written in stone" - Tell that to the Irish and see what sort of reaction you get. If it wouldn't divide Canada in half, Quebec would have been it's own nation long ago. I'm actually surprised there is no viable separatist movements in Maine and the maritime provinces to form with the separation of Quebec. Je me souviens, indeed.
      • Jexie, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I never said it applies to the entire world so I don't care how the Irish would handle that attitude, I'm saying its true for Quebec, not anyone else. I'm not surprised there is no viable separatist movement in in Maine - because they know damn well they'd be invaded by their own military to stop it if they tried to make it a reality.
        I don't *like* the Americanization of our entire continent, I admire those who fight it, but I do think its going to happen long before Quebec ever sees any substantial resurgence in the separatist movement again. It's barely a whisper right now.
    • phoenixshard, on 07/10/2008, -7/+11How about the countless other economists that say the flat system that we use today is better than the gold system we used to use. There's a reason its not used anymore, it didn't work with a large world population like we have now. One of its biggest flaws was the fact that there is not enough of it. Ron Paul is not god, neither is this guy. They are rich guys that are trying to expand their wealth even more. Nothing more, nothing less.
      • RedSaber, on 07/10/2008, -4/+4Amen.
      • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -4/+5You know what your talking about. Impressive :)
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3The main problem with our system is that we have businesses that got too big and powerful, who have interlocking boards of directors forming essentially cartels. And these businesses can lobby Congress, and that essentially makes bribery legal.

        The monetary system was designed FOR these wealthy organizations and our trade policies benefit multinationals -- not workers in this country. The Media is owned by these corporations and supports this system.

        Greenspan is a big culprit -- being one of many Straussian followers in power.

        And I'd say that banks should be owned by the government, since they get to create money, keep all the profits, and leave the taxpayer with all the risk anyway. We WANT some low-profit loans to education and small start-ups. We don't want predatory loans that force people into bankruptcy -- all things that get ruined with a profit motive and lax oversight. The banks do this to us over and over again.

        Our military policy is merely to get cheap resources for the corporations that run our government -- look at all the wars we've been in behind the scenes in Latin America.

        The Gold Standard -- or whatever we base currency on is not the problem. Its the printing of too much money to make up for spending that wasn't paid for by taxes. The Right in this country has been brainwashed with a low tax mantra --as if it saved them any money. Bush gave you a few bucks back, and printed money to cover it, and now we have more expensive goods because the dollar is worth less. Gee, I guess we are lucky those Taxing Democrats weren't in power.

        The Federal Reserve needs to go, because it is neither federal nor does it reserve anything. It is a private corporation that charges us to supply our money and its policies are to make Wall Street happy. -- well how is that working now with no gain since 2000 levels? The elite have sucked out all the profits and put it all on the Middle Class, and instead of raising wages they made "debt" easier to heap up with 2nd mortgage loans and credit cards.

        I've just explained the obvious that is well beyond this guy and Ron Paul. Do I get a cookie?
    • Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -3/+7Actually, I'd bet more of the teenagers are in support of Rogers, since most of them don't even understand what the federal reserve does.

      I'm not a teenager, I have a degree in economics (not that that makes me an expert, but I guarantee I know more than most here).

      Jim Rogers to my best recollection is NOT an economist, and I can tell you that the vast majority of economists support the need for a federal reserve.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -5/+3He's a professor of finance and founded the Rogers International Commodity Index.

        The point was the lack of arguments not an appeal to authority.
      • Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6So... he's not an economist as you stated.

        Besides that, how can you rail against a lack of arguments when your whole argument is "he's been right a bunch of times, so he much be right now"?

        The federal reserve is not a force of evil... its an institution founded to give liquidity to money markets, to fight inflation, and serve as a lender of last resort. It's done well in its job, with the exception of recent inflationary pressures that are the product of many factors that don't just involved the Fed.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1I haven't made an argument.

        "An economist is an expert in the social science of economics.[1] The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. Within this field there are many sub-fields, ranging from the broad philosophical theories to the focused study of minutiae within specific markets, macroeconomic analysis, microeconomic analysis or financial analysis, involving analytical methods and tools such as econometrics, statistics, economics computational models, financial economics, financial mathematics and mathematical economics."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist

        You know, with all the information that's on the net, you really have no excuse for being so ignorant.
      • Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4I have not read any economic papers by Rogers. To my knowledge he has not written any. He does not (or at least, you have not specified) that he has any degree in the field of economics. Finance by it self is not economics, though economists may study finance as part of their work.

        He is not an economist, given the information that I have.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Economists who didn't rail against the economic policies this country has had since Reagan are big, wall-street boot-licking idiots.

        Robert Reich has been a true genius and he pointed out the effects of Globalism, and that education determines your wages.

        But economists as a whole are a damn cargo cult. Who see the system as it is and try to replicate it in their models. They don't seem to see that the inflation rate and unemployment are totally fabricated numbers. They don't seem to understand that GDP is a worthless figure, because it goes up if someone gets cancer or a hurricane destroys a town. More work, more paper changing hands, more misery. The United States shouldn't be about having a good economy -- it should be about having a common good.

        It is, in measure, a bunch of Astrologers, who support the status quo with graphs and metrics. Whatever event happens, can be interpreted in hindsight by the position of the stars -- never with foresight.
      • Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3@Vitriol: All the economists following Regan's time? You mean the time period where the United States experienced some of the best economic times in the history of the world? Those economists?

        Robert Reich is hardly the first economist to study globalization and he is DEFINITELY not the first to understand effect of education on wages. That's a very well studied and understood part of economics. GDP does not go up when a person gets cancer. It goes up when a person gets cancer and then recieves goods and services to treat it. Minus, of course, the lost value of good produced in perfect health. If the person just dies from the cancer, then GDP is lost (through what the person would have produced if healthy).

        And I've yet to see GDP go up due to a hurricane destroying a town. Although some construction work will be done, that will not come close to the lost value of the all the goods that weren't produced and services that weren't rendered.

        And calling inflation "made up" is just so stupid I don't' want to get into it.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -2/+0He has a bachelor's from Yale and a masters in philosophy, in politics and economy from Oxford.

        And he wrote:
        * Investment Biker: Around the World with Jim Rogers - 1995 (ISBN 1-55850-529-6)
        * Adventure Capitalist: The Ultimate Road Trip - 2003 (ISBN 0375509127)
        * Hot Commodities : How Anyone Can Invest Profitably in the World's Best Market - 2004 (ISBN 140006337X)
        * A Bull in China: Investing Profitably in the World's Greatest Market - December 4, 2007 (ISBN 1400066166)

        And even if he had not, he'd still be an economist. That's like saying Rousseau wasn't a writer because he didn't have the appropriate college degree. What he does is called "economist". The man's entire career is about economical analysis FFS.
      • Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1None of those books is an economic paper. And your comparison is misleading. Writing is an art... Economics is a science. Would you call a person with no published physics papers who has never gotten a degree in physics a physicist? No, of course not. Therefore, a person with no degree in Economics and no published economic papers is not an economist.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0I just told you he has a Masters in economy from Oxford.

        Have you written dictionaries? No? I'm sorry, you're not allowed to comment on definitions.

        This is probably the stupidest, most obvious thing I've ever argued about in my entire life.

        He's an expert on the economy, he is an economist. That's what the word means.
      • Temo1, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Hey, you say he has a degree in "economy", then I believe you... though I couldn't find any sources to state exactly what his degree was in. And I never said he shouldn't comment on Economics, anyone can do that.

        But labeling someone an economist who does not have a degree nor has written peer-reviewed papers on the subject is patently incorrect. Same as you cannot be called a biologist simply because you familiar with the subject. Which was my only assertion the whole time.
      • phathead, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Do you understand what the fed does?
        any nitwit can go to fed's Faq page and get an even rosier sounding answer than you gave, but if you or tried to do what the fed does we would be in a Fed Pen.

        Don't give me this degree garbage....I am an engineer (a real one) and I hear you on people calling them selves something they are not. cause garbage truck drivers think its politically correct to be called a sanitation engineer. On the other hand I got quite a bit of an economics background while getting my degree not to mention a whole lot more science and math than most can stomach. Still can tell how you can call economics a science if it contradicts natural physical laws like the second law of thermodynamics. IE
    • x1soundgarden1x, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3love how non-teenagers like to chastise people who challenge someone's pure speculation opinions and try to sound intelligent while misspelling simple words like "renowned. (note the absence of a k)" Just because this guy got rich with Soros decades ago doesn't mean that he's automatically right about his predictions for the future. There are tons of economists, real Ph.D economists that disagree with him. So what is your point?
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -4/+0Challenging someone's opinions requires other opinions or at least an argument against them.

        A simple contradiction is not a rebuttal. It's the equivalent of barking. It's childish, stupid and useless.

        I'm sorry, I mean, you're an idiot, no.
      • yeti22, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Ordinarily I loathe cheap cultural references, but this is just too perfect...

        M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
        A: It can be.
        M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
        A: No it isn't.
        M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
        A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
        M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
        A: Yes it is!
        M: No it isn't!

      • x1soundgarden1x, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2"It's childish, stupid and useless."

        followed by...

        "I mean, you're an idiot."

        Thank you sensei for teaching me how to be make a good, mature rebuttal that is not childish or barking in any way.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -2/+0I was replicating what you... why even bother?

        Bark, bark. Growel. Bark, growel, bark, sniff, bark.

        ***** planet of the apes.
  • eleete, on 07/10/2008, -6/+23If you don't believe him, check out this video, it's lengthy, but it's only one third of the entire video. Shocking, and whether or not they go away, the Federal Reserve is a privately held company. NOT a government institution. This video is VERY revealing to the inner workings of our money in a global economy. Either way it's frightening.
    http://www.eleete.com/blog/2008/07/federal-reserve ...
  • StrawberryFrog, on 07/10/2008, -7/+10This makes little sense.
    So are the Fed aware of this? if so, are they taking steps to avert it, if not, are they stupid or something.
    or perhaps the Fed knows something that the poster doesn't.
    • byates5637, on 07/10/2008, -3/+10No, the Fed has no option. They have already dug the hole, and they can't get themselves out. Raising or lowering interest rates at this point will not help. There is a severe economic downturn coming due to malinvestment as a result of the fed manipulating the money supply.

      The only way to avoid future problems is to get rid of the fed. The fed cannot predict what the best interest rate is. The free market can do this better then any quasi- governmental secretive private bank.
      • popfrogs, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2Right, because the invisible hand of the free market is a benevolent force, safely guiding us to freedom and prosperity. Kinda like the excessive speculation ruining global commodity markets and has the potential to literally kill people through starvation.

        I don't think a laissez-faire economic policy is the best plan here. The world lives and dies by the US economy at this point. The G8 just met and they're all worried about how the US is doing.
      • Memitim, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2When it comes to policies applied to nations as a whole I'd still lean more towards distributed methodologies such as laissez-faire and democracy than central management and governance just to reduce the impact of individual self-interest by involving many more selfish interests. You have the risks of a greater ignorance of the issues within the general populace and tyranny of the masses but consolidated control nearly always leads to corruption and elevation of the few to the detriment of the many. Risk mitigation before gains.
    • isparadiselost, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3The Fed is well aware. As Jim pointed out, this is being done purposely.

      The Fed has ZERO ties to the USA. It is not a government entity and therefore has no loyalties to us.
  • krische, on 07/10/2008, -14/+40Seriously diggers, get a grip. The world as you know it is not coming crashing down. Yeah, things are in the ***** right now, but its not like they haven't been in the past. Maybe try paying attention to your history class instead of sleeping through it. History is always repeated; we go through cycles. We go through periods of elation (most recently the 90s) to periods of recession (now). In a few years we'll pull out of this rut and do it all over again.

    You all complain about how nobody is doing anything about this or there are no riots in the street over news like this. Maybe because everyone else is older and more mature and has seen this all before.
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -9/+24"History is always repeated; we go through cycles."

      You didn't happen to catch a class on fallen empires did you?
      • krische, on 07/10/2008, -9/+6So do you actually think America will fall apart, or do you just want it to because you think it'll be cool to start over from scratch?
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -9/+10Both. I think it'll fall apart and I think that will be cool.

        We'll see. Invade Iran and you're done. Just like Alexandria, Rome, the Huns, the Persians and every other empire that tried to wage three wars at once. You already can't afford Iraq and Americans live well above their means.

        Coalitions will form (because they always do). Asian coalitions and Arab coalitions. When that happens, you guys are toast.
      • mboudro, on 07/10/2008, -7/+9You're an idiot.
      • krische, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5Oh my God!! It'll be like a world war or something!! We've never seen the likes of that before.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/10/2008, -4/+4No, you haven't. This time, you're Nazi germany. You're the Roman empire. You're the bad guys.

        The rest of the planet is quite tired of you. No European country except maybe for the UK will side with you this time. And you're already stretched out.

        I know this is really hard for you to wrap your head around, but the world hates you. Hollywood isn't actually representative of reality. Neither are your news.

        You said it yourself, history is cyclical. You have a narrow by decade view of history, I have a broad one that includes the entire cycle, not just some dumb 10% raise on the price of commodities.

        Just like you joined the coalition that was under attack against the agressor, the world will unite against you: the agressor.

        What leverage do you have left? Your dollar?
      • kemp34, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6So the fact that we have had world wars before is a reason not to worry about another one??
      • rockefeller2, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2I don't think the fall of this country is going to come in the form of a military world war. Now, with every country moving towards capitalization, it will be an economic war, more like a chess game. American's are going to slowly see their purchasing power erroded, their qualities of life decrease. And when you finally realise what's happened, it will be too late to change anything. In fact, people are so arrogant, they'll just keep saying how "the US is the greatest country on this planet" and not even realized what's happened.
    • byates5637, on 07/10/2008, -5/+15The cycles are not a natural economic phenomenon. They are caused by the federal reserve artificially manipulating the money supply. The cycles will continue to get more extreme. The lows will continue to dip lower and lower. Eventually complete poverty will come to America's middle class.

      You try to use history to back up your point, but your view of history is quite short sighted. Read up on the history of every country that has used a FIAT currency in the past. They all end up debasing their currency to spread their empire until they ultimately collapse.

      Maybe it wont happen in the next decade, but if we continue down this path, it is coming.
    • diggThis77, on 07/10/2008, -2/+9There are a couple of articles and a book available ("The Creature from Jekyll Island"), that talk about the creation of the Federal Reserve and how it's basically an extension or blatant copy of the central bank of Europe. These ebb's and flow's you talk about weren't "natural" until the Fed was created. In my own humble opinion bring back the gold and sivler standard and stop mass printing money because heaven forbid the economy isn't having standard 3% growth for a year.
      • krische, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1I'm talking over periods of hundreds of years, not just the past 30 years or so since the dollar removed of the gold backing.
    • liberalnurse, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1I'm 51 y/o and I've never, ever seen this kind of ***** before. Not even with Nixon or Clinton. Oh, and look up the term "fiat dollars."
  • evo8ftw, on 07/10/2008, -7/+5ya don't say?
  • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -11/+59First things first. The FED is not controlled by the president or congress. The chairmen of the FED is the most powerful man on the planet. Second my rent:

    In the words of the comic book store guy, "worst idea ever." Before all the 13 year olds start bitching, I have a degree in Finance and worked as a bank manager for a year. The amount of money banks have to make loans comes from money deposited in checking and savings accounts as well as time deposits (CDs) and money from the FED. If the FED was taken out of the picture and banks needed to back 100% of their debt obligation then there would never be money to lend to consumers. The money in savings accounts and checking accounts can be accessed and FDIC rules guarantee the first $100,000 (there are ways to make that higher). CDs are less liquid, meaning that the bank can use that money for the given time period of the instrument (i.e. 9 months) so the bank knows they don't need to have that money on hand since the consumer is not likely to take the hit when they cash it out early. Now here is where the FED comes in. The FED supplies banks with money so they can lend for various reasons. This is dictated by the Federal Funds rate. Basically an interest rate that banks are charged to borrow money from the FED. If banks were to be required to have the financial backing to pay their obligations by 100% all of the time, there would be no money to lend. If you think the US economy is screwed up now, just wait until there is no money to lend. No new homes bought because there is no liquidity in the mortgage market. In times past the home was a great way to gain equity and then later, use the equity to secure loans when needed. Again this wouldn't happen because no banks would want to have an outstanding loan since they would need to collect more assets to have the 100% backup. Enough of my rant. + digg :D
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/10/2008, -22/+6Worked as a bank manager for a WHOLE YEAR?? WOWEE ZOWEE. You must be a ***** expert! Oh, wait, you're just another shmoe on the internet. Silly me.
      • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -3/+4Nah I ***** hated it so I changed fields. Now I'm in Import/Export. Go Globalism!
    • UMDirector, on 07/10/2008, -8/+8Don't you know people don't want to hear the truth on digg...or speak of commonsense.

      Unless you are praising Ron Paul or running in terror they don't want to hear what you have to say.

      Oh yeah including secret racist comments about the "Amero" works too. I am sure it's a cooincidence that Amero sounds more towards Peso...you know the currency that those "brown" people use. No one ever tries to tie it to the Canadian dollar...cause you can't create fear that way!
      • 55mph, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4the Amero is coming and a redesigned Fed will be given the exclusive right to print that currency.

        Do you know why England didn't join the EU? Because the Rothschild's were not allowed to control the Euro. The Rothschilds decided to keep the currency they could control, the English pound, rather than give up that right to a collective currency.

    • Ciryon, on 07/10/2008, -0/+12Thank you for that. I never really understood how it works - but that seems to sum it up pretty well.
    • diggThis77, on 07/10/2008, -6/+8Sooooo there were never any loans made before the Fed was created?? The Fed creates money out of thin air by writing blank checks to the banks and then charge the banks an "interest rate" that you can call it whatever you'd like. The banks pay that back and the Fed makes money (aka the people who run it make money). Before that each bank was it's own version of the Fed. Hence why there were huge banks with bank vaults like Scrooge McDuck....yes I said Scrooge McDuck. We don't need the Fed and heaven forbid that a person have to save for something before they go out and buy it blindly like it used to be done.
      • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -5/+2They were like scrooge mcduck but how many digital dollars can you fit in there? NASDAQ is completely electronic! I do all my banking online.... If you want more info, its called Fiet Money. Banks were started when Queen Isabella needed to fund the explorations to india (the new world) and she told her people to put their money in the royal coffers and she would pay them interest in doing so. The interest was to allow her to use the money to fund her armada as long as people didn't all want their money back at the same time. In this example, if she had $100 in her bank she could use $90 of it on the fleet, pay 2% interest and keep only $10 in case people wanted their money out of the bank. The FED just creates a way for banks to get inexpensive money to loan.
      • diggThis77, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Interesting history and I really mean that! I'm going to have to check that out. But my point is that if she could use $90 of that $100 then one of your statements that banks would have to keep 100% of the money they lend is invalid by the example just above. I'm just curious as to why you like the Fed so much....
      • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Well I like the Fed because Alan Greenspan looks like a sullustian (bad starwars reference). Don't get me wrong, I don't like the ***** strength of the dollar but as somebody that would need a loan I like the idea of being able to get one and not paying out the ass in interest. If people don't tie up their money in CDs (not that anybody has money to do that at the moment) then banks would have nothing to loan. No businesses would be started or puruchased and some would even have to close because they couldn't get a loan to continue operating. The FED isn't perfect but it is a damn good model. If it wasn't why did the EU adopt the CEB (Central European Bank). The biggest problem isn't the FED but the exotic and sub-prime mortgages that were made where there was absolutely no way the people could pay off the loan or the high interest rate on the loan to back the risk. It was all fraud to make commissions.
      • diggThis77, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5I would agree with most of that comment you had. However, I don't think that interest rates would be absorbent if the Fed didn't exist. Basically it'd be the banks that'd be making all the money instead and people would complain about them. My biggest gripe with the Fed is the constant need for them to micro manage the economy which causes these bust and boom cycles. Before you disagree with that you said that the exotic and sub-prime mortgages were the problem which were brought on the by the Fed having interest rates so monsterously low...aka 1%. But business would be created just fine and people would just have to save instead of go out and buy that 50k vehicle on a credit card. Before the 40's and 50's having a credit card was looked at as a bad thing...
      • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2No arguing. Your correct. Were in a consumerist economy and we like to buy things. Hell, I got debt. I think the boom-bust cycles are part cyclical, part political mostly from politicians in their reelection cycle doing stupid short term economic policy just to win an election. Not one that will benefit our country or the world long term.
    • atbnet, on 07/10/2008, -12/+6b-b-b-but... Ron Paul... gold standard... logic defeats them...
      Rontards are getting old. Find a ***** hobby.
      • clintontj72, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5We have found a hobby...saving our country. It is not about Ron Paul...it is about this Republic. See ya at 4th district conventions this Saturday...oh...that's right...you're not doing anything. However, we are doing a lot and will never stop. We don't just roam the internet. We are involved in politics, educating people, and putting this information out there, plus full time jobs and raising our families.

        You can choose to ignore the truth, but truth is still truth.

        Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
        Mohandas Gandhi

        Blue pill or Red pill...your choice!
      • atbnet, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Find then, don't get a hobby, but get a life you ***** tool.
      • clintontj72, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5It is easy for your ilk to throw names without substance. My life is just fine and very productive. People like me get things done. People like you live in ignorance and that is your right. If you choose not to do the research then you are failing yourself, family, and country.

        So keep up the name calling. It doesn't help your argument.

        Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
        Mohandas Gandhi
    • Renian, on 07/10/2008, -4/+10Dugg for a correct understanding of economics.
    • praha, on 07/10/2008, -10/+5"...I have a degree in Finance and worked as a bank manager for a year"

      That reminds me of a great movie quote: "My Dad's got an awesome set of tools - I can fix it!"

      Way to stand tall on your credentials there, Spicoli.

      • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3RonPall Fanboy.... A degree in finance is more then a high school education trying to understand how banks work. I am far from an expert. But its possible that I understand this a bit more then most Diggers....
    • moxley, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6SO what you're saying is that it is better to pretend with play money, have an economy based on debt, and have inflation rise to the ceiling like a ballon with all of this magic fiat currency than to hve a real financial system that is backed by real value.

      Yes, things would be a bit different, our entire financial system would be revalued, and that would be strange and difficult at first, but it would be healthy and ultimately would make us strong and self suffiient.
      • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3Debt does not cause inflation. Printing more money does. Cost of goods rising does. Our economy is based on commerce and the flow of capital and resources from one entity to another. What resource to we use to peg the dollar to? What do we have enough of that the entire world will want to use? Gold? Well gold is a great form of currency until your demand for currency exceeds your supply of gold in reserve. We have alot of carbon dioxide but its not easily tradeable except in forms of certificates (i.e. cap and trade) and the corner gas station doesn't take CO2 credits. Another problem is this: China pegged their dollar to the dollar. Off the top of my head its 8 yan to every dollar. If we based our currency on gold, (and our communist brothers in china kept their currency pegged) it would be 8 yan to every unit of gold. and the quadrillian Chinese will be so much more rich then today because of the value of gold (which will skyrocket if it were a commodity that a currency was based on).
    • Moonkeeper, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Alright, I'll take you task and attempt a response. There are a handful of occasions in history in which countries have adopted true gold standards and eliminated fractional reserve currency. They were the Bank of Amsterdam, the Bank of Venice, and the Bank of Hamburg. In the first two cases, the government got greedy after a couple decades and began debasing the currency so they could spend without raising taxes. In the third example, the bank was functioning fine until the country fell to Napoleon. In each case, prosperity broke out.

      Up until the New Deal, America was back and forth between a quasi-gold standard and a quasi fiat currency. The closest we came to a pure metal backed currency was during the 20 year period leading up to the revolution. During that time period 1/3 of the upper class was new money...the highest rate this country ever saw.

      Throughout the 1800s we went back and forth. Andrew Jackson abolished the Fed and managed to pay off the national debt. Not implementing a 100% reserve requirement led to a depression after he left office. Furthermore, during the 1800s, the ability of the banking industry to cause panics came from the fact that they were given immunity during times of crisis. Ordinarily when a business goes bankrupt, its creditors take over. During the 1800s it was common for bank to not be required to honor deposits while still collecting payments from debtors. Knowing of such immunity led to higher risk taking by said bankers.

      In the 1880s, the policy of giving banks a free pass temporarily let up. This resulted in a decade in which REAL WAGES ROSE as the REAL PRICE OF GOODS FELL.

      As for the FDIC insuring up to $100,000, the FDIC hasn't made up for the amount it has paid out in decades. It has technically been insolvent since the 1970s but government backing keeps it in business.

      Finally, keep in mind that it was without the fed that we built up the infrastructure that we live off of to this day. That infrastructure was actually paid for. With the advent of the fed we've done nothing more then constant debt leveraging. As result, we can't afford to build what we built in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

      • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2I agree with. One problem that in the 1800s they didn't have. Digg and the rest of the interweb giving pea brains a slanted view of reality and spreading panic. The 24 hour news networks (both conservative conspiracy and liberal conspiracy) would be all over that and people would be in a panic. Your last paragraph I dont necessarily agree with. The fed didn't leverage the building of infrastructure but either state/federal government, tycoon or private corporation paid for it.
    • LeRenard, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Your right, without the FED the current system would not be able to sustain itself. The problem is that its having trouble sustaining itself anyway.

      If the fed were to disappear, its true, there would be less money for people to buy houses with. People wouldn't be able to afford them, and the value would drop dramatically until people could afford them again. The problem is all the "money" that would be lost during the deflation, which was all based on paper anyway due to their being no backing for the dollar.

      Your finance education seems to have served you well, but it could do with some tempering of economics. By the way, the system as you described it only sprang into existence in the mid to late 20th century, and humanity worked with non-fiat currency before that for all of recorded history, so its not unreasonable to state that the long term utility and stability of fiat currency is still somewhat in question.
    • Memitim, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2If the banks don't keep the money on hand and the Fed guarantees up to $100,000 per account, then does the Fed retain sufficient currency to cover each and every insured account in the event of a run on the banks? Or is it more like the insurance companies that threw up their collective hands when claims came pouring in following the barrage of Florida hurricanes in 2004 or Katrina in 2005?

      I'm not challenging you, just asking an honest question since it seems like the whole point of this system is that there isn't enough currency in circulation to allow the banks to support the obligations set forth, yet there is still somehow a guarantee in place to cover those obligations despite the lack of currency. In which case massive amounts of new currency would have to be injected to cover a major pullout, devaluing the dollar to the point of being worthless.
      • salamnder, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Well... technically speaking, the FED doesn't have the 100,000 guarantee. FDIC (or the equivalent for credit unions) does. They say something like ... "100,000 per social security number per bank" so if you have two people on the account its 200k. If you have a trust, it has a tax id number so it has 100k. Now after 300k you just go to a different bank. Now the important part is, the FDIC hasn't bailed out the depositors of a bank in a very long time. Because this money is less risky (the bank is guaranteed to have money available to withdraw because of FDIC) and less risky money pays less of an interest rate. If the FED were to print more money (monetary policy) to increase the pool of money that banks can borrow from, they can just borrow more money to cover their demand. This would cause the liabilities of the bank to go up (somewhat compounding the problem) and also, yes adding cash into the money supply and causing inflation.
    • serpentor, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Sweet jesus, you are an embarrassment to anyone who holds a degree in finance or has ever worked in a bank.

      Take a close look at the banking systems elsewhere in the world. A system of fractional reserve lending is not dependent upon the existence of the Federal Reserve.

      Lastly, learn how to spell..
    • TheImaginator, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1First, I'm not convinced that the Fed doesn't get influenced by the Bush administration now or by the US government in the normal course of things.
      Second, what about replacing the Fed with something else, and isn't that something that they may be planning to do? Give it a shiny new coat of paint and a new name?
  • leubstop, on 07/10/2008, -10/+8in others news,, we're out of coffee..
  • tehmark, on 07/10/2008, -17/+8Yeah, like I'm gonna listen to some F*CKTARD in a god damn bow tie............
    • mrzack, on 07/10/2008, -3/+4NO! You the FockTARD. He's not crazy, he's just eccentric. cuz he got MONEY.
    • RedSaber, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3Man, that was just torture to listen to him speak... he looks so much like Jabba the Hut with a bow tie,
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2So we should judge the message by the appearance of the speaker? Sounds like Evolution has been avoiding you.
    • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -6/+3This crap is being promoted by the Paultards
      • kemp34, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Memo to Sportsstar: saying "Paultards" does not win an argument or even help your cause.
  • breakdancecrew, on 07/10/2008, -8/+14Thank you, global elitist bankers!
  • ssn697, on 07/10/2008, -18/+25DOOM!!! DOOM I tell you! We will be living in the Thunderdome any day now!!!

    Brought to you since the 70's by the Clueless Whiny ***** of America...
    • MWeather, on 07/10/2008, -12/+6Is it hard being an ostrich?
      • Herkimer56, on 07/10/2008, -7/+9Is it hard being a gullible fool?
      • ssn697, on 07/10/2008, -6/+6I shudder to think where I would be if I had listened to you stupid ***** for the last 35 years. I would never had invested in the stock market, would never had been successful, would have built a big bunker (waiting for the race wars and nuclear annihilation).

        Is it difficult for YOU to live in constant fear, and blame everyone else for your failure? Amazingly, I was able to be very successful all through the years of you wastes of skin saying the world is coming to an end.
      • MWeather, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6"Is it hard being a gullible fool?"

        I wouldn't know. I don't think the economy is peachy.

        "I shudder to think where I would be if I had listened to you stupid ***** for the last 35 years"

        You shudder to think of a balanced budget and no trade deficits?
      • grinchdec23, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Many people have been waiting for you too ask that question, its ok to forgive yourself, you know.
    • Navicerts, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4You do not sound knowledgeable on the subject. If you disagree you can offer a reason why you think he is wrong (for example the unemployment rate in the US or the fact that living conditions have generally remained the same from your own point of view). If you just attack the messenger and not the message you sound angry and uninformed.

      I agree that the dollar will continue to fall in value. I agree that my own living conditions have not been affected. However, every time I travel to Europe (a few times a year) I get less and less for the dollar; last time I payed $1.52 / 1.00 euro. I also agree that the dollar will continue to drop in value (after all there is no gold counterpart now, more money = more inflation). I don't know how this will end but it certainly is not good for people who have their money in US dollars.
    • isparadiselost, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Well, that was typical of you. Intellectually void and childish. At least you are consistent.
    • phathead, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1Who says the thunderdome is a bad thing?

      Who says a collapse of the central bank is doom?

      Dollar has dropped at a stead rate for the last 100 years...you all don't seem to notice or care so who is to say you will notice or care when the central bank goes away?
  • mrzack, on 07/10/2008, -3/+28Jim Rogers liquidated most of his US assets, stocks to escape to Singaporn, and proudly announces his 4 year old daughter will grow up speaking Mandarin. hmmm....I wonder if I should start learning Chinese.
    If you like Jim, you should also love Peter Schiff. His predictions hit the nail right on the spot of the US economic predicament. There's youtube videos of Peter in 2002 predicting everything that has happened.
  • zippy757, on 07/10/2008, -13/+6...gee...I wonder if this bozo has a vested interest in the dollar declining.......while he works the anti-US idiot bloggers around the world....he gets rich....the bloggers repeating his dribble get the front page for an hour...

    I'll bet on the USA. We have the smartest financial folks on the planet......
    • moxley, on 07/10/2008, -2/+10Get a clue and do some research. Telling the truth isn't anti-us, staying in denial about where we are financially and constitutionally is.

      Jingoism won't save your ass or your finances.

      The Federal Reserve is a consortium of private, mostly foreign banks. It is one of the main institutions responsible for the precarious situation we find ourselves in now as far as the financial and housing markets and the institutionalized corruption in America.
    • wtfpwned98, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5"I'll bet on the USA. We have the smartest financial folks on the planet......"

      The problem is that they're as greedy as they are smart. That is, most of them are only smart because they studied finance, and they studied finance because they want to make money. Plenty of our "smartest financial folks" are betting AGAINST the USA. Why? Because they can be personally rich, in Euros, and still live and work in the US. Eventually everyone with money may decide to move to Switzerland or Singapore. You never saw those Europeans who decided to move to the US as inherently bad, so why would you think any differently of Americans who decide to move to wherever will have the strongest market for their lifetime? Looks like it will be Asia.
  • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -20/+12Buried as inaccurate..Pure speculation from crazies like paul and rogers
    • Koppie, on 07/10/2008, -8/+3More like "wishful thinking."

      Also buried as inaccurate.
      • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -9/+2Man you nailed that one..Paultards are praying everything blows up due to their delusion that that would help paul get elected..Truth be told, there is nothing on the planet that could get Dr Nut elected !!
  • ClarkSparks, on 07/10/2008, -5/+5Dollar doomed? What better time to buy a Snorg t-shirt?
  • pleiadianagenda, on 07/10/2008, -6/+31This guy is insane. Although i want to see the Federal Reserve disappear, this guy's solutions are scary as hell. Have the bank of England run the Federal Reserve? The EU central bank? Or the Chinese central banks? Is this guy kidding me?

    The US has the constitutional right to create its own money. Central banking is what got the world into trouble in the first place. The USA should dissolve the Federal Reserve (which is private, and not even federal), create a federal treasury under constitutional law, make precious metals the standard, and compete against the world market.

    Central banking. The second plank of the Communist manifesto. This guy's solutions are worse than the problem.
    • mboudro, on 07/10/2008, -2/+8Yeah lets have the government control even more instead of private business... the Constitution was designed that way for a reason; The less government control, the better.
      • pleiadianagenda, on 07/10/2008, -2/+11Do you even know how bad the federal reserve has ***** you? Do you know that our dollar has dropped in value to less than 4 cents since 1913, under a fiat currency? Do you know that we as a nation and a govt pay interest on loans to private central banks who create their money out of thin air? You're paying 4 bucks a gallon because of fiat currency and central banks. Hey, if you want to support that, you go right ahead and enjoy your slavery.
      • mboudro, on 07/10/2008, -11/+3Actually, we pay $4 a gallon because oil is an open market commodity and is a product of supply and demand. Learn some economics before you start to play the blame game. I do realize that the fed has definitely not managed our money system correctly, that I do not deny. What happens when a private business is run incorrectly? The leadership fires everyone and finds someone who is competent.

        By no means would this system be run better by the government.
    • grinchdec23, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Smokescreen.
    • chupavacas, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4He wasn't being literal. He was saying in effect that he'd rather have a central bank that will address inflation (like the Chinese, EU and England are doing) rather than cause it.
    • inapcha, on 08/09/2008, -0/+0Could you please tell me what evil did central bank bring in?
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/10/2008, -5/+37Shoulda had a Ron Paul!

    /Slaps your head...
    • sportsstar67, on 07/11/2008, -2/+2Why, paul is bat ***** insane !!
  • DangerCollie, on 07/10/2008, -2/+17You may not like what you're hearing but the dude is right on. Gas prices are not going to go down, at least not very far. More likely they'll stabilize through the summer before going up again. And he's right about the price of oil. The Saudis could bury speculators if they actually had the spare production capacity.

    You can't wish away what we're facing. We're a long way from the end of the mortgage crisis, $5 dollar gas is a reality you might as well get used to, higher if there's another hurricane or attack on oil fields or oil tanker traffic. Imagine the Iranians decide to flip their rockets at Saudi oil terminals and processing facilities. They don't have to attack Israel to really hurt us, just disrupt oil supplies. It wouldn't be any harder for them than it would for us to disrupt traffic in the Panama Canal.

    Wake up. We're not the country we once were and stand on the brink of disaster. I hope some of you are right, I really do. I just can't find any data that supports your optimism.
  • mport1, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Nice.
  • calipan, on 07/10/2008, -6/+9Jim Rogers is a self promoting ahole that has bet against the dollar and the US. rational expectation means that he will do everything he can to get you to think that the whole system is unstable and you self fulfill the prophesy and implode.

    If he gets you to believe its all worthless and has no value he will be there to scope up all your property for pennies on the dollar and sell it back to you. Careful who you listen too. Self made billionaires got that way on the backs of the hard workers. He is one of the speculators that contributed to drive up commodity prices. You want to complain about inflation and high prices, blame Jim Rogers. he is a part of the mess.
    • baaj, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1By nature, everyone is a part of the 'mess' in a free market.
  • dizilbdog, on 07/10/2008, -1/+14Just wondering at what point do American's get mad and clean house of this crappy ass government, or are we just going to take it to the point where whole state's are wiped because of high gas prices dollar devalue food prices??
    • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/10/2008, -0/+11We just put bags over our heads and say that our debt will go away like magic. Or we can just print more free money.

      The government will always come through like Superman. Tell that to Katrina victims.

      We want to know if Britney Spears face is pregnant, and who is the next American Talent. That's the stuff that makes America great.

      I have seen cashier girls that are hotter than Jennifer Anniston. She's just an average chick.
  • Bovorik, on 07/10/2008, -10/+3So the dollar's having a bad time at the moment - what's fkn new? It's a cyclical thing fellas, unless of course that's some sort of alien macroeconomic concept to you.
  • bmcnally, on 07/10/2008, -8/+5If you believe that the dollar is truly doomed and will soon be worthless, you'll have no problem sending yours my way.
  • NelsonR, on 07/10/2008, -5/+11He made a mistake by speaking the truth. People are similar to ostrich's. They prefer to bury their head in the dirt and seek solace in a dream world. The market has only just begun to sink but go ahead and believe in the tooth fairy.
  • insanebrain, on 07/10/2008, -5/+9Zeitgeist anyone ?
  • ryanonfire, on 07/10/2008, -6/+3Why does this matter? (I'm talking about the US dollar going down BTW) Firstly, the US dollar is pegged against the yuan/HK dollar so you can get Chinese products at the same price you paid for them a year ago (adjusted for inflation). Secondly, most major US firms work, get this! in other countries, meaning the low US dollar is actually increasing their profits when they exchange their money back into US currency. So unless you're an American tourist I don't see how this is a major problem. end rant...
    • thrashertm, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2It's not pegged, and hasn't been pegged for over 3 years now.
    • phathead, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2R you huffing paint? Yuan is not pegged to the dollar...in fact the peoples bank of china has been raising its value artificially like 1 percent every month against the dollar..plus they have raise the reserve requirements which makes the money supply even tighter (harder to get loans). All these efforts are to fight inflation in China, which by the way Jim states in the video you just watched.

      The only people the low us dollar helps are folks that produce something here in the States and sell it over seas. Not like you said being that we have multinational operations given exchange finance boosts, you have export ***** made here in the states out to take advantage of what you are talking about...we don't manufacture anything anymore you moron. And the only way it helps producers in the States is if and only if you don't need imported goods from China to produce.

      Its obvious to me that you aren't so smart or that you got your economics knowledge from a cracker jacks box so don't rant until you understand how little actually gets produced here in the states with out the sub components coming from china. For example if you wear American made jeans chances are the zipper, fabric, buttons, thread, and rivets came from China/Asia. Plastic parts, microchips. circuit boars, etc...all come from Asia. The only thing they can't produce cheaper than us is complex steel castings and fabrications or high level complexity tools and robotics.

      Check your facts before you rant. Inflation will ***** you over sooner than you think and pray to whatever thing you want that Hyperinflation doesn't strike. Even though that's pretty much what Jim Rogers is predicting . But when Hyperinflation strikes, it hits like a bolt of lightning. Buy gold, silver, a couple hundred cartons of smokes, and lots of whiskey...then when the meltdown strikes you won't have to be a prison bitch to eat. THAT'S WHY THIS ***** MATTERS!
  • merlin5, on 07/10/2008, -9/+4All the Euro heads are predicting doom for the US dollar. Wishful thinking.
    1.) Iran will never block Hormuz. You drastically underestimate US ruthlessness if you think
    they could.
    2.) USA will not be allowed to decline into anarchy. (the ruthlessness?)
    We got where we are the hard way by kicking allot of asses. If the world thinks were down they are making a serious mistake.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4Ha ha ha! We can't even beat the ragtag ragheads in Iraq, you think we've got some kind of vaunted unbeatable ruthless army? WTF planet have you been living on? You think you can solve every problem with war.. well, we've seen how that goes, and it doesn't ***** work.
    • trellick, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3 let me say this for you slowly:

      1). Iran does not have to blockade anything - they just need to threaten it to achieve spectacular economic results. And if they did - and Uncle Sam decided to stop them, well, watch the dollar drop faster than Dubya's popularity. Its a win-win situation for them.

      2). 'kicking a lot of asses', yes, that's working out really well isn't it. See above. (and you're proposing being ruthless against your own people!?...erm....??). Blowing things up isn't always the solution.
    • merlin5, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3I didn't say that I thought all problems can be solved with war. I was only stating my opinion as a retired US soldier. Those ragheads Warty talks about are mostly dried ears on collection strings or gooey residue at the bottom of rubble pits now.
      Get current, we are winning in Iraq.
  • Bovorik, on 07/10/2008, -13/+7For those born yesterday or those with short memories, yeah, it may look like it's abandon-ship time.

    Fact is, though, that currencies, whatever they may be, go through tough times every once in a while. Just look at the Euro - it started off as a dog and took a lot of flak from various quarters. People were saying the Euro could only go down from where it was in the early 2000s. Now fkn look at it.
    • krische, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3Some of these diggers don't like you ruining their anarchy wet-dream with a little common sense.
    • grinchdec23, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Blah Blah the Euro, ask people who live in Europe if the fact the Euro being stronger has made anything cheaper.

      Everything save for entertainment tech is getting drastically more expensive everywhere, and it won't "adjust" itself.

      This is not a cycle , its a well laid out plan.
    • kemp34, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3Cause the Dollar is so freaking weak.
    • phathead, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2get a clue research do homework or think before u speak.

      http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1215705364.php
      • Bovorik, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0Again, it's all cyclical - just take gold, for example. It's got as rocky a history (in value terms) as anything. It's gonna reach it's peak value soon enough and we'll be moving into the next cycle.
  • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -15/+9Jim Rogers and ron paul are lunatics..The dollar will be fine and the Fed isn't going anywhere..Don't know about Rogers but Dr Nut has been predicting this for like 10 years now
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4And he has been right so far has he not. Where does this fear of Libertarianism come from.
      • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1Nope, nothing has crashed..he's been wrong as far as I can remember..i guess though if you predict things over 72 years of life sooner or later he might get one right
      • kemp34, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Just keep telling yourself that every night when you try to sleep.
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Admit it,you have no idea why you are afraid. I sleep fine except for
        the good and bad news of these Bush years. The Bad news is that I have
        lost about $250,000 in wealth in voting for that idiot twice. The
        Good news is that those dollars are only about half the size of the ones
        I started with.
    • kemp34, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2You are a turd in my digg punch bowl.
      • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2Did you join he Paultards new "Digg Bury Brigade" ?? Haven't you clowns learned how useless Digg and Youtube are ??
      • kemp34, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4No, fool, the "Digg Bury Brigade" is ANTI-Ron Paul. If your head wasn't so far up your southern orifice, you'd have figured that out by now.

        As far as political figures actually talking sense, yes, Ron Paul is high up the list.

        As far as me being a part of any organized collective. No, I am not. I'm just me, putting out my perspective, pretty much chuckling to myself at the existence of boobs such as yourself.
  • Joetwopointoh, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6Reality, what a concept.

  • sportsstar67, on 07/10/2008, -14/+7Nothing posted from Ron Paul News can be considered legit....Nothing but spammers and conspiracy theorists..these folks also have formed a "Digg Bury Brigade" to promote their stories and bury negative comments
  • Ingersoll23, on 07/10/2008, -7/+2Intriguing, but even with the dollar low as it is I can not see a bottomless pit of loss. It is true that China and India will take a growing piece of the pie but I think it will be a leveling not a take over.
  • cenic, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0Many point to China as a large market that will take the place of the US. However, China, is an export-led economy that requires a weak currency compared to the US dollar and relatively easy access to the US market for exports. So, as the US dollar goes bust, the real question is: Who will take over the role as #1 import nation to ensure that all these export-led economies such as Japan, Korea, and China can continue to thrive? They need a weak dollar, the US citizen's desire to consume and not save money, and easy entry into the US market. Without this, its not looking good anyone. Look at Japan, they have been suffering the affects of a strong US dollar since the Plaza Accord in the 1980s that looked to make the Yen stronger compared to the US dollar. This was one of the major causes of over a decade of recession in Japan
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.