According to this article, the real reason that US wants to invade Iraq is because Iraq is the first country in Middle East to convert Dollar to Euro. (therefore the so called WMD is a smoking gun)
This trend will potentially damage US economy beyond imagination. As the article pointed out, once the world starts to use Euro in oil transaction, the US’ world domination in economy is simply over. That’s what Washington fears the most. So using military as an alternaive to reenforce its world domination only becomes logical.
You know, there are so many holes in this theory, and it is motivated by such blatant anti-Americanism, that I’m not even sure where to begin.
My first response would be that Saddam’s oil is of no consequence to the US, anyway. If nothing else, Europeans are the only ones who buy it, so its not exactly unexpected for the Iraqi’s to price it in Euros.
A ridiculous theory. Iraq is such a marginal part of the world economy that any decision that it makes will only have a tiny effect on the world demand for dollars far less than the likely cost of fighting the war.
Even apart from that the US economy isn't dependent on the seignorage from having the world's most accepted currency. It's just a small bonus for the US economy.
“But the more dollars there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free.”
This does not even make any sense. So we can just keep printing up money so we can exchange it for free stuff?
My opinion is that this is a site created by morons who lack any understanding of basic economic theory.
If there was any truth to the article, the US would simply court the Europeans into a merged currency. Frankly, I’m sure them across the channel would gag for such stability. And the close value of both currencies would make a merger technically smooth. The problematic issues would be a bunch of Europeans and Americans managing to agree on all the other details - which bank controls it, economic targets, etc.
“This does not even make any sense. So we can just keep printing up money so we can exchange it for free stuff?”
No actually this part of the argument is correct. It’s called “seignorage” and is a well-studied phenomenon in Economics.
However the point is that the seignorage that the US gets from Iraq (if anything at all) is miniscule. And even the world-wide seignorage isn’t vital to the US economy just a nice bonus to having a widely used currency.
BTW the US also gets seignorage when a foreign country “dollarizes” its economy like Argentina. If seignorage is supposed to be a reason for war then you would see the US using military threats to force countries to dollarize which is of course ridiculous.
I admit that my understanding of “seignorage” as part of overall economic theory is limited. From what I do know of economics, the article seems ridiculous. While there may be capital gains benefits from having an advanced economy like here in the USA, that is very diferent from the scenario described in the article where a USA producing nothing sucks all the resources from the rest of the world for free because of a strong dollar.
Well, let’s toss another conspiracy theory out here. Could it be that France and Germany are worried that if the US takes over Iraq, we’ll put Iraq back on the dollar, and thus screw France and Germany’s economies? ::::Awaiting peels of hysterical laughter::::
Yeah, so what if Iraq takes euros for oil? It’s not like the US has to go down to the foreign currency exchange window at the airport with their billions of dollars and lose 5% on the exchange before the Iraqis will sell them any. Large corporations (including oil corporations) make foreign-currency transactions all the time; this would just be another sort of transaction. No biggie.
If this is the best reason to be anti-war, :rolleyes: Even december could come up with better reasons!
You’re wavering. Earlier, you said “As it applies to this topic, the principle contradicts the claim of those who say that the introductory clause of the Second Amendment is meaningless.” If you truly believe that every word must be given effect, then you must find a way to give effect to the phrase “roses are red, violets are blue”. If, however, this obligation exists only when there is a reasonable way to do so, then claiming that this principle “contradicts the claim of those who say that the introductory clause of the Second Amendment is meaningless” is begging the question. If there is a reasonable way to give meaning to the first phrase, then of course the claim that it is meaningless is contradicted. That is tautological. But if the first phrase is meaningless, then there is no way to reasonably give meaning to it, so the principle can not be applied to contradict the claim that the phrase is meaningless. To sum up: in order to contradict the claim that it is meaningless, you must first show that the principle is applicable. And to do that, you have to first show that the it is not meaningless.
Well, that’s not what you said either. The “so long as a complete reading is reasonable” caveat is new, and “a reading that picks and chooses what stuff to enforce” is not an accurate description of the alternative. Referring to this as choosing to not enforce some parts is disingenuous. After all, if you enforce none of it, that it is a choice about what to enforce. If you enforce all of it, that’s a choice about what to enforce. No matter what, there’s no way to avoid making a choice about what to enforce. What you mean (presumably) is that you are opposed to arbitrary decisions about what to enforce. And there’s nothing arbitrary about enforcing everything that’s an imperative.
Taking something that can be given substantive effect, and claiming that it is what the clause means, is hardly the same thing as actually giving the clause substantive effect.
And of course by going to school to begin with, he was exercising his first amendment right of freedom of assembly. In fact, other than some rare exceptions (such as the DC sniper) every shooting has involved the shooter being in the presence of the victim, and thus exercising his first amendment rights. See? I can play that game too.
Your use of the words “rally” and “staged” clearly implies a situation completely at odds with the facts. The word “rally” implies a public gathering meant to push their own agenda, and the word “staged” implies they not only held it after Columbine, but planned it afterwards (and in response to it). Suppose I were to say “Following the September 11th attacks, RandySpears went on a message board criticizing Americans and blaming them for murders in their country”. It’s technically true, but presents a false implication.
One-time economist checking in to help with “seignorage” (and I’m not certain of the correct spelling).
Seignorage, as best I recall, is the profit on minting / printing money. The per-item cost of producing a coin or currency bill is less than the face value of the coin or bill. So the government prints a one dollar bill at a per-item cost of, let’s say, 3 cents. Then they sell that bill to the Federal Reserve for 1 dollar. In this example, the profit on that dollar – the seignorage – is 97 cents.
The fallacy in the part msmith quoted is that the same situation (foreign circulation, investment, and trade) applies to every country with foreign trade. You could easily substitute “EEC” (or whatever the current term is) and “Euro” for “US” and “dollar.” Europe needs to swap Euros for US dollars before they can buy our stuff; America needs to swap dollars for Euros before we can buy their stuff. And that sort of discussion on international trade and international monetary trade is the heart and soul of 400-level economics courses.