Posted on 11/28/2006 6:10:53 AM PST by Kimberly GG
That is by far the most idiotic analogy I've ever heard on Free Republic, and that's up against some stiff competition.
You cannot sneak up a monetary change like this in the dead of night. Billions had to be spent preparing people in Europe for it - changing everything from cash registers, ATM machines, to sophisticated systems of accounting. It is not something that can be done in the dead of night or without warning. But you don't think to this level of detail; you seize hold of some paranoid nutjob's meanderings and take it to heart. There are plenty of genuine things to be afraid of in this world - Islamic terrorism, the far left, Hillary Clinton - this is not one of them. By continuing in this paranoid fantasy you're breathing life and wasting energy on a mirage when there are real problems to be solved.
Think about it, and do THINK before you reply.
Ivan
The Mods are CFR, pass it on.
I know MadIvan. MadIvan is no communist, but he is literate.
Show me facts. I have seen none from you. This article is based on what we can see is mostly fact. And that is "Amero". I have seen no other monetary devise mentioned. There is a lot of dots that need some attention to.
That is the beginning, the middle and the end of it.
Now either you're going to accept it or you're going to continue to be mindless.
Ivan
Though there are many other kinds of commodity convertibility, these are, as noted earlier (footnote 3) complicated and hence hard to explain to the public at large. That is one reason why all recent proposals for reforming Canada's monetary order that envisage replacing inflation targets with a system underpinned by convertibility rest, not on a commodity of any sort, but on either a brand new North American currency or the U.S. dollar. Given the Americans' total lack of interest in giving up a shred of control over their own currency, let alone abandoning it for something else, the only proposals among these that are practically possible are those involving either the outright unilateral adoption by Canada of the U.S. dollar as its currency, or the creation of a new Canadian currency linked to the U.S. dollar by way of a currency board.
Read it. Learn. Let the facts penetrate the battleship armour thickness of your skull. I cannot force you not to be stupid, but I damn well will try.
Ivan
Now that I've noticed, you are lucky the thread didn't get pulled for being a duplicate. Maybe the Mods are afraid doing so would set off the kook-alarm.
This is what your #37 said:
To: hedgetrimmer
I actually did some searching about the Amero. Here is what the Bank of Canada has to say:
LINK
Though there are many other kinds of commodity convertibility, these are, as noted earlier (footnote 3) complicated and hence hard to explain to the public at large. That is one reason why all recent proposals for reforming Canada's monetary order that envisage replacing inflation targets with a system underpinned by convertibility rest, not on a commodity of any sort, but on either a brand new North American currency or the U.S. dollar. Given the Americans' total lack of interest in giving up a shred of control over their own currency, let alone abandoning it for something else, the only proposals among these that are practically possible are those involving either the outright unilateral adoption by Canada of the U.S. dollar as its currency, or the creation of a new Canadian currency linked to the U.S. dollar by way of a currency board.
Kooks like you can "talk to the hand".
____________________________________________________
What is the context, date, reader, and link of this document? Please post.
This piece that you posted in #37 is ambiguous at best.
Interesting!
Ivan
My comment on the other thread whether this trader holds a short position on the dollar. [chuckle]
I've repeated it, and marked the salient portion in red. I can't make it any clearer than that - it says America is not interested. Or do they have to use words of six letters or less for you to understand them?
Ivan
Given the Americans' total lack of interest in giving up a shred of control over their own currency, let alone abandoning it for something else
Now, is that clear? Do you understand? Learning yet? Or do you have to have a nurse come wipe the drool from the corners of your mouth every 10 minutes?
Ivan
Obviously you don't think this is the case. So, what evidence can you point to over the past five years that this isn't the goal of Washington, Mexico City, and Ottawa?
"We live in the status quo" really isn't a valid argument given the radical Hispanicization of Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California that has already taken place - not to mention the lack of any action to stem the flow of illegal immigrants to the United States.
Don't mind me. This was just an excercise to determine the nature of the mysterious Mr. Previs. Apparently he is a real person, and does work for Jefferies International, Ltd. .
Now whether the 'Amero' is something going or not--I'm sure its wishful thinking for some folks, but Bush and Co. just can't pop up one day and say: Well, we're all using a new currency now!
But just to have some conspiracy fun---what would happen if other parties decided to divest themselves of dollar holdings, and as a consequence, devalue the dollar (the devaluation is already happening, but a divestment over a short term could push a crisis)? Now, how would an argument be made to control such devaluation, especially since the relatively interest rate in the US gives the Feds not so much freedom to maneuver?
relatively == relatively low
Damn. I thought it was junk mail.
</sarcasm...sort of>
Back to your corners. Both of you.
You didn't read the footnote 3 did you? These are all theories and 'schemes' that were analyzed and where not a part of the Gold Standard or metallic standard. "Angela Redish has reminded me, some work goes so far as to speculate about the potential stability of systems with no such anchor at all". I would speculate that "Amero" could be a viable "anchor". Here is the footnote:
3. The free-banking literature contains many ingenious schemes for convertibility anchors that go far beyond simple metallic standards, such as those based on gold and silver. As Angela Redish has reminded me, some work goes so far as to speculate about the potential stability of systems with no such anchor at all. Selgin and White (1994) survey this material, which there is no space to discuss here, with admirable clarity. Suffice it to say that I share their skepticism about the viability of systems that lack any convertibility anchor, and that to it I add a further personal judgment: namely, that, to be politically durable, monetary policy arrangements need to be kept simple, and that some of the more complex schemes that have appeared in the free-banking tradition, though apparently theoretically viable, would probably fail this test in practice.
Reading is good for the soul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.