We can do this in two ways: first we can hire Greeks to do the Census (my understanding is that they going to hire about 1million people to do the Census) The second thing is we just donât have a Census and the billions of dollars we save we use to bailout Greece. The point I am trying to make here is not about bailing out Greece, but do we really have to hire 1 million people to do the Census? Is there a cheaper way? Maybe electronically? (I was watching TV this morning and they announced that they were going to hire 972,000 more people to do the Census within the next 2-3 months) I am not sure if that information is wrong or right but thatâs what I heard.
What we are now doing here in the US, is EXACTLY what Greece has been doing pre-crisis. What did Greece do pre crisis? It relied on exorbitant deficit spending and a growing bloated overpaid government sector to drive the economy. Sound familiar? If it does, it's because that's EXACTLY what the US is doing RIGHT NOW! Gee, maybe our results will be different than Greece's? LOL.
One difference dollar is reserve currency for now.. we can export inflation which will eventually stop until then we are not Greece by any means..
But when you have the world's reserve currency, who else is big enough to bail you out when the time does come? The bigger they are, the harder they fall? Ouch.
reminds me of the hoopla the last few years, about "Count Every Vote" and Hanging Chads and spending $billion plus to change the voting machines, to ensure accuracy is to 0.01% instead of 0.1% Do all these efforts really change anything, other than to add to our overall deficit? How many people could have had medical coverage if we saved 2-3 billion on stupid voting machines? That would have given a $1,000 scholarship to 2-3 million students!!!
You forget the weapons. When you have reserve currency and weapons, it's everyone else's problem. It's a lethal combination, for everyone else.
Weapons mean shit. They are only good for slapping around resource rich small non-nuclear countries. When it comes to other major nuclear countries, Russia, India, China, EU... weapons are moot b/c of the nuclear deterrent. You don't want to be around in a world if it comes down to weapons amongst the majors. The next world war, should it happen, would be a pyrrhic victory for the survivor.
If we are to talk seriously about geopolitics, we must understand that EU is not a country, not even close. It has no central strategic policy, no central control of armies, etc.. France and England - which is not in Euro - have nuclear weapons of limited capacity. They have no deterrence power. Only Russia has that. Not even China, both due to technologu and distance from the US.
Thanks for the history lesson. Yes, the EU is not a country. You are one bright person for pointing out my sloppy writing. I should have said "major powers" instead of "countries." I mentioned the EU as an entity because of the common currency and how that interacts with the reserve status of the dollar. And France, as a major member of the EU has nukes. So the US's weapons become moot. You have no idea about China. And as to your "Weapons" reliance, how did our weapons work in Vietnam? Afghanistan? What fancy weapons did Osama bin Laden use on 9/11? Please explain how we can use our "weapons" against the entire world to continue using our currency. I'm interested in how your weapon theory plays out.
I am glad you agree than major errors are to be corrected. "Moot is not the point". EU is not an entity. It is a loose currency union. Does that mean you do or it is just another assumption of yours founded on just speculation? Safe heaven. Weapons make you a real safe heaven. Where have you been? The only safe heaven in the world is the US despite its financial problems. Would you trust your money with Chinese, Russians, French, Germans, or Japs? Especially when the USD is a reserve currency.