Oh, my goodness! We should get word to Baron! I'm sure that he will agree with you that EliteTrader's Economics discussion forum serves no purpose and might as well just be eliminated.
that wasn't quite my point - money IS the most important and complex asset class, in the way meant above, not as in portfolio management, and the guys whose job it is to 'mine' money and 'barter' it around the various economies, client segments etc are a bit better at what they are doing than most people can fathom, and than your average 'austrian' economist anyway... - but instead of focussing on the seaworthiness of 'austrian' theories of money, which is only ONE of the foundations of the article submitted by the OP... (no big deal, right? just because he may be wrong there doesn't mean some other statements he makes have no value... for instance, the sky is generally blue... that still stands!)... ... most of the points you've extracted and reassembled have been made time and again, more famously recently by ron paul http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm as you will note, even before congress, paul doesn't PROVE anything, he simply links a string of events, people, interests etc according to the rules of his supporting logic, asserts that therefore that particular logic and nothing else can be at play here, and then goes on to denounce that logic... well, however seductive the reasoning - to some people at least, and i don't deny that america's got a few problems with oil, dominance in the middle east etc anyway - that doesn't amount to much honestly... there are quite a few other pretty good reasons why in my view america HAD to perform the clean-up in iraq but thats not sthg i am seeking a debate on... nor even interested in debating... not only because its already been debated to death but because to me its done and dusted and i intend to live in 2006 and beyond, not harping over spilt milk all the time... now back to the bozo who wrote the article submitted by the OP at the beginning of the thread and who is obviously unencumbered by any notions of standards of proof, i stand by what i say... cheers ;-)
2cents, Have you considered the possibility that a statement might be true, yet unprovable? Have you considered the possibility that something bad might happen, even in the absence of proof that it definitely will happen? I think it is generally accepted that it is extremely difficult to predict economic phenomena. This is why we usually think in terms of evidence as to what risks exist, rather than certain proof as to what will happen in future. Don't you agree? Doesn't such an acknowledgement of uncertainty and unpredictability undermine your argument? I'm not suggesting that your predictions are wrong. I am only questioning the reasoning by which you arrived at them. I also do not understand your argument concerning the Austrian school of economic thought. You seem to be saying that the article's assessment of future risks smacks of Austrianism, and that Austrianism is wrong, therefore, the article is wrong. I thought you were too smart for such an argument. If we assume that Austrian economics are wrong, isn't it possible that there might be one situation in which a wrong theory coincidentally agrees with the reality of future events? Isn't it necessary to address whether or not the particular reasoning of the article is correct, regardless of whether it might bear some resemblance to a wrong theory? I mean, even a stopped clock is right twice each day! It just seems to me that labelling or categorizing an argument is not a sufficient means for disposing of it.
dude, no intention to mock you or anything, just thought you may want to re-read yourself someday, perhaps that will make you smile ;-)
jimmy, my argument re the 'austrian' school is that it is at best a totally inadequate framework to understand much at all of 20-21st century economy and beyond... i have provided more erudite links to that effect... read them if you want to understand how it ties in with important foundations of the article... let me help: the fact that there even IS a dollar hegemony! shocked? well, if you have time, and the will, read up on modern economics, the quantity theory of money, understand how velocity drives pretty much EVERYTHING... and then perhaps you'll get a glimpse... this hegemony thing is for the most part sthg that the Rest of the World is bringing upon themselves every single day, because they have been unsuccessful up till this day at creating an environment that is even remotely competitively attractive to that of the US, as far as investing, but not only... (ok you guys have serious problems though, pervasive gun violence, crack use etc, but perhaps thats the price to pay...)
jimmy, ok, happy to try and help more but plse make it easy on me will you... point out exactly which statements / assumptions / conclusions from the author you find are worth debating / presenting a counter argument against and i'll oblige
The article's warning that Bernanke's helicopters, hyperinflation, and collapse lay ahead for the dollar.
No. I am not kidding. What is your counterargument? So far, all I have seen, in this thread, can be summarized by the words of the famous cartoon simpleton and MAD magazine mascot, Alfred E. Neuman, who said, "What - me worry?"
anyway.... helicopters: learn to read in context... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke He was the Director of the Monetary Economics Program of the National Bureau of Economic Research and the editor of the American Economic Review. He has a strong interest in the causes of the Great Depression, a period in U.S. history accompanied by substantial monetary deflation as result of deliberate actions of the federal reserve. In 2002, when the word "deflation" began appearing in the business news, Bernanke gave a speech about deflation. In that speech, he mentioned that the government in a fiat money system owns the physical means of creating money. Control of the means of production for money implies that the government can always avoid deflation by simply issuing more money. (He referred to a statement made by Milton Friedman about using a "helicopter drop" of money into the economy to fight deflation.) Bernanke's critics have since referred to him as "Helicopter Ben" or to his "helicopter printing press". In a footnote to his speech, Bernanke noted that "people know that inflation erodes the real value of the government's debt and, therefore, that it is in the interest of the government to create some inflation." [1] if you want to understand the rationale and dynamics of this, read Krugman, he's done a great job at explaining it in layman terms http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393320367/002-7424618-7726430?v=glance&n=283155 except gold bugs all over the world now keep harping on that, altho' thats perfectly sound policy... well perhaps it is that they have no other real argument of their own... i, for one, haven't found them any... hyperinflation: there is not even the beginning of the start of anything more than tepid above-desired-historical-average inflation right now... i mean we could talk about when the arcturians attack as i said but whats the point really?? oh, of course, hyperinflation MUST come because of what helicopter Bernanke did around 2002 to fight off deflation!!! implies the self-appointed economist in the OP's article ... well, not so and not even close if one understands the quantity theory of money, impact of velocity etc... just do your homework jimmy, but be prepared for some pain... real economics ain't that easy, you know... just a pointer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money collapse of the dollar: here is the best book you can read on this. the most influential author on the financial scene in recent years, because of how limpidly he's explained what is at work here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470821027/002-7424618-7726430?v=glance&n=283155 http://goldismoney.info/forums/printthread.php?t=414 http://goldismoney.info/forums/archive/index.php/t-837.html however nothing even in this very serious book says the $ MUST collapse (brutally by 30% in value), only that it's a possibility shld there be some panic movement at some point in the wake of ever-increasing deficits... thing is, the current environment doesn't leave too much room for much panic honestly... unless of course the deficits unexpectedly jump 25% from one month to the other! now as regards currency fluctuations over time, they can actually be fairly wide and well in excess of 100% e.g. look at $/FRF, $/JPY etc... therefore a slow gradual depreciation of the $ to the tune of 30% to allow for the deficits to unwind more easily would be nothing extraordinary at all, and even that in itself would be expected to be temporary in nature... but the reality of where we are right now is, despite all the talk, there are complex feedback reactions at play on the markets, and based on fundamentals & charts and how the $-permabear camp's arguments have gotten more than tired in the last 2-3 years, i don't believe it is that likely that the $ WILL depreciate 30% before the deficits have started unwinding significantly.... please show me anything that makes you believe the contrary is true where shall i send my bill btw jimmy ;-)