I had thought that Germany's Weimar Republic was saddled with enormous public debts, as result of the Treaty of Versailles, requiring Germany to pay humiliating and unmanageable war reparations to its enemies who defeated Germany in World War I. I had thought that this crippling financial burden at least helped push Weimar Germany into its hyperinflationary trap. If this is incorrect, then I would be most grateful if you would utilize your superior intellect to educate me. I think, contrary to your assertions, that I have addressed your objections, and that you fail to recognize this because you aren't sufficiently interested to achieve comprehension of what I wrote. I'm really quite surprised to see you call me an intellectual fraud. I can't imagine why you would make such a comment. I do not understand the source of your unending hostility, toward me, in this thread. Perhaps this is how you respond to people who challenge or your assertion of intellectual superiority.
I would like to clarify my earlier comments about how a dollar panic might be triggered. I don't think it is realistic to suppose that non-governmental, private actors would have access to sufficient risk capital to threaten the dollar. I think a private consortium could seek to trigger a dollar panic, not through trading, but through terrorism and propaganda. I think that it is more important to keep in mind that financial history shows that conspirators and other malefactors are not what trigger financial panics. History shows that once the conditions establish themselves, where a triggering event can cause a financial panic, it is inevitable that such a triggering event will occur. If a forest bakes in a long summer drought, so that the timber is ripe for a wildfire, then it is inevitable that some lightning strike will start the fire. The tough question, I think, is always whether the conditions for a financial panic are established. Once they are established, then it is only a matter of time before some triggering event comes along to set the panic in motion. I'm not an intellectual giant, like 2cents, so I do not have an opinion as to whether conditions for a dollar panic have been established, and are currently awaiting a triggering event, or if those conditions will become established in the future. The opinion of 2cents seems to be that there is no possibility of such occurring. I hope that when 2cents resumes insulting me, he will at least acknowledge that I do not have an opinion as to what will happen to the dollar. I am happy to admit that I do not know. I will also note that 2cents has linked to a document written by Lyndon LaRouche. I definitely do not agree with the statements made by LaRouche in that linked article, or elsewhere.
try 'central bankers'... they are the ones who are fighting inflation (and perception / anticipation thereof) by any means available to them, the inflation that governants & politicians so desire, because it inflicts the kind of ills you just described and allows them to get away with the perpetual free lunch... central bankers again who are there when the delirious speculative internet bubble collapses, Enron/Worldcom implode etc and in the wake of 9/11 the prospect of a global recession / depression rears its ugly head... would you want their job?
and exactly how is this of any relevance to your suggestion that public debt / gdp ratio leads to hyperinflation jimmy, and to your claim that 'we have seen the beginnings of hyperinflation'? all i am saying is that you are talking thru your ass matey, and the only one who is making pompous claims of intellectual superiority etc here all along this thread is you... you're the only one who is preoccupied by notions of superiority, and by being 'right', at all costs, even on stuff you obviously know very little about.... except you have nothing to show... what does 'good faith' mean to you jimmy? just another 'game theory' concept i guess...
Very interesting thread, I was sincerely hoping all this pondering would lead to some refreshing views. Alas not to be. Bottom line seems to be we are all trapped in the same boat, floating or sinking together, maybe a couple of us furtively sneaking in swimming lessons. Then again, there are these guys. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-yap30jun30,1,6588395.story
2cents, You have, throughout this thread, continually insulted me and proclaimed your intellectual superiority. I subjected your ridiculous claim to the ridicule it deserves, with the result that you are now backing away from your claim of superiority. I also replied that I would prefer to discuss the underlying question of the dollar's fate, rather than argue over who is superior. Yet you have continued to insult me, and you now assert that I am an "intellectual fraud". (I wonder, is it better or worse to be an "intellectual fraud", as opposed to just a plain vanilla, run-of-the-mill "fraud"?) Let me address another example of your inability to comprehend viewpoints different from your own. I never said that all public debt causes hyperinflation; I said that an excessive ratio of public debt to gdp can help cause hyperinflation. You wrote, in this thread, that hyperinflation is impossible, because: I thought this was a rather circular argument, that future hyperinflation is impossible, because it hasn't started yet. I then countered that excessive uncontrolled expansion of the public debt, as a percentage of gdp, is a first step toward hyperinflation, but my use of your terminology, regarding the "beginning" of hyperinflation, was a mistake on my part, which has contributed to your inability to understand my viewpoint. I should have called it a first step toward hyperinflation, rather than a beginning of hyperinflation; this would have better expressed the meaning I intended, in seeking to counter your circular argument. Keep in mind that one can never really draw the line between the end of normal inflation and the beginning of hyperinflation. Is not a rise in inflation the beginning of hyperinflation? The transition from inflation to hyperinflation is a perfect example of the idea of a "slippery slope". I think it conceivable that the extremely rapid appreciation of real estate values, in the U.S. and in many other countries, is a symptom of too many U.S. dollars and public and private dollar-denominated debt instruments, keeping the world awash in so much easy money, that the result may have been either a real estate bubble which will burst, or the leading edge of the first wave of the coming hyperinflation, or both, or neither. You ask how is Germany's Weimar Republic hyperinflation relevant to our discussion of whether the dollar might hyperinflate. I am surprised by this question. The answer seems so obvious to me. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it", we were told, by the late philosopher George Santayana. I suppose your disinterest in the historical dimensions of our discussion exemplifies what we were told by the late playright George Bernard Shaw: "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." I have asked you to explain why you believe that the public debt imposed upon Weimar Germany, by the Treaty of Versailles, had nothing to do with Germany's hyperinflation between the two world wars. Isn't it rather straightforward? Wouldn't you say that the excessive public debt pressured Weimar Germany to print too much money, in an effort to capture revenue by inflating its own currency; but that once control was lost, it could not be regained, and so Weimar hyperinflated its currency into worthlessness. Please, oh, please, 2cents, I beg you to bring your self-proclaimed, superior intellect to bear on this great riddle of history, which I am sure puzzles all the greatest minds in finance: Why does 2cents believe the Weimar hyperinflation experience irrelevant to a discussion of whether the dollar might possibly hyperinflate in the future? I guess one of the advantages of a superior intellect, like yours, 2cents, is that you can afford to ignore history, and yet somehow manage to be right about the future. I guess this sets you well above lazy frauds like myself, who must examine history in an effort to understand the present and the future. Your comments that I try to be right at all costs are utter nonsense. My primary position, throughout this thread, has been that I do not know the answer. How can I try to be right at all costs, if I admit that I do not know the answer? My secondary position, throughout this thread, has been that you also do not know the answer. I have repeatedly stated that your answer, that dollar hyperinflation, panic, or collapse, will never happen, might be correct; and I have only questioned the reasoning process by which you arrived at that conclusion, and I think I have done a good job of raising doubts about your claim that you have everything all figured out. Your most recent post says "all i am saying is that you are talking thru your ass matey". If this is all you are saying, does it mean that you are backing away from your claim that you have the dollar's future all figured out? Does this mean you are backing away from your claim that dollar hyperinflation, panic, and collapse are impossible? If you are backing away from these various claims, then I would say I have accomplished something of value in this thread. Are you backing away? I also fail to grasp your continued, increasingly shrill accusations of "fraud" and lack of "good faith" on my part. I don't understand what, specifically, you think I am lying about, other than your contention that I am trying to look smarter than I really am. I think that my ridicule forced you to back away from your ridiculous claim of intellectual superiority, so that now, you must find some other way to demonstrate your superiority, without explicitly proclaiming yourself superior to the masses. This is why you are vaguely accusing me of fraud. You need to denigrate me, to make me inferior to the masses, to punish me for interfering with your efforts to feel superior to the masses. If I won't let you feel superior to everybody, you can at least try to take me down a notch, so that you can at least feel superior to me. If you have any consideration for the other people reading this thread, you will stop harping on questions of intellectual superiority and intellectual fraud, and try to focus on the discussion topic. I'm sure everyone is dying to see your own historical analysis of the question, or your own game-theoretic analysis of the question, or really anything that focuses on the topic, instead of your ridiculous proclamations of superiority, and your equally ridiculous accusations of fraud.
thats just more words jimmy, except the only claim i made since page 8 of this thread, and i stand by it, is that you are a DISINGENUOUS INTELLECTUAL FRAUD and it won't take a very careful reader to crosscheck that you are simply attempting here in this long desperate post to reverse my questions about your farty assertions (and in the process, fabricate claims i haven't made), questions that you haven't even begun to answer, simply because you can't, without contradicting yourself... and that's simply too much for your pride... how warped and pathetic of you to attempt to conceal a grudging acknowledgement such as the below, after being so pompously assertive, within a 1,000 words of blather really?? it IS actually out of consideration for the other readers that i am exposing your devious manners jimmy... not surprised that you shouldn't be too happy about that matey :-; now re the initial subject matter, i have also offered some alternative opinions if you care to read... feel free to re-phrase them as well if you must, the more you do it, the more you discredit yourself...
2cents, you have "exposed" nothing. Your accusations against me are poppycock. I'm disappointed to see you continually pulling this discussion down to such a low level, but I'm not, as you suggested, allowing your false accusations and other childishness to bother me more than a trifle. Let's try to get back on the topic. You posted that the Weimar Germany hyperinflation has no relevance to the question of whether excessive public debt can help cause hyperinflation. Let me suggest that you perform a simple google search, simultaneously using the terms Weimar, hyperinflation, and reparations. If you do, you will find many links supporting my view, and I dare say you might not find any to the contrary. My view, again, is that Weimar Germany's excessive public debt pressured it to hyperinflate its currency into collapse. Can we agree that I was correct on these historical facts? Can we agree that these historical facts are relevant to our discussion? Here is an historical summary from the BBC, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/16/sosteacher/history/49231.shtml: You, 2cents, posted the following: Are you now willing to back away from your comments that the Weimar hyperinflation had nothing to do with its ratio of public debt to gdp?
Here is some more, 2cents, from http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany, which I hope will persuade you to back away from your comments that Weimar hyperinflation had nothing to do with its public debt:
Here is some more, 2cents, from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hyperinf.htm, which I hope will persuade you to back away from your assertion that public debt had nothing to do with the Weimar hyperinflation: