Posted on 03/03/2006 12:41:03 PM PST by handk
I cannot understand why people insist on dragging every pathetic scrap of goldbuggery onto this forum.
I have no appetite for spam.
Absolutely. The U.S. currently has some level of military presence in more than 120 foreign countries, and a total of about 500,000 military and civilian personnel stationed overseas.
If that ain't an "empire," then I don't know what is.
They are there by the invitation of the host countries, not to subjugate them and ensure their allegiance to the US. But as the article by Dr. Petrov points out, all empires extract a tax or tribute from the subjugated. Where is the tax or tribute? The fact that oil is priced in dollars does not make it a "tax" as the article claims.
Empire:
"A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empire
Sorry, the USA does not fit this definition. The fact that we have military forces in Japan and the UK does not mean that we rule Japan and the UK.
Just my opinion, but classically speaking such military deployments are in support of colonialization and control of the respective native governments in a true empire. Empires also tend to have emperors and imperial command structures. This isn't just hair-splitting, it is a fundamental difference. IMHO, of course.
Correction -- they are there either as a result of our own will, or at the "invitation" of a government that may or may not even reflect the will of its own people (Pakistan, for example). It's also worth noting that the term "empire" does not necessarily indicate hostile intent on the part of the imperial power.
The fact that oil is priced in dollars does not make it a "tax" as the article claims.
But the fact that all U.S. trade is conducted with U.S. dollars does, in a sense. That's his point.
we don't have any gold anymore. thats the point. the only thing backing the dollar is evry country's need for dollars to buy oil. when that need is gone, the dollar's "value" decreases. big supply, low demand.
This article makes no sense whatsover. The Europeans pay for their oil with Euros now -- that is, they spend Euros to purchase dollars and then spend the dollars for oil.
Nice diversion from the part that does make sense.... they will not have to buy and hold dollars. If they do not buy and hold dollars, there is less demand for dollars. With the same or growing supply of dollars but less demand for them, the dollar in theory will drop in value.
They only hold the dollars for as long as it takes to buy the oil. The transaction probably takes 30 minutes max.
And the amount of time they hold the dollars matters how ? Whether they buy the dollars for a minute or a year they are creating demand for the dollars they purchase. Once they no longer exchange euros for dollars to facilitate their oil transactions, demand for the dollar will drop by the amount they no longer exchange. A drop in demand against a steady or increasing supply of dollars will by economic theory result in a drop in the value of the dollar.
Man, you are cracking me up.
I loved that Saudi Arabia beachfront visual.
Cheers - Dinah
LOL.
Can't have a bourse... if they no longer have an infrastructure.
How will they run the computers without electricity?
Maybe they could light tires on fire to signal a trade - yeah, that might work. ;)
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.