is America in the same boat as UK in 1975?

[NeverEndingMe]

if (God forbid) the obama gets reelected, will that fucktard devalue American currency like UK did in 1975?

America has a socialist in office just like UK did back then. Personally, I think Brittan's problems started just after WWII. Didn't the UK turn socialist? just like America has with the obama. America poured in how much money to prop Britain up?

today lets look at this:
How much money does the US treasure dept owe?

where did all those losses by Freddy and Fannie go?
what about all the Wall Street losses?

What will happen if our Currency is no longer the worlds standard? will we pay $8 per gallon of gasoline?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

okay when did things get really ugly in Brittan, was it 65 or 75?

wasn't Britten currency the worlds currency at the time?

 

[oggbashan]

Britain's post WWII financial problems were not because America poured in money to prop Britain up, but because America demanded instant repayment of the debts incurred by Britain in fighting WWII.

The US provided aid to the former enemies but not to Britain.

Why? Because Britain had voted in a Labour Government.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Britain's post WWII financial problems were not because America poured in money to prop Britain up, but because America demanded instant repayment of the debts incurred by Britain in fighting WWII.

The US provided aid to the former enemies but not to Britain.

Why? Because Britain had voted in a Labour Government.

I'm reading up on it ... so my mind is spinning around these details.

okay so Britain's expertly would have financial issues after a war. What was the economy like before the Labour party came into office?

how many times did the Labour party devalue the currency? Think the largest devalue was 14%?


When did we move from Britain's being the worlds currency to American Dollar?

 

[koalabear]

Britain's post WWII financial problems were not because America poured in money to prop Britain up, but because America demanded instant repayment of the debts incurred by Britain in fighting WWII.

The US provided aid to the former enemies but not to Britain.

Why? Because Britain had voted in a Labour Government.

On 31 December 19 2006 the UK will make a payment of about $83m (£45.5m) to the US and so discharge the last of its loans from World War II from its transatlantic ally.

So much for instant repayment.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

okay, congrats on paying that debt off. but that isn't what I'm worried about. I'm thinking that America has made many of the mistakes that the UK has made. I'm thinking life in the UK sucked due to their country becoming socialist and that life was freaking hard (sucked big time) from 1960-1990?

Are we following the same steps?

collapse of manufacturing cities...many unemployed....many living off government aide....or being like Seanh and living in a bottle

On 31 December 19 2006 the UK will make a payment of about $83m (£45.5m) to the US and so discharge the last of its loans from World War II from its transatlantic ally.

So much for instant repayment.

 

[LadyFairfax]

Britain's post WWII financial problems were not because America poured in money to prop Britain up, but because America demanded instant repayment of the debts incurred by Britain in fighting WWII.

The US provided aid to the former enemies but not to Britain.

Why? Because Britain had voted in a Labour Government.

Which explains exactly why the U.K. did not finish repaying its war debt until December 2006. That old instant repayment problem. That old 50 year loan at 2% interest, not indexed for inflation or GDP growth.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Which explains exactly why the U.K. did not finish repaying its war debt until December 2006. That old instant repayment problem. That old 50 year loan at 2% interest, not indexed for inflation or GDP growth.

what do your parents or grandparents say about live after the war (WWII)? how was life after the Labour party devalued the currency by 14%?

 

[unregistered]

 

[NeverEndingMe]

that's all fine and dandy. I think that after WWII, when the socialist came into office, and tried to spread the wealth this was the down fall of UK as a world leader. the socialist really fucked the country over. then as life became more expensive and the currency shifted from UK to the American dollar, this sent UK economy into a death spiral.

is the same thing happening here in America?

we have a socialist in office. obama has no idea about the economy. gold has shot up how much in the past couple of years? where did all those losses Geithner took on go? oh yeah, they printed money.

maybe we are lucky that Europe is in the crapper as where China invest? maybe as long as Europe stays in the crapper the American Dollar will remain the worlds currency?

does this make sense?

This from the BBC:


"And if it seems strange to the non-economist that WWII debts are still knocking around after 60 years, there are debts that predate the Napoleonic wars. Dr Leunig says the government is still paying out on these "consol" bonds, because it is better value for taxpayers to keep paying the 2.5% interest than to buy back the bonds."

"And while the UK dutifully pays off its World War II debts, those from World War I remain resolutely unpaid. And are by no means trifling. In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4bn of World War I debt (about £866m at 1934 exchange rates). Adjusted by the Retail Price Index, a typical measure of inflation, £866m would equate to £40bn now, and if adjusted by the growth of GDP, to about £225bn."

These loans remain in limbo. The UK Government's position is this: "Neither the debt owed to the United States by the UK nor the larger debts owed by other countries to the UK have been serviced since 1934, nor have they been written off."

So in a time when debt relief for Third World nations is recurrently in the news, the UK still has a slew of unresolved loans from a war that finished 88 years ago. HM Treasury's researchers descended into its archives and were unable to even establish which nations owe money. The bulk of the sum would probably have gone to allies such as nations of the Empire fighting alongside Britain, says Dr Clavin.

Nor is HM Treasury able to say why the UK never repaid its WWI debts - even though, at the time, many Americans took a dim view of repayments being suspended, for they had bought bonds which stood little chance of showing a return on their investment.

Thus despite fighting on the same side in WWII, an air of financial distrust remained after hostilities ended.

"In a 1945 state department survey on the US public's attitudes to its wartime allies, Britain was one of the least trusted countries," says Dr Clavin.

During the crisis years of the 1930s, only one nation continued to pay in full - Finland. Perhaps a conscious effort to foster a good reputation with an increasingly influential power, Finland's actions generated thousands of positive stories in the American media at the time. Nor has it been forgotten; the Finns celebrated this achievement in an exhibition last year.

But for the UK, a reputation for reliability has taken longer to restore.

More here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

 

[LadyFairfax]

obama has no idea about the economy.

maybe we are lucky that Europe is in the crapper as where China invest? maybe as long as Europe stays in the crapper the American Dollar will remain the worlds currency?

does this make sense?

Did you read the first two paragraphs before posting the third? You already answered your question.

Idiot.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JohnnySavage]

Obama is asking for another 1.2 Trillion that has to be printed. Which means the currency will be inflated with all of the consequences that entails right around the corner.

Socialism/Communism has been the precursors to economic failure everywhere they're instituted. The key to our future lies with our freedom of choice. To the extent that government action reduces that choice, our economies both big and small, will be anemic.

Another 1.2 trillion? You realize there's only about $950 billion in actual physical currency, don't you? Are you saying he's going to double that?

Link.

I'll wait

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Obama is asking for another 1.2 Trillion that has to be printed. Which means the currency will be inflated with all of the consequences that entails right around the corner.

Socialism/Communism has been the precursors to economic failure everywhere they're instituted. The key to our future lies with our freedom of choice. To the extent that government action reduces that choice, our economies both big and small, will be anemic.

yep, thinking the writing is on the wall. first with having a fucktard obama in office. geithner warning "we won't devalue" and next month they will.

I'm thinking America gets downgraded to B or C, didn't Moodies (or was it Standard and Poors) recently threaten another downgrade?

think the only thing that save obama was printing of money. what will happen when team obama can't print money? states are in trouble, and when we take state pension, combine that with federal employee pensions, and Social Security, holly cow America owes way more than we can ever pay back.

thinking when S&P starts to realize that, or when America is no longer the worlds currency, we will face one stiff wake up call.

thinking Gas will be the first to spike, maybe up to $9/gal. will it happen in 2012?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Did you read the first two paragraphs before posting the third? You already answered your question.

Idiot.

wow a little bitchy today are we? relax, take a deep breath.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Another 1.2 trillion? You realize there's only about $950 billion in actual physical currency, don't you? Are you saying he's going to double that?

Link.

I'll wait

As of December 2007, currency in circulation—that is, U.S. coins and paper currency in the hands of the public—totaled about $829 billion dollars.

http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html

thinking obama printed a bunch, so 950 might be a little short.

 

[Sean Renaud]

As of December 2007, currency in circulation—that is, U.S. coins and paper currency in the hands of the public—totaled about $829 billion dollars.

http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html

thinking obama printed a bunch, so 950 might be a little short.

That didn't say anything about Obama printing 1.2 trillion. It merely establishes about how much is currently in circulation while admiting that number is never exact, especially around the holidays.

 

[JohnnySavage]

As of December 2007, currency in circulation—that is, U.S. coins and paper currency in the hands of the public—totaled about $829 billion dollars.

http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html

thinking obama printed a bunch, so 950 might be a little short.

December 2007 was like... four years ago.

The post above was sarcastic because most money is not printed, it exists as entries in accounts. There will be no printing of $1.2 trillion.



There is a chance that you might just be the dumbest human on Earth.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

December 2007 was like... four years ago.

The post above was sarcastic because most money is not printed, it exists as entries in accounts. There will be no printing of $1.2 trillion.



There is a chance that you might just be the dumbest human on Earth.

no, I reserve that right for you

 

[NeverEndingMe]

here we go, the death of the dollar



The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a member of France’s Socialist Party. As one of the 187 member countries, U.S. taxpayers pay roughly 17 percent of the IMF’s total funding. Dominique Strauss-Kahn even unsuccessfully ran for president of France on the Socialist ticket in 2007. Rumors have been circulating that the socialist may be challenging current French President Nicholas Sarkozy in 2012.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn has made his political views clear. In April 2010, the IMF released a report called the “Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability.” The report was full of extensive IMF jargon. However, it’s worth a read to discover what the IMF is scheming. The report reads:

A more ambitious reform option would be to build on the previous ideas and develop, over time, a global currency. Called, for example, bancor in honor of Keynes, such a currency could be used as a medium of exchange—an ’outside money’ in contrast to the SDR which remains an ‘inside money’.

The international bureaucracy has proposed a global currency to honor the father of Keynesian economics- John Maynard Keynes. As an influential economist of the 21st century, Keynes was the antithesis of free markets and limited government. He believed that massive government intervention in the marketplace would somehow lead to prosperity. In 1940, John Maynard Keynes first developed the idea of a supranational currency, called the bancor, to be the world's key currency. When asked about the long-term effects of his economic policies, Keynes famously replied “in the long run we are all dead.”

A global currency would grant even more power to the international bureaucracy while failing to stabilize the global financial system. The IMF fully intends to push for a dollar alternative. Just last week, the IMF released another report praising the idea. In a recent speech, Socialist Dominique Strauss-Kahn said there is “a sense that money sometimes flows around the globe in too-volatile a fashion and that countries need a more stable, more predictable external environment in order to prosper.”

How would the global currency work? In the IMF report it says:

One option is for bancor to be adopted by fiat as a common currency (like the euro was), an approach that would result immediately in widespread use and eliminate exchange rate volatility among adopters (comparable, for instance, to Cooper 1984, 2006 and the Economist, 1988). A somewhat less ambitious (and more realistic) option would be for bancor to circulate alongside national currencies, though it would need to be adopted by fiat by at least some (not necessarily systemic) countries in order for an exchange market to develop.

Who would print and administer the “bancor?” A global bank modeled after the Federal Reserve. The report continues:

A global currency, bancor, issued by a global central bank (see Supplement 1, section V) would be designed as a stable store of value that is not tied exclusively to the conditions of any particular economy. As trade and finance continue to grow rapidly and global integration increases, the importance of this broader perspective is expected to continue growing… The global central bank could serve as a lender of last resort, providing needed systemic liquidity in the event of adverse shocks and more automatically than at present. Such liquidity was provided in the most recent crisis mainly by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which however may not always provide such liquidity.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory. But I urge you to check out the report for yourself on the IMF's website. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a threat to America’s sovereignty. As Dominique Strauss-Kahn said about the European Union, “the centre must seize the initiative in all areas key to reaching the common destiny of the union, especially in financial, economic and social policy. Countries must be willing to cede more authority to the centre.” A global currency and bank would be a huge step towards a global government.


http://dailybail.com/home/chart-imf-calls-for-new-global-currency-to-replace-dollar.html

 

[patrick1]

I replied to this out-of-date cut-and-paste here: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=39514346&postcount=12774

Patrick

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I replied to this out-of-date cut-and-paste here: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=39514346&postcount=12774

Patrick

I'm just looking around at all these things. alarmist? sure, in a worse case situation. however, I like to think about it this way. I'm the smart one, who would leave New Orleans when a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane comes to town.

are you one of the ones who would stay....wishing it would blow over? or would you leave town?

 

[patrick1]

Which explains exactly why the U.K. did not finish repaying its war debt until December 2006. That old instant repayment problem. That old 50 year loan at 2% interest, not indexed for inflation or GDP growth.

That old '2%' loan was actually regarded by some as a deliberate act of subjugation of the UK by the US, for it replaced a more generous lend-lease scheme that was ended abruptly and unilaterally by the US in 1945.

The World War 1 loans are in a strange limbo: they will obviously never be repaid but they have never been written off, since the Hoover moratorium (which was only meant to last for a year) in 1931.

As for British governments, Labour came to power 1945-51, partly because the British people, while finding Churchill a fine war leader, didn't trust him in peacetime any more than Americans did. That period was the nearest there's been to 'socialism', when the modern welfare state and the national health service were founded.

Labour was also in power 1964-70 and 1974-9, but was 'socialist' only if you stretch the word beyond its usual meaning, and in each of these periods devalued the currency. People panic at the word 'devaluation' but it's sometimes a good thing in times of trouble: if Greence and Ireland had stayed out of the euro, they could have devalued their currencies in the last two years and not had to face such big austerity programmes. A free market in currency implies constant 'devaluation' of some currencies and upward valuation of others, that's what markets do. It's the antithesis of socialism.

Patrick

 

[oggbashan]

One of the misunderstandings prevalent in the US is about the UK's 'socialism'.

All three political parties in the UK - the Conservatives who with the Liberal Democrats are the current coalition government, and Labour - are committed to the Welfare State which includes the National Health Service, State Pensions and Unemployment Benefits (with other benefits as well). Any party that suggested scrapping the Welfare State could not be elected.

Where the three parties differ is about HOW the Welfare State should be delivered and to whom. None of them are 'socialist'. They are all committed to a mixed economy with some things provided by the state and other things by commerce. They might want a different mix e.g. the Conservatives want a smaller state sector, Labour (now) want about the same state sector as exists, and the Liberal Democrats seem confused wanting more state for some things and less for others.

To match the US's general misunderstanding of UK politics, we in the UK cannot understand how you can spend so much on health and NOT have universal health care. My view - you are being ripped off by the health insurance industry and paying far too much, being excluded from services for existing conditions and costing employers more than they can afford for a poor return.

The best health care in the US is the best in the world. The worst? Many poor countries can do far better than the US provides for its citizens.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

here is something interesting. Currently most of our states having financial hardships. as we enter into a new recession in 2012, what options will states have to balance their budgets?

will obama offer a new round of short term stimulus money or will states get real and face the issues ie reduce the # of workers, reduce their pension obligations (costs with running the programs and make it so that a person has to put in 50 years of "service", and the big what if - will government finally address how they do day to day business?

now, in my opinion obama hasn't done a thing to address or fix the economy. the stimulus has only address a quick short term fix and allowed a couple government workers to keep their job.

granted we just had a nice Christmas retail bump, but when the dust settles and all those temporary workers hit the unemployment lines again, what will they do? print more money?