Thread: Каддафи хотел заменить доллар золотом

Hey Ramil, I thought a little bit about what you said, and I should say I totally understand (although not share) your point of view. Indeed, if the Russian currency is backed by the natural resources and the US currency is fiat, then exchanging the rubles for USDs may not sound like a good idea. You seem to give up a 'real' thing for an 'imaginary' thing. The natural resources are finite and the USDs are infinite. So, that does not sound like a fair deal. The situation seems even worse because you can't really save USDs as the FRS can produce them at will. Did I get you right? If yes, you should also take a wider look at the situation and realize that the US is not an evil genius, but simply has no choice. The US economy (as much as of many other countries) is run in large by the Monetarists (Monetarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). That had happened historically and that approach seems to guide many modern economists today. If you have a currency that's not worth to be passively saved, you would be OBLIGED TO INVEST it. That motivates the set up of the new enterprises and creates more goods and services (=the value) as well as the employment. That generates the government income (=taxes) which officially support the currency. The more business activity is happening, the better the government income is. And what matters to people is that they ultimately can consume those goods and services (=exchange among each other) and nothing else. That's how the US is evading another Great Depression. That's neither casuistry nor sophistry. Any resource-exporting country would dream to sell their resources for the backed currency and not for the fiat currency because it can be accumulated more efficiently. But the goods-producing countries simply have little choice as the shortfall of currency is considered to be one of the major causes of the Great Depression. On the other hand, the resource-exporting countries know the value of their resources (no matter how scarce) is going down in the long run. So, they need to accumulate the value right now or they would lose everything (both the resource and the value as well as making their country sick with the Dutch disease) in the long run. And they know that. So, if the goods-exporting countries would be obliged to pay with the golden standard, their goods production would decline ultimately hurting even the average consumer of the resource-exporting countries. There would be less absolute value - less goods - less comfort for you personally. Nowdays, the stores are stuffed with goods (perhaps being expensive or low quality), but going to the golden standard would effectively eliminate those goods from the stores. There would be lots of seemingly fair money, but the deficit of goods. (Back to the USSR.) And less goods mean less resources would need to be mined. So, less jobs in the resource-exporting countries as well. That's neither casuistry nor sophistry, but the very real conflict of interests with the subsequent military consequences. So, my entire point was: please be aware that by advocating golden currency you actually advocating economic decline for the whole world. Please, try to think it through objectively before you call me a sophist.

Not sure Crocodile, if less consumption would be such a bad thing. Do you really think that consumerism as it is at the moment is a good and fair thing? Look at what it is doing to the environment and at how unfair it is!

If I look objectively at my wardrobe for example, I can see that I only need at most 10% of the clothes that are in there. People don't NEED massive houses, or a car if they live in a city. We don't NEED a gazillion gadgets and luxury designer items. We only think we need it because of advertisments.

I am sure there were lots of seriously frustrating problems in the USSR and personally I would not want to live in the way that people did there. But at least noone was starving and everyone had a roof over their head, and there was no exploitation or globalism needed to keep that economy going. But frankly I would not want to live like a working class person in Britain or the USA either, and certainly not like a regular person in the third world.
So far as I am concerned, globalist economy is both unfair and unsustainable in a longer perspective.

Fixing the currency to gold would be a step in the right direction according to me. And if there should be a currency to tag others to, it seems that the Chinese Yuan would be more reasonable although I don't favour that myself.

And by the way, how can we trust any of the coverage of the events in the Middle East when half the "real" people allegedly blogging and reporting from there are CIA agents or other jokers. Even Telegraph, the most conservative daily in the UK is appalled:

'A Gay Girl in Damascus': how the hoax unfolded - Telegraph

Originally Posted by Hanna

Not sure Crocodile, if less consumption would be such a bad thing. Do you really think that consumerism as it is at the moment is a good and fair thing? People don't NEED massive houses, or a car if they live in a city. We don't NEED a gazillion gadgets and luxury designer items.

I can understand where you're coming from. The only problem is that to tell people they don't need this and that is no fundamentally different from telling them you do need this and that. Both are the acts of brain washing. I would say let the people decide what they need and in what quantities. Don't make that decision for them. In the market economy the balance of the demand is regulated through the price mechanism and in the planned economy it is regulated by the government. The government would tell you what you want and what you don't want. Can you see the difference?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Look at what it is doing to the environment and at how unfair it is!

OMG. We've been through that like a hundred times. It's not the consumption that's doing the damage to the environment, but in order to keep up with the consumption and the population growth we need a better technology. Compare the way we produce the food these days (farming) with what we used to do in the Paleolithic Age - hunting. It wasn't renewable back than and it's renewable now. As a result, we adversely affect the environment MUCH LESS (in this respect alone) than those guys who allegedly live in harmony with the Nature. And there are many more of us too. Viva to the technogaianism!

Originally Posted by Hanna

But at least noone was starving and everyone had a roof over their head [...]

Huh? When? There were times that LOTS OF PEOPLE died from hunger in the Soviet Union. Are you talking about the 1980s? How many starving people there were in the US at that time? How many hadn't had roof over their head (and not on any kind of the relief like Welfare)? I'm not sure you realize that a person in the US could live on the street and would be visible to everybody, but in the USSR if you chose not to work, you would be imprisoned and forced to work anyways. Also, people like the street cleaners in the USSR worked but lived no better than those on welfare in the US who chose not to work at all. Can you see the difference? The total employment does not necessarily imply the high living standards.

Originally Posted by Hanna

and there was no exploitation or globalism needed to keep that economy going.

Don't get me started. The planned economy implies the exploitation of everybody by the state. By doing that it strives to eliminate the social injustice caused by the exploitation of a person by a person. All the decisions are made by the state officials. That's like an ABC. As to the globalism... have you ever heard the USSR was a country which purpose was to become global? Have you ever heard about the World Revolution? Things are relative, please judge them in comparison. (We could probably have a separate discussion about the Lenin's work of the Imperialism as the highest stage of the Capitalism and start comparing it to the globalization. That might be interesting discussion, but I'm not sure you're familiar enough with Lenin's publications. )

Originally Posted by Hanna

But frankly I would not want to live like a working class person in Britain or the USA either, and certainly not like a regular person in the third world.

Let's compare apples with apples, working class people in various countries, and the North Korea to the South Korea.

Originally Posted by Hanna

So far as I am concerned, globalist economy is both unfair and unsustainable in a longer perspective.

We have a fundamental disagreement here. I mean, do you at all support the cause of the free trade? Did you have a chance to read Adam Smith and other classical economy guys?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Fixing the currency to gold would be a step in the right direction according to me.

Why? Have Karl Marx ever mentioned the golden standard is the must?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I would say let the people decide what they need and in what quantities.

That's because you are extremely suspicious against "the state" and I believe the state can be good.
I'd say 'let's force people to consume less, before it is too late... " We have only one planet.
I'd trust the state a lot more than I trust a privately owned company to take decisions about how much people can consume anyway. Corporations will always choose the most profitable option over the most moral or ecologically sustainable.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Huh? When? There were times that LOTS OF PEOPLE died from hunger in the Soviet Union. Are you talking about the 1980s?

Yes, I was talking about modern times 60s, 70s, 80s.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

How many starving people there were in the US at that time? How many hadn't had roof over their head (and not on any kind of the relief like Welfare)?

Plenty, Depression and general poverty in the South and other rural areas. Plus, the USA was richer at the time that the revolution happened in Russia, so the starting points are not the same. Additionally, the USA was not annihilated by the war like large parts of the USSR were.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Don't get me started. The planned economy implies the exploitation of everybody by the state.

Well the IDEA is that the state is the people, right? So it's exploiting itself in that case, which can be argued, is fair.
It just depends on how you look at it.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

As to the globalism... have you ever heard the USSR was a country which purpose was to become global? Have you ever heard about the World Revolution?

Yes, but not for the purpose of "liberating people" etc, etc as far as I know. It wanted to be global, but for totally different reasons than the kind of capitalism that the US represents. Plus I think the USSR was fairly realistic about the "world revolution".

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I'm not sure you're familiar enough with Lenin's publications. )

Not familiar with them at all - what is the relevance? I only know that he made some modifications to communism to fit Russia's situation, and thereby deviated a bit from what Marx had envisaged - and some people who were communists rejected the USSR because of it. Other than that I only know a few one liners that he allegedly said in his speeches.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

We have a fundamental disagreement here. I mean, do you at all support the cause of the free trade? Did you have a chance to read Adam Smith and other classical economy guys?

Yes I have read Adam Smith and other economic philosophers and I think Smith's writings have been hijacked by modern liberalists who are using it to further their own agenda. Fundamentally I think he has many good points. Unfortunately it was over 15 years ago that I read him and my memory of it is a bit hazy.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Why? Have Karl Marx ever mentioned the golden standard is the must?

I have no idea what he thought of it, if anything. I am not a Marxist. I just personally think that money that is based on real value is safer than money which can be manipulated to serve an individual country's needs

Originally Posted by Hanna

That's because you are extremely suspicious against "the state" and I believe the state can be good.

Well, we have different experiences. By the way Ramil is so suspicious with "the state" that he wants to eliminate it all together. I maintain a much more moderate standpoint. You see, speaking in the IT terms, if the state controls everything, you might compare it to the mainframe with the resource-sharing OS: in theory it could manage the resources efficiently because it has a planner (=scheduler), but it has the known disadvantages as well. One of the very noticeable consequence is that the sysadmins become very arrogant and you have to get their approval on pretty much anything you need. Also, all kinds of upgrades are very problematic and are naturally postponed as long as possible on the ground of the unknown consequences and the single point of failure. Regardless of the initial design, the mainframe systems become very expensive and unproductive comparing to the distributed systems. On the contrary, in the distributed environment it might seem like the waste of the resources, however the overall stability is better, the average users are more educated and could do some administrative tasks, they could take risks and upgrade and customize their personal systems (with some risks and failures) and thus improve their performance contributing to the overall system performance. The net result is that over time the overall output of the distributed system would outperform the large, centric system. Of course, that is only visible when you could compare the two systems over time. That's why the World Revolution was required. That's why the USSR became specialized in weapons design and production (and sports). Everything that could improve its chances to spread globally, eliminate the competitive systems and become the sole monopoly over the globe. The sysadmins would decide what your account needs and what it doesn't need. They would easily allocate more CPU and disk quotas for those they like and wouldn't for those they dislike. You would be obliged to work with the old text version of Emacs for the rest of your life, because the sysadmins think it's enough for you. No laptops at home or at the coffee-house, no GUI, no mouse, no context-menu right-clicks, no icons. It would be the small monochromatic text monitor and Esc-X-K / Esc-X-Y for the rest of your life. I don't like that. Do you?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Plenty, Depression and general poverty in the South and other rural areas.

Apples with apples, remember? Depression in the South at the 80s? An average of family of five people (two elders, a young couple, and a child) in a one-bedroom apartment in Washington and New York? The devastation of the kolchoz where the majority of the young people either left for the cities (and took them a lot of efforts and bribes because officially they weren't entitled to move anywhere!) or became chronic alcohol addicts because they had no prospects in their lives? The wheat was purchase (for gold - yes! - the ruble was supported by the golden standard, but did it help people to be richer?) from Canada. Why the USSR rural areas of the great country (sport-wise and weapons-wise) failed to produce enough food? Try to compare that with the "devastation of the rural areas in the US" at the same time - the 80s. Then you'll get apples with apples.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Plus, the USA was richer at the time that the revolution happened in Russia, so the starting points are not the same. Additionally, the USA was not annihilated by the war like large parts of the USSR were.

OMG. Again the same thing. Compare the East Germany with the West Germany. The North Korea with the South Korea. Previously, the same countries. By the 80s, there were a couple of decades past the devastation of the war. I would say, provide the better living conditions, build better cars and not so many excellent tanks (truly the state of the art) and don't blame the devastation of the previous war. The war was also in Germany, England, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Japan. By the 80s the Soviet Union imported goods from all of them and only exported natural resources. And gold.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Well the IDEA is that the state is the people, right?

Wrong. The corporation is the people, right?

Originally Posted by Hanna

So it's exploiting itself in that case, which can be argued, is fair. It just depends on how you look at it.

Regardless of the way you look at it, it's the officials in either case. The state officials have more power than the corporate officials (or, perhaps, it's the same thing). So, no fairness in either case. However, the capitalism also allows other people (not only the officials) to live well. Make your informed decision.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes, but not for the purpose of "liberating people" etc, etc as far as I know.

For the exact same purpose. The exact same liberation/freedom rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It wanted to be global, but for totally different reasons than the kind of capitalism that the US represents.

Yes, and I think I mentioned earlier the reasons. But the net result is the same, so why would the ordinary people care?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Plus I think the USSR was fairly realistic about the "world revolution".

Not only realistic, but very practical. That's why they called it the Cold War, my young padawan learner.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Not familiar with them at all - what is the relevance?

As much as Marx was the theoretician, Lenin was the practitioner. He explored with the trial and error what worked and what not. That had tremendous implications for the development course of the Communism. The "deviation from what Marx had envisaged" happened because Marx hadn't had the situation at hand and was only able to make some theoretical predictions, but didn't have the power to practically try it. And what Marx had envisioned had never happened. So, his sound scientific theory was falsified by that and therefore remain what it is - a scientific model of the past that became obsolete by the newer discoveries. Lenin's publications are much more important than Marx's.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yes I have read Adam Smith and other economic philosophers and I think Smith's writings have been hijacked by modern liberalists who are using it to further their own agenda. Fundamentally I think he has many good points. Unfortunately it was over 15 years ago that I read him and my memory of it is a bit hazy.

It's interesting that you don't really remember that he was advocating the really free trade - like no tariffs, no barriers, no protectionism whatsoever, essentially one of the fundamental aspects of the globalisation, but you do remember his writings have been hijacked by modern liberalists. Yeah... Apparently, all it takes to forget one of the brightest minds is just 15 years. Sic transit gloria mundi...

Originally Posted by Hanna

I have no idea what he thought of it, if anything. I am not a Marxist.

Oh, I was under impression that you are based on the fact you liked the Socialism and stuff like that. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Than who are you? Do you support the notion of the private property? Do you support the notion of the exploitation of a person by a person?

Originally Posted by Hanna

I just personally think that money that is based on real value is safer than money which can be manipulated to serve an individual country's needs

Would you be able to clarify what you mean by the "real value"? I mean, I'm aware of only two fundamental definitions of value: the subjective one and the one defined in the labour theory. Gold is not a requirement in either of those, but a commodity as much as wheat or sugar used to clear open balances. So, what "real value" are you talking about?

Crocodile you and I simply have different viewpoints and there is no reconciliation. Your experience of socialism, Soviet style, was negative and you'd take almost any crap rather than something resembling that. I don't think that you believe that corporatism, capitalism or globalism are good and positive forces - it's just that it happens to be the opposite of socialism and communism.

My experience of a different kind of socialism in Sweden, was almost universally positive. Lovely ideals of fairness, solidarity, world peace, catchy songs and a sense of moral superiority... We called our state "The home for the People" where nobody should be left out. And it worked very well for many decades - it was extremely nice to live in a country with such ideals and it's still a much better country to be poor in, than the USA for example.

Perhaps your experience is more relevant because socialism was more strictly enforced in the USSR, or perhaps socialism was incorrectly applied and therefore your experience is not relevant. I don't know which. But we are talking based on different personal experiences - neither is right or wrong, it's a subjective subject.

But there is no point quabbling about it. I respect what you said and your viewpoint. The metaphor about the system admin was very sharp and interesting.

Plus, it is possible to want a fair, just and ecologically sustainable society without being a card carrying communist, Marxist etc. These ideologies have been very unfashionable all my adult life - they were practically completely discredited in the 1990s. I have never voted communist.

Sure, let's leave it at that.

Here is a very interesting article on this topic:

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Originally Posted by Hanna

Plus, it is possible to want a fair, just and ecologically sustainable society without being a card carrying communist, Marxist etc.

Yes. It's also possible to dream about your personal Boeing 757 while earning $50,000 a year without being a bank robber. But sometimes you have to sync your fantasies with the reality.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Did I get you right?

Sorry for the late answer, was off-line for some time.
Yes, you did get me right, but the situation is a bit more general than you describe and it's not limited by USA/Russia.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

but simply has no choice.

Perhaps, but why this should be a problem of mine?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The US economy (as much as of many other countries) is run in large by the Monetarists (Monetarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). That had happened historically and that approach seems to guide many modern economists today. If you have a currency that's not worth to be passively saved, you would be OBLIGED TO INVEST it. That motivates the set up of the new enterprises and creates more goods and services (=the value) as well as the employment.

That's the problem, yes. The fact that I'm obliged to invest money. Can't agree that this is a fair practice.

That generates the government income (=taxes) which officially support the currency.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The more business activity is happening, the better the government income is. And what matters to people is that they ultimately can consume those goods and services (=exchange among each other) and nothing else. That's how the US is evading another Great Depression. That's neither casuistry nor sophistry.

Sophistry is using this rhetoric while printing dollars. Again, why other countries should be concerned about US economy?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

So, if the goods-exporting countries would be obliged to pay with the golden standard, their goods production would decline ultimately hurting even the average consumer of the resource-exporting countries...
Nowdays, the stores are stuffed with goods (perhaps being expensive or low quality), but going to the golden standard would effectively eliminate those goods from the stores.

I missed you at this turn. No matter how scarce the good-production would be - it would remain and sell those goods to those who's able to pay. Besides, a real goods-producing country is China, not USA or some other West-European country. China too has doubts about using US dollar as a reserve currency. What makes USA unique? What USA really produces for export except printed dollars?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

So, my entire point was: please be aware that by advocating golden currency you actually advocating economic decline for the whole world. Please, try to think it through objectively before you call me a sophist.

Not the whole world, just the north-western part of it. Besides, they would have a choice of either to try to continue living the way they've been living for the past several decades or try to do something about their economies.

Also, I think you'll find this link very interesting:
http://www.vz.ru/economy/2011/5/30/495567.html

English version here:
Utah House Passes Bill Recognizing Gold, Silver as Legal Tender - FoxNews.com

Originally Posted by Ramil

Теперь выпущенные Монетным двором золотые и серебряные монеты можно использовать для оплаты товаров и услуг не по номиналу, а по реальной стоимости содержащихся в них драгметаллов.

Так, золотая монета весом в 1 унцию соответствует номиналу в 50 долларов, однако ее стоимость, согласно текущим котировкам 1 унции золота, составляет 1,5 тыс. долларов. Серебряная монета весом в 1 унцию соответствует номиналу в 1 доллар, однако за унцию серебра дают сегодня 38 долларов. [...]

Under the bill, the coins would not replace the current paper currency but would be used and accepted voluntarily as an alternative.

Ok, so the exchange by the price of the raw material is just a barter exchange. That should theoretically not have the adverse impact on the economy on a large scale because it's being done IN ADDITION (!) to the paper tender. If some people would start hoarding raw metals, that would not seriously impact the business activity because the state can still print more paper tender.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Perhaps, but why this should be a problem of mine?

The economy of the various countries these days is tightly coupled and any kind of drastic change would have tremendous adverse implications for Russian economy as well.

Originally Posted by Ramil

That's the problem, yes. The fact that I'm obliged to invest money. Can't agree that this is a fair practice.

You know what? I agree with you here. It's not intuitively fair. But the ghost of the Great Depression is always looming over the FAIR market economy. The periods of the slow economy. The FAIR deficit of goods as well as the FAIR great surplus of labour. Very few new enterprises are open whilst the old enterprises are closing at a regular pace. The FAIR high unemployment and FAIR low purchasing power. From a standpoint of a regular person, you don't care how the state should act, but you feel it would be FAIR for the state to interfere. So, the neoclassical economists would say: in this fair situation of the total fairness, but low living standards, let's stimulate the creation of the new enterprises first, and the employment and the purchasing power would follow. So, what do the new enterprises need? Money to start their business. Let's give them money UNFAIRLY AT THIS POINT. And when the new enterprises succeeded and covered the UNFAIR printed paper with FAIR goods and services, that effectively made that printed notes the FAIR money worth something. As a matter of fact, that is probably sophistry, but it works. The bottom line of each and every economic policy is to make the people work hard. You can motivate them by painting a pretty picture of them working hard now, but in the future them working somehow and have whatever they might need (=> from everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs => Communism), or you're painting a pretty picture of them working hard always and by that having a house, a family, a car, nice clothes, etc. (=> American dream => Capitalism). A golden standard is just another way of "putting a carrot before the donkey to make him run" as people believe the hard-earned money is theirs forever. The first food scarcity would make a wake-up call rather bluntly.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Sophistry is using this rhetoric while printing dollars. Again, why other countries should be concerned about US economy?

I think it should be a bit more specific than the "other countries". But, a short answer is the same: the financial system is tightly coupled with the US economy (as we could all have witnessed recently).

Originally Posted by Ramil

I missed you at this turn. No matter how scarce the good-production would be - it would remain and sell those goods to those who's able to pay.

Exactly. That was is called the "purchasing power". Before any goods or service is produce an entrepreneur should answer himself a basic question: will anybody be purchasing it at all? Then he should answer another question of: HOW MUCH of it he should produce? If there are less working people outside, he would plan for less and lay off the extra workers he would not need. Those who were fired do not have money now to purchase other enterprises goods and services which make the other enterprises plan for less and lay off their workers as well. When the purchasing power is low, the amount of produced goods and services is low as well. Say, you're a manager of a developer team in Russia which exports oil and you purchase Chinese goods. Why should you care about the US economy, right? Because, the US is a major consumer of the Chinese goods as well. If the US economy is slowing down, it would create high unemployment and reduce the purchase power of the US consumers and the production in the US goes down. The US reduces consumption from China which causes China to produce less and deteriorate their consumer purchasing power. As a result, the US and China would need less energy to produce less goods and they would purchase less oil from Russia. That would mean firing some Russian oil miners and paying less taxes to the Russian government. That would mean the whole public sector in Russia would require a bigger slice of the budget and the Russian Government would cut their expenses subsidizing other enterprises and governmental contracts which would deteriorate Russian citizens purchasing power. Your company be it public or private would feel it does not have that much contracts anymore (either directly from the government or rolled down from that) and it would fire some of the developers. Your team would be smaller and other teams would be smaller. The higher management would think they could combine the two small teams into one and plant only one manager to oversee them. Thus, you've lost your job. Of course, I simplified things because Russia does not sell oil to the US directly, but to Europe, so they would be much more economical chains, but eventually they will hit each of us. The deficit of goods caused by the surplus of labour. Fair enough?

Originally Posted by Ramil

China too has doubts about using US dollar as a reserve currency. What makes USA unique? What USA really produces for export except printed dollars?

Now, I could call that sophistry, but I wouldn't because I like you. Using the USDs as a most traded currency does add some value to it, but it definitely does not turn it into the preferred reserve currency. It's a choice of each country how they are to save their capital. If they want to purchase the US bonds - it's their choice. If they want to purchase gold and keep it in the vaults - it's their choice. If they want to build more infrastructure like roads - it's their choice. It's a free market.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

If the US economy is slowing down, it would create high unemployment and reduce the purchase power of the US consumers and the production in the US goes down. The US reduces consumption from China which causes China to produce less and deteriorate their consumer purchasing power. As a result, the US and China would need less energy to produce less goods and they would purchase less oil from Russia.

etc, etc, etc. China is NOT the main importer of Russian hydrocarbons, for one thing. Secondly, there are industries that WILL consume hydrocarbons (for heating and transportation, if nothing else, there are talks about alternatives but oil will remain the main source of energy for quite a number of years). There will be some decrease in oil consuption perhaps, but not as dramatic as you try to show me here. Besides, there are suprisingly few people working for oil and gas industry in Russia and I don't think the slowdown of the US's economy would seriously impact their well-being.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It's a choice of each country how they are to save their capital.

It's not much of a choice. I can't save in gold or anything else, because if I want to buy something from abroad I must buy dollars first. Well, Euros in some rare case. That's the problem. Dollar must have an alternative. For competition if nothing else.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Besides, there are suprisingly few people working for oil and gas industry in Russia and I don't think the slowdown of the US's economy would seriously impact their well-being.

Have you had a chance to notice the other consequence of the less oil export - less taxes to the Russian Government?

Originally Posted by Ramil

It's not much of a choice. I can't save in gold or anything else, because if I want to buy something from abroad I must buy dollars first.

You're saying you won't be able to close balances with other freely converted currency or the currency of the importer country exchanged as per the current market price?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Have you had a chance to notice the other consequence of the less oil export - less taxes to the Russian Government?

How much of that really works for the people? Russian people will live badly, but not for long, remember?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You're saying you won't be able to close balances with other freely converted currency or the currency of the importer country exchanged as per the current market price?

I would, but the current realities are - there is no alternative reserve currency.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I would, but the current realities are - there is no alternative reserve currency.

Ok, so let's look at a good example. Say, you come to the kiosk to grab a box of the bottled beer and you see the price in the y.e. That is done to protect the sellers from the money market fluctuations. However, the seller would also accept rubles or barter (say, X bottles of vodka). Does it mean, there's no alternative reserve currency for you other than the USDs? It might be beneficiary for you to also keep a portion of your reserve currency in the USDs to also save you from the money market fluctuation, but that does not mean you are forced into the usage of the USD as you said. The same situation with oil being priced in the USDs (=y.e.) If you import anything, you don't really have to exchange rubles for the physical USDs in contrary to what you said earlier, but the other party might want to accept to the USDs as well as their local legal tender as mutually agreed between you and him in this deal. That is all to it. It's absolutely not like I've seen being mentioned earlier that the US would allegedly start military campaign agaist any country who would decide not to use the USDs for the foreign exchange or anything like that.

Having said that, that convenience that the buyers would get by purchasing the physical USDs prior to making the deal which would effectively save them from the money market fluctuations creates the added value to the USDs. That's true. It's also true that it's purely speculative value - it only buys the convenience, but not the real goods. That would mean, that as soon as many countries would decide to make the price in Euros and would massively sell their USDs for Euros, the market price of the USD would fall and the price of the Euro would rise. The fact that the USDs are priced higher for the convenience allows the US to carry over the huge deficit year after year without worrying too much. But, that does not mean the evil financial clans who control the FRS are controlling the entire world or anything like that. It only means what it means. Every convenience has a cap on a price and every financial bubble would eventually burst out creating a more healthy situation on the market. The USD is not an exception to that rule. However, I'm against any hysteria about the FRS allegedly controlling the whole world with their evil green paper and looking day and night whoever they could impoverish they haven't yet.

Крокодил, вот ещё "сигнальчик":
В Швейцарии предложили ввести золотой франк.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Крокодил, вот ещё "сигнальчик":
В Швейцарии предложили ввести золотой франк.

Не сомневаюсь. Банкам же ничего производить не надо, да и потребление на ведение бизнеса у них очень умеренное. Их задача - минимизировать риск для себя. (Чуть было не сказал "минимизировать свои риски", но поправился. )

Вот представь себе, что ты решил организовать свою компанию по написанию софта. Взял ссуду в [Швейцарском] банке, платишь рент за офис, зарплату программистам и планктону и т.д и, разумеется, проценты плюс тело кредита. ВНЕЗАПНО случается падение курса основных валют (мало ли что). Ты честно несёшь свои заработанные Х наличных в банк (проценты плюс тело кредита), а тебе там и говорят: "Неправильно ты принёс Х денег, Дядя Фёдор. Ты же нам Х франков должен, а они теперь стоят дороже в наличных. Так что вали отсюда и приноси Х+У." А у тебя за последние полгода продажи твоего софта временно упали. И нету у тебя +У денег. И ты закрываешь бизнес, увольняешь всех. Владелец помещения не получает своей ренты. В итоге нет ни услуг, ни покупательной способности граждан. Это называется "снижение деловой активности". Как же тебя спасти можно от произвола банка? Напрашивается единственный выход - ПОВСЕМЕСТНЫЙ переход на золотые денюжки с гарантией того, что они вообще не девальвируют. Этими деньгами, соответственно, ты и будешь платить все зарплаты и рент и получать прибыль. Но ведь история показывает, что люди начинают такие деньги копить, и не инвестировать никуда, таким образом уменьшая оборот наличных и, как результат, деловую активность (только уже с другой стороны). Ведь если наличных мало, то чем платить зарплаты? А если их много, значит это тоже самое, что и печатные деньги со всеми прелестями инфляции. Так нафига тебе супер-честные золотые монетки в кошельке если это в итоге означает дефицит товаров и услуг?