. . Subject: Re: ****Re: devalueing currency: why ? . . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... This doesn't explain it for me. You said that devalueing increased exports, you make your coin cheaper then it really is (or was), then foreign coin will buy more local coin, and more local produce, thus export becomes cheaper. I guess I understand that technical part, I just don't see why it would be good for a nation (other then as a money laundering scam for the ruling class). Isn't ita negative for the nation if much produce is going out, and not an equal amount of wealth coming back in ?? Say the nation is doing OK, it's coin is very strong, it buys a lot in foreign nations. The foreign nations have to pay serious money to buy from our nation (say we are the strong coin nation), thus exports are low. So what ? Imports could be high, because our coin buys a lot, we get rich. Then this can balance when we do indeed buy a lot foreign, and therefore some of our economy starts to fold for lesser demand (but we where a strong economy, it's not a disaster getting worse yet). At some point the foreigners think: boy, that country sucks, they buy everything from other nations but we can get that directly from those nations if we want to. What do they still produce that we need their coin for ? Coin weakens, naturally. Then we can buy less with our coin from other nations, thus our domestic markets have more opportunities. A weaker coin from devaluation (artificial weakness, engineered weakness in the coin by messing with the exchange rate by political decision ? instead of having a weak coin for having a weak economy that buys little, or a distrusted coin for mismanagement?) seems to mean more export, thus more cross border trade in general, thus more 'interdependence' in the world. This means less sovereingty for each nation, because foreign powers can shock another nation its economy by manipulating the demand of its exports (if they have sufficient powers to that end, such as being in control of many industries thus demand contracts.) I can also see I guess why devalueing is done in order to strangle the nation states and initiate a one world empire in order to crush democracy of the people. The whole 'interdependence' (fabricated) argument can be fed by constantly increasing all cross border trade (it is like a form of international economic warfare for the domination of something that is supra-national). I don't personally buy into the interdependence argument, because it destroys national sovereingty which is the highest level state democracy can still function. Without democracy you get tyranny, thus destitution. Thus a *global* search for economic efficiency leads to destutitution, while a national search allows for a lesser level of economic efficiency, but for the democracy needed to properly manage the nation. More would reach all people, thus they would be richer instead of poorer, despite the lower total turnout of the world economy. Then later interdependence and global search for efficiency would grow into specialization of global region, then cartel formation and then monopolizitation, so even that doesn't work very well imho. The distances are so great that it is a matter of which dog would bite you first: the cartel/monopoly dog increasing prices, or the global governance system/level/class/entity/thing that is without meaningful democratic oversight. Do also note the monolithic design, which is prone to sudden and total catastrophy. I'm spinning this out a little sorry, but I can see how devaluation and promoting exports plays into that, not how it makes a nation or the world better. > ... > ... > ... As far as I know there might only be some tribes and independent villages who are properly organized, not in the least because their society allows for simpler systems to be effective. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... You are right about this, but it's not fair to take an exception and make it define the rules. Most nations could do almost everything in their own markets, or strive for that. I think this makes nations more general, more diverse within themselves, they learn more because they do more different things. Striving for something can have a profound effect in the long term. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... I don't agree that China needed any foreign aid to do anything. What they need is a fairer law system, so that what they make goes to those that make it. China is 1200 million people, they are a Continent in themselves; they are twice an entire Europe. Then to think that a few hundred years ago even small European villages where mostly self sufficient. The trouble with foreign investment is that it promotes abuses rather then justice, the opposite of what they need. They get the bonus of technological breakthroughs and so on, but if you don't have laws that make power spread out and have the economy work for all then all you gain is more ways that people can be tortured. Secondly they could in theory have bought the knowledge, or simply have been given it as a gift of friendship. What do the people need: soil, a fair tax burden, a state that is not their enemy but is part of them and under the practical control of the masses as a majority. Labor in a factory needs their fair share of the spoils. All social things they need, no money. Money is not important, it can make development go quicker but that quicker is often not better but worse, more social pain in the adjustments. Europe saw that too, the industrial revolution was a disaster because it went too quickly, and the gains where not going to those who did the real work. It is some kind of fantasy that you could repair social ills with great technology, imho you have to fix it with morality & law. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ...