. . Subject: Re: ****Re: devalueing currency: why ? . . . . . . > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... :) I fortunately haven't bothered, I was blessed with a great distrust in official economics. Saves a lot of time. Clue for me at least: th eeconomists don't rave and curse at the great wealth disparities in the world, this clearly means they are either clueless or evil. The old economists often had good goals though. But of late (measured in decades or centuries) it is all shills. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Thanks. There are also an unusual number of sane replies in this thread. This must mean something is going very bad with the economy, even sane people are now posting to Usenet :). > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... This may be so, but one nation its hardship is that nation its opportunity and challenge, the can benefit from how they deal with it imho. Application of tarrifs could force home-industries to flourish, even if it costs you some wealth. Being a coherent nation is a form of wealth, it is a stability, a guarantee for the future - you can even compute that value in money (stab a guess). If you add that to the formula for maximum profit, you'd know how much to make the tarrifs. It is not an exact science, but you could prevent a lot of trouble with it. The world is wealthy enough, anyway, wealth is not the problem. > ... > ... > ... > ... I can guarantee you I won't do that :). > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Frankly, it is all thoroughly complex, though I have to admit it makes more sense all the time to me. But the picture that emerges is quite shocking really. It is a picture of a world overrun by systematic corruption, the laws themselves are bad, never mind law-breaking. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Didn't Socrates or so say all wisdom starts with knowing how little we know. I don't understand much of the detail either. Frankly I think 'they' make the money system as complex as they possibly can, lest the people find out what is really ultimately happening behind all the poo-ha. However we can know that by understanding it in terms of principle, like 'IBM pushes value it has control over into the Chinese sphere (country/markets) -> they station their agents in that sphere as well and using that value they initiate dictatorial production groups -> these groups work for the agents and since the labor is practically starved the production cost from labor is next to nothing -> understanding the principles of basic economics you'd know that it all ultimately boils down to labor and nothing else, labor is value.' We don't need to know what bonds get stashed in what suitcases, or who'se autograph goes where. The ultimate thing that happens is: desperate labor is coralled, works itself to pieces to earn more years of starvation rather then death, the controllers get mighty rich. That's all we need to know, because that's all we need to know to change these things (in quite obvious ways, frankly: why is that labor so poor ... they lack effective power, they should rule their own production, they should control the profit ultimately). The whole house of cards evaporates, what remains are the simplest of notions, such as: no tyranny, but democracy. It is really a struggle for democracy imho, but in the economic rather then state sphere. It is more complex there then in the state (markets, soil, money, ownership, entrepreneurial kudos, etc etc lots of details in principle). > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Knowledge is power, but only if you have more then the others. The ability to confuse is power. Who really understands how money is even created ? I'm on that job for years, all I know it that how it seems to go is thoroughly wrong. It is a game of fractional reserve, but also of gov bonds and plain loans and on it goes and on it goes. But there is no reason that money creation shouldn't be ABSOLUTELY TRANSPARENT. Meaning: the gov says 'we'll destruct X sum this year' or 'we'll create sum Y this year,' and that be it; no fractional nothing and loans don't create money either. I'd say: total simplicity. Since that is lacking, I assume this is done on purpose. Have us run around the hot cake for decades, until we die confused. As the old banker once said ... the ppl won't understand the system is innimical to their interests but lack the ability to understand it, those that do understand it *) are too depedent on it to challenge it. *) Working in something is one of the best ways to understand it. We don't work in it, makes it harder for us. But it is thoroughly wrong and must be destroyed with extreme prejudice, this is all we need to know and that I know for certain. Simplicity equals democracy, democracy demands simplicity. > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... I think the question of how it should work is more important then how it currently appears to work. How it should work in terms of economics is really not impossible to comprehend (make up) imho, what more do we need ! > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... > ... Thanks, I didn't read all that lest I get confused :).