US DOLLAR

[Gość: adas442]

Witam,
Pisze prace lic, i mam pytanie, czemu (oprocz stabilnosci i ogolnego
"porzadku") w bilansie platniczym uzywamy USD? czyli jakie sa przyczyna
stosowania USD w BP?
Z gory dzieki

[keily]

jesli chcesz, to wysle Ci b. interesujacy artykul na ten temat. Jest dlugi i po
angielsku, ale sporo wyjasnia w interesujacym Cie temacie...
W kosmicznym skrocie: Swiat bedzie uzywal dolara, bo tak chce USA. USA zadluza
sie w dolarach i dolarem moze dowolnie manipulowac , a inna waluta- nie.
Kraj, ktory ma cos do zaoferowania/sprzedania USA i zdecyduje sie na przejscie
na inna walute, zostanie przez USA zbrojnie napadniety i wdeptany w ziemie a
jego przywodca uwieziony i skazany na smierc.

fragment:
"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its
international transactions from a dollar standard to a Euro standard. Iraq
actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the Euro was worth around 80
cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady
depreciation against the Euro" (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the Euro
in 2002.)
"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq - or
more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network
conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq - is so that it will revert back
to a dollar standard and stay that way.

[kapitalizm]

...oj naiwnosci, ty mloda, zebys miala skrzydla to bys latac umiala....

stek bzdur tu posuwasz, a czlowiek pytal na powaznie...

[keily]

kapitalizm napisał:

> ...oj naiwnosci, ty mloda, zebys miala skrzydla to bys latac umiala....
>
> stek bzdur tu posuwasz, a czlowiek pytal na powaznie...


Zalales mnie potokiem argumentow, daj to troche przemyslec.....

[Gość: barbar]

Glupis, sprzedawczyku.
Yankesi drukuja papier i wymuszaja jego akceptacje na swiecie—glownie dla zakupu
ropy.
Stad dolar jest waluta rozrachunkowa w handlu zagranicznym i w konsekwencji
waluta rezerwowa bankow centralnych (ktore tez nie wiadomo dlaczego maja istniec.)
Stad tak zwane wladze kolejnego PRL kupuja dolarowe obligacje ktore daja blisko
zerowy procent by miec dolarowe rezerwy i w zamian wypuszczaja wlasne
–zlotowkowe—obligacje na wysoki procent czym udupiaja wlasnuch obywateli.

US DOLLAR: Nie chsesz- trzymaj kase w rublach!

[meerkat1]

"Glupis, sprzedawczyku.
> Yankesi drukuja papier i wymuszaja jego akceptacje na swiecie—glownie dla
> zakupu"

A jak to Jankesi wymuszaja?

Okupujac najpierw Kanade i Meksyk, potem Zwiazek Sowiecki i Chiny, a na koncu
Lichtenstein i Szwajcarie? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[keily]

meerkat1 napisał:

> "Glupis, sprzedawczyku.
> > Yankesi drukuja papier i wymuszaja jego akceptacje na swiecie—glown
> ie dla
> > zakupu"
>
> A jak to Jankesi wymuszaja?

Wytlumacze Ci to w skrocie.
2/3 ekonomii USA to zakupy konsumenckie. Konsumpcja. Gielda idzie w gore/dol,
bazujac na ilosci zakupow robionych przed swietami przez szanownych Amerykanow.
To tzw sentyment konsumaencki. Poszukam Ci linkow (ang) tlumaczacych to
zjawisko.
tak wiec, USA same nie produkujac, kupuja astronomiczne ilosci chlamu na
swiecie. Kupowanie to amerykanska kolejna religia, ten kto kupuje duzo i
najlepiej na kredyt- to wzorowy AMerykanin.
CO pozostaje producentom? Produkowac i wyrzucac do oceanu? Oczywiscie , ze
pojda z produktem na najwiekszy i najchlonniejszy rynek- USA.
I to w zasadzie juz chyba tlumaczy mechanizm?


>
> Okupujac najpierw Kanade i Meksyk, potem Zwiazek Sowiecki i Chiny, a na koncu
> Lichtenstein i Szwajcarie? :-
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>

Okupacja wiec, jak widzisz ,na razie nie jest potrzebna. Ale, byc moze, kiedys
bedzie.
PS
Swoje pieniadze (znaczna ich czesc) trzymam w CHF. Kupuje 1000 frankowe
banknoty i wkladam to do skrytki w banku. Gdy sie uzbiera wystarczjaca ilosc,
otworze konto w Szwajcarii. GLupi jestem? Ano, czas pokaze.

[Gość: meerkat]

I to tlumaczy , dlaczego eksporterzy ropy i gazu sprzedaja ja wylacznie za $$$?

I dlaczego setki milionow indywidualnych ciulaczy na caly swiecie, trzyma swe
oszczednosci na kontach dolarowych?

Przeciez oni moga kupowac- i kupuja masowo- chinski chlam- za juany.

[keily]

Gość portalu: meerkat napisał(a):

> I to tlumaczy , dlaczego eksporterzy ropy i gazu sprzedaja ja wylacznie za
$$$?
Oczywiscie, ze tlumaczy, tylkko Ty pewnie tego nie potrafisz sobie dodedukowac
a ja nie lubie tlumaczyc rzeczy oczywistych.
> I dlaczego setki milionow indywidualnych ciulaczy na caly swiecie, trzyma swe
> oszczednosci na kontach dolarowych?

Trzymaja, bo sa widocznie yebnieci w czaszke. Ja nie jestem, wiec nie trzymam.
>
> Przeciez oni moga kupowac- i kupuja masowo- chinski chlam- za juany.

Tu jeszcze link

[keily]

bo czasami prawdy oczywiste dla nas, sa w swej obsurdalnosci trudne do
przyjecia przez innych.


Consumer spending is closely watched since it fuels about two-thirds of the
world's largest economy. Sluggish sales at chain-store retailers such as Wal-
Mart (WMT: Research, Estimates) and Target (TGT: Research, Estimates) in August
led some economists to worry that consumers were finally beginning to show
signs of strain after carrying the economy out of a recession that began in
March 2001.

money.cnn.com/2002/09/13/news/economy/michigan/

dzieki

[adas442]

keily oraz reszcie odpowiadajacym dziekuje, keily prosze o linka, ang jest nawt
lepiej niz PL bo w takmi jezyku pisze prace lic. Jezeli gdzies widziales moze
jakies materialy na temat bilans platniczego i kursu walutowego <tak cos
naprawde konkretengo> to bylbym wdzieczny, dzieki jeszcze raz pozdrawiam
adas442

[Gość: Keily]

Linka rzuce jutro, w pracy mam :)

[adas442]

aha w miare mozliwosci prosze lineczki w jezyku ANG

Artykul

[keily]

The Real Reasons for the War on Iraq. Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis
of the Unspoken Truth
The Sierra Times | 02/08/03 | W.C.
Posted on 02/09/2003 8:56 AM PST by o_zarkman44
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth W.C. Published 02. 8. 03 at 17:14
Sierra Time
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and
Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth
January 2003
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and
never will be ... The People cannot be safe without information. When the press
is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe."
Those words by Thomas Jefferson embody the unfortunate state of affairs that
have beset our nation. As our government prepares to go to war with Iraq, our
country seems unable to answer even the most basic questions about this war.
First, why is there virtually no international support to topple Saddam? If
Iraq's WMD program truly possessed the threat level that President Bush has
repeatedly purported, why is there no international coalition to militarily
disarm Saddam? Secondly, despite over 300 unfettered U.N inspections to date,
there has been no evidence reported of a reconstituted Iraqi WMD program.
Third, and despite Bush’s rhetoric, the CIA has not found any links between
Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. To the contrary, some analysts believe it is far
more likely Al Qaeda might acquire an unsecured former Soviet Union Weapon(s)
of Mass Destruction, or potentially from sympathizers within a destabilized
Pakistan.
Moreover, immediately following Congress's vote on the Iraq Resolution, we
suddenly became aware of North Korea's nuclear program violations. Kim Jong Il
is processing uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons this year. President
Bush has not provided a rationale answer as to why Saddam's seemingly dormant
WMD program possesses a more imminent threat that North Korea’s active program?
Strangely, Donald Rumsfeld suggested that if Saddam were "exiled" we could
avoid an Iraq war? Confused yet? Well, I'm going to give their game away - the
core driver for toppling Saddam is actually the Euro currency, the €.
Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma
is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq is mostly about how the ruling
class at Langley and the Bush administration view hydrocarbons at the geo-
strategic level, and the overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar
from the Euro The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's
goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the Euro as an oil transaction
currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-
strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This
essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the "petro-dollar" and the
unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the Euro as an
alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an astute and
anonymous friend alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with
Iraq...
"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its
international transactions from a dollar standard to a Euro standard. Iraq
actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the Euro was worth around 80
cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady
depreciation against the Euro" (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the Euro
in 2002.)
"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq - or
more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network
conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq - is so that it will revert back
to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider
OPEC momentum towards the Euro, especially from Iran – the 2nd largest OPEC
producer who is actively discussing a switch to Euros for its oil exports).
Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our 'client state,' the Saudi regime
appears increasingly weak/ threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts
believe a "Saudi Revolution" might be plausible in the aftermath of an
unpopular U.S. invasion of Iraq (i.e.. Iran circa 1979) (1). Undoubtedly, the
Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo
conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the
Persian Gulf region in a post-Saddam era, just in case we need to grab and
secure Saudi's oil fields in the event of a Saudi coup by an anti-western
group. But first back to Iraq, and to my friend's lucid comments on the Iraq
enigma.
"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the Euro in late 2000 (and
later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to Euros) - at that
point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the
most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt
anything can - short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime."
Big Picture Perspective: "Everything else aside from the reserve currency and
the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international
criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this administration.
Further, the dollar-Euro threat is powerful enough that they'll rather risk
much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term
dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to Euros All
of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India,
China."
This information about Iraq’s oil currency is *censored* by the U.S. Media and
the Bush administration as the truth could potentially curtail both investor
and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/ spending, create political
pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off middle-eastern
oil, and of course stop our march towards war in Iraq. This 'quasi state
secret' can be found on a Radio Free Europe article discussing Saddam’s switch
for his oil sales from dollars to the Euros on Nov. 6, 2000 (2).
"Baghdad’s switch from the dollar to the Euro for oil trading is intended to
rebuke Washington’s hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge
it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL
correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and
the impact of the decision to go with the European currency."
At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was willing
to give up millions in oil revenue for what appeared to be a political
statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this November 2000
article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the Euro since late 2001
means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve and
transaction currencies. The Euro has gained roughly 17% against the dollar in
that time, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. "oil for food"
reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also gained that same
percent value since the switch. What would happen if OPEC made a sudden switch
to Euros, as opposed to a gradual transition? My expert analyst friend had this
to day:
"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the Euro would be that oil-
consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank)
reserve funds and replace these with Euros The dollar would crash anywhere from
20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any
currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for
example). You;d have foreign funds stream out of the U.S

[keily]

Incidentally, the final "Axis of Evil" country, North Korea, recently decided
to officially drop the dollar and begin using Euros for trade, effective Dec.
7, 2002 (7). Unlike the OPEC-producers, their switch will have negligible
economic impact, but it illustrates the geopolitical fallout of President
Bush's harsh rhetoric. Much more troubling are North Korea's recent actions
following the oil embargo of their country. They are in dire need of oil and
food; and in an act of desperation they have re-activated their pre-1994
nuclear program. Processing uranium appears to be taking place at a rapid pace,
and it appears their strategy is to prompt negotiations with the U.S. regarding
food and oil. The CIA estimates that North Korea could produce 4-6 nuclear
weapons by the second half of 2003. Ironically, this crisis over North Korea's
nuclear program further confirms the fraudulent premise for which this war with
Saddam was entirely contrived.
Unfortunately, neo conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle fail to grasp that Newton’s Law
applies equally to both physics and the geo-political sphere as well:
"For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction."
During the 1990s the world viewed the U.S. as a rather self-absorbed but
essentially benevolent superpower. Military actions in Iraq (90-91' & 98'),
Serbia and Kosovo (99') were undertaken with both U.N. And NATO cooperation and
thus afforded international legitimacy. President Clinton also worked to reduce
tensions in Northern Ireland and attempted to negotiate a resolution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the "America first" policies
of the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor International
Treaties, along with their aggressive militarization of foreign policy, has
significantly damaged our reputation abroad. Following 9/11, it appears that
President Bush's "warmongering rhetoric" has created global tensions – as we
are now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing to apply unilateral military
force without U.N. approval.
Lamentably, the tremendous amount of international sympathy that we witnessed
in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy has been replaced with
fear and anger at our government. This administration’s bellicosity has changed
the worldview, and "anti-Americanism" is proliferating even among our closest
allies (8). Even more alarming, and *completely unreported* in the U.S media,
are some monetary shifts in the reserve funds of foreign governments away from
the dollar with movements towards the Euro (9). It appears that the world
community may lack faith in the Bush administration's economic policies, and
along with OPEC, seems poised to respond with economic retribution if the U.S.
Government is regarded as an uncontrollable and dangerous superpower. The
plausibility of abandoning the dollar standard for the Euro is growing. An
interesting U.K. article outlines the dynamics and the potential outcomes
('Beyond Bush’s Unilateralism: Another Bi-Polar World or A New Era of Win-
Win?') (10)
<<>> "The most likely end to US hegemony may come about through a combination
of high oil prices (brought about by US foreign policies toward the Middle
East) and deeper devaluation of the US dollar (expected by many economists).
Some elements of this scenario:
1) US global overreach in the "war on terrorism" already leading to deficits as
far as the eye can see

[keily]

"The CIA's role in a 1971 Chilean strike could have served as the working model
for generating economic and social instability in order to topple Chavez. In
the truckers' strike of that year, the agency secretly orchestrated and
financed the artificial prolongation of a contrived work stoppage in order to
economically asphyxiate the leftist Salvador Allende government."
"This scenario would have had CIA operatives acting in liaison with the
Venezuelan military, as well as with opposition business and labor leaders, to
convert a relatively minor afternoon-long work stoppage by senior management
into a nearly successful coup de gráce."
Interestingly, according to an article by Michael Ruppert, Venezuelan’s
ambassador Francisco Mieres-Lopez apparently floated the idea of switching to
the Euro as their oil currency standard approximately one year before the
failed coup attempt. Furthermore, there is evidence that the CIA is still
active in its attempts to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez
administration. In fact, this December a Uruguayan government official exposed
the ongoing covert CIA operations in Venezuela (12):
"Uruguayan EP-FA congressman Jose Bayardi says he has information that far-
reaching plan have been put into place by the CIA and other North American
intelligence agencies to overthrow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias"
"Bayardi says he has received copies of top-secret communications between the
Bush administration in Washington and the government of Uruguay requesting the
latter's cooperation to support white collar executives and trade union
activists to "break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias
administration"...
Venezuela is the fourth largest producer of oil, and the corporate elites whose
political power runs unfettered in the Bush/Cheney oligarchy appear interested
in privatizing Venezuela’s oil industry. Furthermore, the establishment might
be concerned that Chavez's "barter deals" with 12 Latin American countries and
Cuba are effectively cutting the U.S. Dollar out of the vital oil transaction
currency cycle. Commodities are being traded among these countries in exchange
for Venezuela's oil, thereby reducing reliance on fiat dollars. If these unique
oil transactions proliferate, they could create more devaluation pressure on
the dollar. Continuing attempts by the CIA to remove Hugo Chavez appear likely.
The U.S. Economy has acquired significant structural imbalances, including our
record-high trade account deficit (now almost 5% of GDP), $6.3 trillion dollar
deficit (55% of GDP), and the recent return to annual budget deficits in the
hundreds of billions. These are factors that would devalue the currency of any
nation under the "old rules." Why is the dollar still predominant despite these
structural flaws?
Well, the elites understand that the strength of the dollar does not merely
rest on our economic output per se. The dollar posses two unique advantages
relative to all other hard currencies. The reality is that the strength of the
dollar since 1945 rests on being the international reserve currency and thus
fiat currency for global oil transactions (i.e.."Petrodollar"). The U.S. prints
hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are then used by nation
states to purchase oil/energy from OPEC producers (except Iraq, to some degree
Venezuela, and perhaps Iran in the near future). These petro-dollars are then
re-cycled from OPEC back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other dollar-
denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, real estate, etc.
The "old rules" for valuation of our currency and economic power were based on
our flexible market, free flow of trade goods, high per worker productivity,
manufacturing output/trade surpluses, government oversight of accounting
methodologies (i.e.. SEC), developed infrastructure, education system, and of
course total cash flow and profitability. While many of these factors remain
present, over the last two decades we have diluted some of these "safe harbor"
fundamentals. Despite vast imbalances and structural problems that are
escalating within the U.S. Economy, the dollar as the fiat oil currency
created "new rules". The following exerts from an Asia Times article discusses
the virtues of our fiat oil currency and dollar hegemony (or vices from the
perspective of developing nations, whose debt is denominated in dollars). (13)
<<>> "Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon took the dollar off the
gold standard (at $35 per ounce) that had been agreed to at the Bretton Woods
Conference at the end of World War II, the dollar has been a global monetary
instrument that the United States, and only the United States, can produce by
fiat. The dollar, now a fiat currency, is at a 16-year trade-weighted high
despite record US current-account deficits and the status of the US as the
leading debtor nation. The US national debt as of April 4 was $6.021 trillion
against a gross domestic product (GDP) of $9 trillion."
"World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the
world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies
no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to
capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to
accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic
currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their
currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in
corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market
pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central
bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in
turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves,
making it stronger.
*This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the
geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably
oil, are denominated in dollars.* Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can
buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from
oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since
1973."
"By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets, creating a
capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. Even after a year of sharp
correction, US stock valuation is still at a 25-year high and trading at a 56
percent premium compared with emerging markets."

[keily]

"The US capital-account surplus in turn finances the US trade deficit.
Moreover, any asset, regardless of location, that is denominated in dollars is
a US asset in essence. When oil is denominated in dollars through US state
action and the dollar is a fiat currency, the US essentially owns the world's
oil for free. And the more the US prints greenbacks, the higher the price of US
assets will rise. Thus a strong-dollar policy gives the US a double win." <<>>
This unique geopolitical agreement with Saudi Arabia in 1973 has worked to our
favor for the past 30 years, as this arrangement has raised the entire asset
value of all dollar denominated assets/properties, and allowed the Federal
Reserve to create a truly massive debt and credit expansion (or ‘credit bubble’
in the view of some economists). These structural imbalances in the U.S.
Economy are sustainable as long as:
1) Nations continue to demand and purchase oil for their energy/survival needs
2) The fiat reserve currency for global oil transactions remain the U.S. Dollar
(and dollar only)
These underlying factors, along with the "safe harbor" reputation of U.S.
investments afforded by the dollar’s reserve currency status propelled the U.S.
to economic and military hegemony in the post-World War II period. However, the
introduction of the Euro is a significant new factor, and appears to be the
primary threat to U.S. Economic hegemony. More over, in December 2002 ten
additional countries were approved for full membership into the EU In 2004 this
will result in an aggregate GDP of $9.6 trillion and 450 million people,
directly competing with the U.S. Economy ($10.5 trillion GDP, 280 million
people).
Especially interesting is a speech given by Mr. Javad Yarjani, the Head of
OPEC’s Petroleum Market Analysis Department, in a visit to Spain (April 2002).
He speech dealt entirely on the subject of OPEC oil transaction currency
standard with respect to both the dollar and the Euro The following exerts from
this OPEC executive provide insights into the conditions that would create
momentum for an OPEC currency switch to the Euro Indeed, his candid analysis
warrants careful consideration given that two of the requisite variables he
outlines for the switch have taken place since this speech in early 2002. These
*vital stories are discussed in the European media, but have been censored by
our own mass media* (14)
"The question that comes to mind is whether the Euro will establish itself in
world financial markets, thus challenging the supremacy of the US dollar, and
consequently trigger a change in the dollar's dominance in oil markets. As we
all know, the mighty dollar has reigned supreme since 1945, and in the last few
years has even gained more ground with the economic dominance of the United
States, a situation that may not change in the near future. By the late 90s,
more than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions, and half of all
world exports, were denominated in dollars. In addition, the US currency
accounts for about two thirds of all official exchange reserves. The world's
dependency on US dollars to pay for trade has seen countries bound to dollar
reserves, which are disproportionately higher than America's share in global
output. The share of the dollar in the denomination of world trade is also much
higher than the share of the US in world trade.
Having said that, it is worthwhile to note that in the long run the Euro is not
at such a disadvantage versus the dollar when one compares the relative sizes
of the economies involved, especially given the EU enlargement plans. Moreover,
the Euro-zone has a bigger share of global trade than the US and while the US
has a huge current account deficit, the Euro area has a more, or balanced,
external accounts position. One of the more compelling arguments for keeping
oil pricing and payments in dollars has been that the US remains a large
importer of oil, despite being a substantial crude producer itself. However,
looking at the statistics of crude oil exports, one notes that the Euro-zone is
an even larger importer of oil and petroleum products than the US."
"From the EU’s point of view, *it is clear that Europe would prefer to see
payments for oil shift from the dollar to the Euro, which effectively removed
the currency risk.* It would also increase demand for the Euro and thus help
raise its value. Moreover, since oil is such an important commodity in global
trade, in term of value, if pricing were to shift to the Euro, it could provide
a boost to the global acceptability of the single currency.
There is also very strong trade links between OPEC Member Countries (MCs) and
the Euro-zone, with more than 45 percent of total merchandise imports of OPEC
MCs coming from the countries of the Euro-zone, while OPEC MCs are main
suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe."
"Of major importance to the ultimate success of the Euro, in terms of the oil
pricing, will be if Europe's two major oil producers — the United Kingdom and
Norway join the single currency. Naturally, the future integration of these two
countries into the Euro-zone and Europe will be important considering they are
the region’s two major oil producers in the North Sea, which is home to the
international crude oil benchmark, Brent. *This might create a momentum to
shift the oil pricing system to Euros*."
"In the short-term, OPEC MCs, with possibly a few exceptions, are expected to
continue to accept payment in dollars. Nevertheless, I believe that OPEC will
not discount entirely the possibility of adopting Euro pricing and payments in
the future. The Organization, like many other financial houses at present, is
also assessing how the Euro will settle into its life as a new currency. The
critical question for market players is the overall value and stability of the
Euro, and whether other countries within the Union will adopt the single
currency."
"Should the Euro challenge the dollar in strength, which essentially could
include it in the denomination of the oil bill, it could be that a system may
emerge which benefits more countries in the long-term. Perhaps with increased
European integration and a strong European economy, this may become a reality.
Time may be on your side. I wish the Euro every success."
Based on this important speech, momentum for OPEC to consider switching to the
Euro will grow once the EU expands in May 2004 to 450 million people with the
inclusion of 10 additional member states. The aggregate GDP will increase from
$7 trillion to $9.6 trillion. This enlarged EU will be an oil consuming
purchasing population 33% larger than the U.S., And over half of OPEC crude oil
will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004. This does not include other potential EU
entrants such as the UK, Norway, Denmark and Sweden. I should note that since
this speech the Euro has been trading at parity or above the dollar since late
2002, and analysts predict the dollar will continue its downward trending in
2003 relative to the Euro
It appears the final two pivotal items that would create the OPEC transition to
Euros will be based on if and when Norway’s Brent crude is re-dominated in
Euros, and when the UK adopts the Euro Regarding the later, Tony Blair is
lobbying heavily for the UK to adopt the Euro, and their adoption would seem
imminent within this decade. If and when the UK adopts the Euro currency I
suspect a concerted effort will be quickly mounted to establish the Euro as an
international reserve currency. Again, I offer the following information from
my astute acquaintance who analyzes these monetary matters very carefully:
"The pivotal vote will probably be Sweden, where approval this next autumn of
adopting th

[keily]

"Finally, the maneuvers toward reducing the global dominance of the dollar are
already well underway and have only reason to accelerate so far as I can see.
An OPEC pricing shift would seem rather unlikely prior 2004 - barring political
motivations (ie. from anxious OPEC members) or a disorderly collapse of the
dollar (ie. Japanese bank collapse due to high oil prices following a prolonged
Iraq conflict) but appears quite viable to take place before the end of the
decade."
Facing these potentialities, I hypothesize that President Bush intends to
topple Saddam in 2003 in a pre-emptive attempt to initiate massive Iraqi oil
production in far excess of OPEC quotas, to reduce global oil prices, and
thereby dismantle OPEC's price controls. The end-goal of the neo-conservatives
is incredibly bold yet singular in purpose, to use the "war on terror" as the
premise to finally dissolve OPEC's decision-making process, thus ultimately
preventing the cartel’s inevitable switch to pricing oil in euros.
How would the Bush administration break-up the OPEC cartel's price controls in
a post-Saddam Iraq? First, the newly installed leader (apparently a U.S.
General during the first several months) will convert Iraq back to the dollar
standard. Next, with the U.S. military protecting the oil fields, the new
ruling junta will undertake the necessary steps to rapidly increase production
of Iraq oil, quintupling Iraq’s current output – well beyond OPEC’s 2 million
barrel per day quota.
Dr. Nayyer Ali offers a succinct analysis of how Iraq’s underutilized oil
reserves will not be a 'profit-maker' for the U.S. government, but it will
serve as the crucial economic instrument to leverage and hopefully dissolve
OPEC's price controls, thus fulfilling the long sought after goal of the neo
conservatives to collapse the OPEC cartel (15):
"Despite this vast pool of oil, Iraq has never produced at a level
proportionate to the reserve base. Since the Gulf War, Iraq's production has
been limited by sanctions and allowed sales under the oil for food program (by
which Iraq has sold 60 billion dollars worth of oil over the last 5 years) and
what else can be smuggled out. This amounts to less than 1 billion barrels per
year.
If Iraq were reintegrated into the world economy, it could allow massive
investment in its oil sector and boost output to 2.5 billion barrels per year,
or about 7 million barrels a day. Total world oil production is about 75
million barrels, and OPEC combined produces about 25 million barrels.
What would be the consequences of this? There are two obvious things.
First would be the collapse of OPEC, whose strategy of limiting production to
maximize price will have finally reached its limit. An Iraq that can produce
that much oil will want to do so, and will not allow OPEC to limit it to 2
million barrels per day. If Iraq busts its quota, then who in OPEC will give up
5 million barrels of production? No one could afford to, and OPEC would die.
This would lead to the second major consequence, which is a collapse in the
price of oil to the 10-dollar range per barrel. The world currently uses 25
billion barrels per year, so a 15-dollar drop will save oil-consuming nations
375 billion dollars in crude oil costs every year."
"The Iraq war is not a moneymaker. But it could be an OPEC breaker. That
however is a long-term outcome that will require Iraq to be successfully
reconstituted into a functioning state in which massive oil sector investment
can take place."
The American people are largely oblivious to the economic risks regarding
President Bush’s upcoming war. Not only is Japan’s weakened economy at grave
risk from a spike in oil prices, but additional risks relate to Iran and
Venezuela as well, either of whom could move to the euros, thus providing
further momentum for OPEC to act on their "internal discussions" and switch to
the euro as their new oil currency. The Bush administration believes that by
toppling Saddam they will remove the juggernaut, thus allowing the US to
control Iraqi’s huge oil reserves, and finally break-up and dissolve the 10
remaining countries in OPEC.
This last issue is undoubtedly a significant gamble even in the best-case
scenario of a quick and relatively painless war that topples Saddam and leaves
Iraq's oil fields intact. Undoubtedly, the OPEC cartel could feel threatened by
the goal of the neo conservatives to break-up OPEC’s price controls ($22-$28
per barrel). Perhaps the Bush administration’s ambitious goal of flooding the
oil market with Iraqi crude may work, but I have doubts. Will OPEC simply
tolerate quota-busting Iraqi oil production, thus delivering to them a lesson
in self-inflicted hara-kiri (suicide)?
Contrarily, OPEC could meet in Vienna and in an act of self-preservation re-
denominate the oil currency to the euro. Such a decision by would mark the end
of U.S. dollar hegemony, and thus the end of our precarious economic superpower
status. Again, I offer the astute analysis of my expert friend regarding the
colossal gamble this administration is about to undertake:
"One of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the
rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status
whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard.
This is America's preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel for now and the
foreseeable future.
That such a course hasn't been pursued to date bears more relation to the fact
that other Westernized, highly developed nations haven't any interest to
undergo the great disruptions which would follow - but it could assuredly take
place in the event that the consensus view coalesces of the United States as
any sort of 'rogue' nation. In other words, if the dangers of American global
hegemony are ever perceived as a greater liability than the dangers of toppling
the international order (or, alternately, if an 'every man for himself' crisis
as discussed above spirals out of control and forces their hand).
The Bush administration and the neo conservative movement has set out on a
multiple-front course to ensure that this *cannot* take place, in brief by a
graduated assertion of military hegemony atop the existent economic hegemony.
The paradox I've illustrated with this one narrow scenario is that the quixotic
course itself may very well bring about the feared outcome that it means to
preempt. We shall see!"
Under this administration we have returned to massive deficit spending, and the
lack of strong SEC enforcement has further eroded investor confidence.
Regrettably, the flawed economic and tax policies and of the Bush
administration may be exacerbating the weakness of the dollar, if not outright
accelerating some countries to diversify their central bank reserve funds with
euros as an alternative to the dollar.
From a foreign policy perspective, the terminations of numerous international
treaties and disdain for international cooperation via the UN and NATO have
angered even our closest allies. Lastly, and despite President Bush’s attempt
to use the threat of applying military force to OPEC producers who may wish to
switch to the euro for their oil payments, it appears their belligerent neo
conservative policies may paradoxically bring about the dire outcome they hope
to prevent – an OPEC currency switch to euros.
Synopsis It would appear that any attempt by OPEC member states in the Middle
East or Latin America to transition to the euro as their oil transaction
currency standard shall be met with either overt U.S. military actions or
covert U.S. intelligence agency interventions. Under the guise of the
perpetual "war on terror" the Bush administration is manipulating the

[keily]

[keily]

economy, and suggests that the potential geo-political fallout of a unilaterist
war in Iraq could create a devastating divestiture of U.S. dollar denominated
assets. The article was entitled: 'Why Bush is sunk without Europe.' (25)
<<>> "The US's economic position is far too vulnerable to allow it to go war
without cast-iron multilateral support that could underpin it economically as
well as diplomatically and militarily. The multi-lateralism Bush scorns is, in
truth, an economic necessity."
"On latest estimates, its net liabilities to the rest the world are more than
$2.7 trillion, nearly 30 per cent of GDP, a scale of indebtedness associated
with basket-case economies in Latin America."
Its industrial base is so uncompetitive that it consistently imports more than
it exports; its current-account deficit, the gap between all its current
foreign earnings and foreign spending, is now a stunning 5 per cent of GDP,
continuing a trend that has lasted for more than 25 years and which is the
cause of all that foreign debt. As a national community, it has virtually
ceased to save so that government and individuals alike live on credit. To
finance the current-account deficit, a reflection of the lack of saving, the US
relies on foreigners supplying it with the foreign currency it can't earn
itself.
*But if foreigners got windy about the prospects for share and property prices
and stopped buying, or began to withdraw some of the trillions they have
invested in the US economy, then the dollar would collapse. Already, it has
fallen nearly 10 per cent against the euro over the last six weeks, but that
could just be the beginning. Economists at the Federal Reserve have estimated
that the dollar needs to fall by 30 per cent to bring the flow of imports and
exports into balance, but in today's markets such a fall doesn't happen
gradually. It happens precipitately.*
If America and Britain spurn a second UN Resolution and go to war with the
active opposition of key members of the Security Council like France and
Russia, be sure the flow of dollars into the US will slow down dramatically,
and be sure there will be a stampede of foreigners trying to sell. Shares on
Wall Street that Bush is so anxious to prop up are still massively overvalued.
*Against this background, there could be a devastating sell-off, with all the
depressing knock-on consequences for American consumer confidence and business
investment.*
What the markets were signaling last week was that this is sufficiently within
the bounds of possibility that it was worth taking precautionary action, hence
the selling. If the war was over in a few weeks, the risks would be
containable, and there will be some shares well worth buying at today's prices.
But if the war was prolonged or the subsequent peace unstable, then the
pressure on the dollar and Wall Street could become very severe indeed,
reinforcing the depressive influences on an economy where the underlying
imbalances are so extraordinary.
"The US approach has been unilateralist here as everywhere else: it does what
it likes as it likes, a policy that is now showing its limits. Bush needs badly
to change course, which Tony Blair should be urging on him. The UN process
needs to be respected and reinforced, not least to reassure the markets, and
better systems of economic governance need to be put in place. The US's
military capacity may allow unilateralism; its soft economic underbelly, we are
discovering, does not." <<>>
These articles indicate that the world community is reducing its reliance on
dollars in their central banks, and thus quite possibly sending a message about
their opposition to the U.S.'s position on Iraq.
Commentary from an Irishman on my Essay: 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War
With Iraq'
In January 2003, Mr. Coílín Nunan reviewed a draft of my essay on an Internet
forum. He subsequently published an exceptional summary of this research on an
Irish website (www.feasta.org). Hopefully my essay along with his
article may create additional public awareness, and thus facilitate a real
debate regarding the Iraq issues. Below are exerts from his article 'Oil,
Currency, and the War on Iraq' (26)
<<>> "One of the stated economic objectives, and perhaps the primary objective,
when setting up the euro was to turn it into a reserve currency to challenge
the dollar so that Europe too could get something for nothing.
This however would be a disaster for the US. Not only would they lose a large
part of their annual subsidy of effectively free goods and services, but
countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the
value of the US currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more and
as increasing numbers of those holding dollars began to spend them, the US
would have to start paying its debts by supplying in goods and services to
foreign countries, thus reducing American living standards. As countries and
businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the US property and
stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst. The Federal Reserve would no
longer be able to print more money to reflate the bubble, as it is currently
openly considering doing, because, without lots of eager foreigners prepared to
mop them up, a serious inflation would result which, in turn, would make
foreigners even more reluctant to hold the US currency and thus heighten the
crisis.
There is though one major obstacle to this happening: oil. Oil is not just by
far the most important commodity traded internationally, it is the lifeblood of
all modern industrialised economies. If you don’t have oil, you have to buy it.
And if you want to buy oil on the international markets, you usually have to
have dollars. Until recently all OPEC countries agreed to sell their oil for
dollars only. So long as this remained the case, the euro was unlikely to
become the major reserve currency: there is not a lot of point in stockpiling
euros if every time you need to buy oil you have to change them into dollars.
This arrangement also meant that the US effectively part-controlled the entire
world oil market: you could only buy oil if you had dollars, and only one
country had the right to print dollars - the US.
If on the other hand OPEC were to decide to accept euros only for its oil
(assuming for a moment it were allowed to make this decision), then American
economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not need as many
dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its oil from the Middle
East would think it wise to convert a large portion of its dollar assets to
euro assets (Japan is the major subsidizer of the US because it holds so many
dollar investments). The US on the other hand, being the world's largest oil
importer would have, to run a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion
from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to be achieved at a time when
its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its domestic supplies
of oil and gas were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion.
The purely economic arguments for OPEC converting to the euro, at least for a
while, seem very strong. The Euro-zone does not run a huge trade deficit nor is
it heavily indebted to the rest of the world like the US and interest rates in
the Euro-zone are also significantly higher. The Euro-zone has a larger share
of world trade than the US and is the Middle East’s main trading partner. And
nearly everything you can buy for dollars you can also buy for euros - apart,
of course, from oil."
"All of this is bad news for the US economy and the dollar. The fear for
Washington will be that not

CZYTAM thx aaa ......

[Gość: adas442]

widze ze znasz sie na rzeczy, bede mial jeszcze moze pytania w dalszej czesci
pracy... w sumie to nawet dzis cos zapodam, dzieki jeszcze raz ;]

TRUE OR FALSE

[Gość: adas442]

mam pytanie, czy wszystko jest ok ? Pisze o Bilansie platniczym, to nazly do
wstepu...

International transactions are classified as credits or debits. Credit
transactions are those that involve the receipt of payments from foreigners.
Debits transactions are those that involve the making of payments to foreigners.
Credit transactions are entered with the positive sign, debit transaction are
entered with the negative sign in the nation’s balance of payments. . So, the
export of goods and service, gifts (unilateral transfers) received from
foreigners and capital inflows are entered as credits (positive sign) because
they involve the receipt of payments from foreigner. On the other hand, the
import of goods, services, gifts made to foreigners and capital outflow involve
payments to foreigners and are entered as debits (negative sign) in the nation’s
balance of payments.
Capital inflow can take to forms: increase in foreign assets in the nation or
reduction in the nation’s assets abroad. For instance, when a U.S. resident
purchases U.K. stock – foreign assets in the U.K. increases-it is a capital
inflow to the U.K. and it is recorded as a credit in the U.K. The capital
inflow as a reduction of nation’s assets abroad occurs when a U.K. resident
sells foreign stock – U.K. asset abroad decreases
On the other hand, capital inflow can emerge as an increase in nation’s assets
abroad or a reduction in foreign assets in nation, because both involve a
payment to foreigners. Consequently, the purchase of U.S. Treasury bill by U.S.
resident’s increases U.K assets abroad, it is a debit because involves a payment
to foreigners. Similarly the sale of its U.K. subsidiary by a German firm
reduces foreign assets in the U.K., it is also a debit

[yanvreolny]

meerkat1 napisał:

> "Glupis, sprzedawczyku.
> > Yankesi drukuja papier i wymuszaja jego akceptacje na swiecie—glown
> ie dla
> > zakupu"
>
> A jak to Jankesi wymuszaja?
>
> Okupujac najpierw Kanade i Meksyk, potem Zwiazek Sowiecki i Chiny, a na koncu
> Lichtenstein i Szwajcarie? :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Okupowac teraz mozna i bez wojska.

DOLAR- NAJBEZPIECZNIEJSZA WALUTA SWIATA

[Gość: meerkat]

I to tlumaczy , dlaczego eksporterzy ropy i gazu sprzedaja ja wylacznie za $$$?

I dlaczego setki milionow indywidualnych ciulaczy na caly swiecie, trzyma swe
oszczednosci na kontach dolarowych?

Przeciez oni moga kupowac- i kupuja masowo- chinski chlam- za juany.:-)))

Niejeden trzymal pieniadze w materacu - splolenly.

Niejeden trzyml w szwajcarskim baku- zabrali po odtajnieniu kont.

Niejeden trzymal w DM- zlikwidowali i wymienili na euro za...polowe wartosci.

Niejeden trzymal w zlotowkach, wloskich czy tureckich lirach, ktore wymieniono
lub zdewaluowano, tak ze biedak zostal z taczkami pelnymi makulatury.

Tylko US$ sie od poczatku trzyma, juz chocby z tego wzgledu, ze USA to nie
tylko najpotezniejsza gospodarka swiata, ale i najpotezniejsze i najbardziej
stabilne panstwo. Zanim ono padnie, padna wszystkie inne, wiec
zmartwienia i tak nie bedzie.

Poza tym, drogi licealisto, nie wiem czy wiesz, ale jak znajdziesz gdzies na
strychu banktoty dolarowe z roku np. 1831 (powstanie listopadowe), to ci je
kazdy bank amerykanski przyjmie lub wymieni na nowe.

O zlotych swinkach z lat 1920-tych nawet nie mowie! :-)))

[adas442]

dzieki ze odpowiedz, pytalem czemu w Bilansie platiczym jest uzywane USD ?
......a np czemu nie euro ? To ze na koncu padnie USD to wiemy;]

ps jestem studentem 3 roku;]

[Gość: meerkat1]

adas442 napisał:

> dzieki ze odpowiedz, pytalem czemu w Bilansie platiczym jest uzywane USD ?
> ......a np czemu nie euro ? To ze na koncu padnie USD to wiemy;]
>
> ps jestem studentem 3 roku;]


Bo pewnie w rublach jest na razie nadal niepolitycznie!

Ale moze wroci (wraz z RWPG, za ktorym wielu tu teskni, podobnie jak za UW :-)))

[dla mlodszych: UW = Uklad Warszawski :-)))]

[kapitalizm]

adas442 napisał:

> dzieki ze odpowiedz, pytalem czemu w Bilansie platiczym jest uzywane USD ?
> ......a np czemu nie euro ? To ze na koncu padnie USD to wiemy;]
>
> ps jestem studentem 3 roku;]


....choc ludzie czesto w zyciu prywatnym, spolecznym czy politycznym kieruja
sie sypatia/antypatia, to gdy przychodzi podjac decyzje finansowe zawsze
kieruja sie zyskiem,

stad wiekszosc bankow swiata za walute wzorcowa wybiera $ nie dlatego, ze
kochaja USA, lub sie ich boja, ale dlatego, ze w dlugim okresie czasu USA
posiada najbardziej stabilna i dochodowa gospodarke - gdyby w USA srodkiem
platniczym byl amerykanski ketchup, wszystkie banki w zapasach trzymalyby ten
towar,

teorie spikowe dobre sa dla takich frustratow jak 'keily' czy inni naiwni -
dla bankierow i calego swiata finansowwego licza sie tylko dochody,

tak robia nie tylko wszystkie powazne i liczace sie banki na swiecie, ale
rowniez osoby prywatne, w tym Lenin, Hitler, Husajn - raczej wrogowie Ameryki,

zreszta na marginesie, cale to zagadnienie sprowadza sie nie do waluty, ale
assets (oprocz zaufania, oczywiscie), ktore sa pokryciem wartosci dolara -
czyli do tego skad sie bierze wealth na swiecie,

wealth (bogactwo) - nie pieniadze,

jezeli jestes zainteresowany tym - daj znac.

Lubie sie posmiac z rana :)))))

[keily]

Gość portalu: meerkat napisał(a):


>
> Niejeden trzyml w szwajcarskim baku- zabrali po odtajnieniu kont.
>
> Niejeden trzymal w DM- zlikwidowali i wymienili na euro za...polowe wartosci.

Dawaj jeszcze,bo dobre to , szczegolnie z DM :)))
Zreszta to drugie tez niezle , hahahaaa!

[Gość: meerkat]

Ano zapytaj Niemiaszkow, czemu tak teksnia za DM i zaczynaja rozwazac odwrot
od "ojro"? Bo tak zyskali? :-)))

[keily]

Mnie tak rozbawila ta wymiana 1:2 najbardziej.
Czyli Wlosi najbardziej dostali w dupe, bo im wymienili 1:2000, prawda ?