Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The coming US dollar crisis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dybdahl who wrote (2416)	11/19/2007 7:20:29 AM
From: Real Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71454

Hmm... I find most Wikipedia articles pretty good and informative, including this one. I believe the whole purpose of the Euro was to introduce a new reserve currency, so that Europe could benefit from exporting inflation to Asia. The Yugoslavia bombing by US then could have been done with the purpose to undermine the young Euro, a short-term goal that was achieved at the time. However, since this act of war was sanctioned by the U.N., and there was an actual dictator and actual genocide in that European country, the act of war was not "outrageous" as the Iraq war. The Serbs sure did find it just that, since over 100,000 civillians died in Belgrade. The only reason the dollar didn't crash yet is its reserve currency status. Note that the prior devaluation of the dollar in 1985-87 was a result of some planned action, rather then free market forces, the Plaza Accord en.wikipedia.org traderslog.com and the Louvre Accord en.wikipedia.org An uncontrolled free market devaluation of a reserve currency has probably never happened before. Perhaps, one could claim that the fall of the British Pound was just that, from $4 in 1940 to $1 in 1985. However, I am not sure that fall qualifies, as the rates were fixed to the dollar until 1971.

To: dybdahl who wrote (2416)	11/19/2007 7:53:13 AM
From: Real Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71454

uchicagolaw.typepad.com Aggressive war. The invasion of Iraq was probably a violation of international law because it was not authorized by the United Nations (though some disagree with this) and it was not in self-defense. The problem is that although Nuremberg defendants were convicted of aggressive war, no one since then has, and even the states that agreed to join the ICC put off defining this crime though it is formally included in the Rome Statute. So it seems unlikely that Bush could be convicted of a crime of aggressive war. If he could, we would also have to conduct trials of Clinton and the leaders of all the other NATO countries for the illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999. It is unlikely that such an expansive definition of international crime would be acceptable to states.