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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (109338)

12/30/2014 5:02:51 AM

From: elmatador

Respond to of 218030

The US tried with LATAM but did not work as the governing elites there did not want the model.

Europe and Japan were not after WWII in a position to refuse.

Alliance for the Progress In March 1961, President Kennedy proposed a ten-year plan for Latin America:

“

...we propose to complete the revolution of the Americas, to build a hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living and all can live out their lives in dignity and in freedom. To achieve this goal political freedom must accompany material progress...Let us once again transform the American Continent into a vast crucible of revolutionary ideas and efforts, a tribute to the power of the creative energies of free men and women, an example to all the world that liberty and progress walk hand in hand. Let us once again awaken our American revolution until it guides the struggles of people everywhere-not with an imperialism of force or fear but the rule of courage and freedom and hope for the future of man. [1]

en.wikipedia.org

The governing elites -Mediterranean whites and mixed races- did not want the liberty and progress connection to be known by the masses.

power of the creative energies of free men and women, no. they didn't want that either!

What the governing elites wanted, ad still do, it is the populist form government

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (109338)	12/30/2014 7:12:35 AM
From: Metacomet	Respond to of 218030

Which drives home the irrationality of any attempt at a "real" value or hard money concept.. There isn't enough of any single store of value to realistically tie the worlds trading requirements to.. Since trade is a necessary vehicle of civilization, some other measure of value needs to be used.. The US dollar is the default medium under the circumstances Of course we like it that way because of the inherent advantages it provides ..but we also shoulder the costs associated with being the guarantor of the worlds liquidity Whatever folks decide to trade in will have to carry the implicit understanding that it will always be accepted at some mutually recognized value by some other entity ..as long as the US government stands as a receiver of last resort of whatever medium is issued by the US treasury, it will be accepted Whatever supplants the US dollar will need to carry that element of the value proposition as well ..and I simply can't see what that might be ..the UN, China, Russia, Common Market, BRIC...? ..simply no viable contenders out there at this time

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (109338)	12/30/2014 12:42:29 PM
From: RJA_	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 218030

>>Total global stores of gold were worth only $27 billion at the official price - an insignificant fraction of the total currency value issued by each of the nations which were party to Bretton-Woods. The answer to that, is of course, that the price was wrong. We have corrected somewhat, but not near enough to gold back the existing currencies. I do not expect governments to do this on their own, after all, whats better than printing stuff that has value almost infinitely larger than the cost of printing it? It would take a situation where there was no other alternative.