# One Step Closer to $$ Losing Reserve Status



## SierraM37 (Nov 2, 2008)

This link to an article on Zero Hedge should remind everyone that the game is coming to a close for the dollar. Brazil has signed on with China to trade in their local currencies.

For what it's worth, the silver lining is that once the dollar loses it's reserve status, we can't just print money and attempt to inflate our way out of the massive debt our politicians have so generously built up for their benefit. The result will be forces austerity to live within our means and there will be no kicking the can down the road.

The bad side to this will be devastating to this country and it is questionable if the country remains intact as a democratic republic when it all comes crashing down. The financial system may crash before the US loses it's reserve status, which will yield similar results.

Become self sufficient, build your local community ties and plan ahead for truly having to take care of yourself. I see things accelerating at a faster pace now and the financial system collapse appears to be closer than many think. Hope I'm wrong. :dunno:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/usd-trap-closing-dollar-exclusion-zone-crosses-pacific-brazil-signs-china-currency-swap


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Dollar won't lose currency reserve status without a major calamity. Sovereign trading partners require assurances their bartering media is equivalent. The dollar used to provide that, BUT, there is nothing of value that can take it's place.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

We benefited greatly for the overspending the government has done.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

tenOC said:


> We benefited greatly for the overspending the government has done.


We did? I must have been missed when the benefits were handed out.


----------



## DKRinAK (Nov 21, 2011)

IN some parts of Africa, where their currency has more than collapsed - the US Dollar is the new and default currency.

Why? Because that local Gov't can't print any more than is in circulation.

These folks just did a world tour

http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=716979

on a set of Taiwanese motor scooters, and the US Dollar was the preferred payment - not credit card, not local (what toilet paper they use) but the USD.

Makes for an interesting read - Adventure bikes indeed. Nice to know there are still folks crazy enough to do these trips....


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

partdeux said:


> Dollar won't lose currency reserve status without a major calamity. Sovereign trading partners require assurances their bartering media is equivalent. The dollar used to provide that, BUT, there is nothing of value that can take it's place.


The point is that other countries can trade with each other in their own currencies. They're doing that more and more. Real US inflation is about 10% right now. Why should other countries tolerate the US robbing them through inflation?

Japan and India signed a currency agreement. That's one I didn't know about.

Check this out:

http://rt.com/business/news/yen-yuan-direct-trade-japan-china-744/

"China is Japan's largest trading partner, but about 60 percent of their mutual trade is denominated in US dollars."


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Without foreign trade, Japan starves.



TheAnt said:


> We did? I must have been missed when the benefits were handed out.


You and everyone else is still receiving those benefits.
What do you think they spent the money on? Goods, infrastructure, education, technology. Who do you think they employed to make the products, give the services, build the infrastructure, educate the people?
People in America are born on third base and think they hit a triple.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

tenOC said:


> We benefited greatly for the overspending the government has done.


That depends on who your are. You benefited if you're part of the Food Stamp Nation or you got the Earned Income Tax Credit or AFDC or tax payer subsidized student loans or education grants from the federal government. You benefited if you're a federal worker because your pay and benefits are much higher than you could get from the private sector. You could also argue that you benefited from the federal government's overspending if you work for a defense contractor.

I would also argue that if you're part of the 50% of Americans that pay no income taxes that your free ride comes at our expense.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

tenOC said:


> People in America are born on third base and think they hit a triple.


I agree with that sentiment but its not got a damn thing to do with our governments wasteful spending and criminal borrowing. Historically we have been where we were financially because of our free market economy and because government generally stayed out of the economy/markets. This is not the case any longer (less and less true since the 30s but its a hyperbolic equation if you plotted it out).

BillS is right about the only folks that have benefitted and I am not among them.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Govt is spending roughly 1.5T more then revenue each year. that comes back to us in the handouts, wages, and manufacturing. Take that excess money out of the system and watch what happens to the GDP... it won't be pretty.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

partdeux said:


> Govt is spending roughly 1.5T more then revenue each year. that comes back to us in the handouts, wages, and manufacturing. Take that excess money out of the system and watch what happens to the GDP... it won't be pretty.


We'd be better off because government spending doesn't fuel GDP. In fact, all the government spending, taxes and additional regulations have slowed down the economy to the brink of collapse. Compare that to when Reagan was president:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989."

"Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Reagan was a deficit spending. Compare the Reagan recession to the beginning of the Clinton era when we were flush with money because the cold war was over. We closed bases everywhere and the economy prospered because they spent the money elsewhere. Clinton left with a recession looming too.

I know some people have too much pride to consider this, but unless you're one of the very richest in the country paying substantial amounts of taxes, you have NOT been covering the expenses for the benefits you've enjoyed through your life. Ever since before the Space Race, you've benefited from the huge expenditures of debt by government, which SOLD that debt to increasingly larger numbers of poorer nations. And those poorer nations have been bilking their people for the resources for your benefit. So you and I have been flourishing off the desperate conditions in foreign nations who have bought our debt through history. That was an eye opener for me when I realized it.

That's a fact. Dictators who are defrauding their people from their wealth are giving it to us so we can pave roads, pay pensions, create war, educate people. You're flattering yourself if you think you're feeding 50% of the people in this country because they pay no income taxes. 

Government has been borrowing and spending since you were born. We've never carried our weight. We count on future labor of people who aren't even born or old enough to work yet to do that for us. That AIN'T free market. 
One small example: each student in public school or accredited college receives thousands of dollars per year toward education to employ and provide materials for that class. You pay how much in income taxes per year? Did you go to a public school or college? How many kids and grandkids to you have and how much income tax does the family pay. Then we can move to something bigger like roadway projects and military/defense.


----------



## alwaysready (May 16, 2012)

Originally Posted by tenOC

People in America are born on third base and think they hit a triple.

I disagree and while we may have been born on third base why is now that we find ourselvs standing on second base looking back at first base? We were on third because our forbears put us there through their efforts. Why are we not on home plate? Because our elected officals who should have been trusted servants *Sold their souls to the devil! Oops I mean big business.* But that's neighter here nor there because it's now the bottom of the ninth. All we can do is prepare for game over.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

BillS said:


> That depends on who your are. You benefited if you're part of the Food Stamp Nation or you got the Earned Income Tax Credit or AFDC or tax payer subsidized student loans or education grants from the federal government. You benefited if you're a federal worker because your pay and benefits are much higher than you could get from the private sector. You could also argue that you benefited from the federal government's overspending if you work for a defense contractor.
> 
> I would also argue that if you're part of the 50% of Americans that pay no income taxes that your free ride comes at our expense.


Gee.I get a whole 16$ a month in stamps, where'd mine go?


----------



## urbanprepping (Feb 21, 2012)

partdeux said:


> Dollar won't lose currency reserve status without a major calamity. Sovereign trading partners require assurances their bartering media is equivalent. The dollar used to provide that, BUT, there is nothing of value that can take it's place.


I believe respectfully you are wrong. We are loosing are reserve status. Iran won't sell oil with the us dollar. Brazil in no longer using it.

China never has. And they are the largest hold of our debit.

The biggest issue here is the debit. Oil ( or reserve) is the only backing the the dollar. Thanks to Nixon when he trade gold for oil and the to be used as the oils barring counties reserve.

We are screwed no matter how the fed try's to play.

Banks and corporation are being held together while people. Loose there homes and starve. Look at Greece.

This is vey close to our soon to be future. But I fear it will e worst.

We need statesman. Not salesman in office. It is apparrent that the powers that be have chosen Romney. Another puppet. They want to avoid a civil war or possibly a race war at any cost


----------



## urbanprepping (Feb 21, 2012)

tenOC said:


> Reagan was a deficit spending. Compare the Reagan recession to the beginning of the Clinton era when we were flush with money because the cold war was over. We closed bases everywhere and the economy prospered because they spent the money elsewhere. Clinton left with a recession looming too.
> 
> I know some people have too much pride to consider this, but unless you're one of the very richest in the country paying substantial amounts of taxes, you have NOT been covering the expenses for the benefits you've enjoyed through your life. Ever since before the Space Race, you've benefited from the huge expenditures of debt by government, which SOLD that debt to increasingly larger numbers of poorer nations. And those poorer nations have been bilking their people for the resources for your benefit. So you and I have been flourishing off the desperate conditions in foreign nations who have bought our debt through history. That was an eye opener for me when I realized it.
> 
> ...


The government our government only job is to defend us and deal with trading. Read the constitution. When that was are governments job federal. We were strong and flush.

They can keep thier benefits. What they should is create jobs. They we as Americans don't need there benefits.

The middle class America is eroding. There are no manufacturing jobs in America. Over the last 40 years we have lost 1400 factories a year. Employing from a few to 1000 of people.

That the problem. Not benefits. They want us begging them for food stamps to pay are rent

Don't kid yourself. In believing other wise.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

"Did you go to a public school "
Most of the public school money comes from property taxes.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

When I say 'benefit', I'm not talking about Food Stamps, EBT, AFDC, WIC, or any other entitlement program. I'm talking about enjoying the fruits of the situation by just living in America. I don't work for gov and I don't receive aid or tax credits from government as a result of unearned income tax credits like many middle class families do. I don't have kids. In school I did get Pall grants. I worked 2 jobs, one at UPS ($8.50 hr) unloading trucks from 5pm to 8-10 pm at which time I went to my second job 4 nights per week. Eventually I got one job as a salesman and was top producer every month, setting a single day sales record in 6 hours never equaled until someone did it in an 12-14 hr shift. We didn't make much, it's just who I am. By then I didn't qualify for grants, so I took 3 $1780 loans, but only used one loan (the others were my cushion if I lost the job or had a car expense, which I did. It was an $1100 repair expense). When I graduated, I paid all 3 off in full, having no school debt at graduation.



> We benefited greatly for the overspending the government has done.


I didn't limit my statement to which government does the _overspending_. States have debt. And states receive federal funds for public education. I believe it's 15% of our state's public school spending. 
And that is one example. 
I also mentioned the LARGER EXPENDITURES like roadway projects and military/defense. All states get federal funding for the paved roads you drive on, for the widening of the paved roads you drive on. Roadways have utilities alongside them (above ground and below). Factories produce earth moving equipment and they hire private sector workers to build that equipment, sewer pipe, telephone cable, gas pipe, water pipe, electric conductor, street lights, signal lights, concrete, asphalt, paint, steel, rebar, copper mining, copper smelting, the equipment for the same, etc., etc., etc.. and in this state, much of it is placed by private sector employees working on government funded projects that they won through the bidding process. And the result is a road that carries more traffic faster to the retail or private sector job locations.

And that's just one example of all the private sector jobs we enjoy due to .gov overspending. And then doesn't even get to Jim-bob Logging company who harvests and trucks to privately owned factories which produce OSB plywood to sell to defense contractors in Iraq *and the rest* of military spending.

These are only a couple of the ways you and I benefit from government overspending. And some of that debt is sold to Hugo Chavez, Warren Buffet, the Chinese communists and the Saudi royal family; the debt loaded onto the backs of the unborn or children here and abroad.

If you ever get to the point that you accept the dark aspects of the situation which we're taking advantage of, you have to ask yourself, "Would you choose to halt any of it if it means you'll suffer a lesser lifestyle as a result of refusing to have other people oppressed and suffering for your benefit?"


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

BillS said:


> We'd be better off because government spending doesn't fuel GDP. In fact, all the government spending, taxes and additional regulations have slowed down the economy to the brink of collapse. Compare that to when Reagan was president


Government spending doesn't fuel GDP...

Welfare mom buying formula doesn't create GDP for the formula producer or provide wages for the grocery store clerk?

IRS agent doesn't buy a new car, providing jobs for the UAW worker?

Politician doesn't buy a house and pay taxes?


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

urbanprepping said:


> I believe respectfully you are wrong. We are loosing are reserve status. Iran won't sell oil with the us dollar. Brazil in no longer using it.


Iran can't sell oil using the dollar anyway, imbargo forced that decision.

Problem being, US dollar is involved in something like 65-70% of all global transactions. Euro is another 15-20%... With the dollar, everybody knows what they are getting (or think they do), and everybody can subsequently trade those dollars for something else they need.  Two countries can easily trade equivalent value products with each other. When the trade circle expands out to 3 or more countries, what is of value to the first two, may not have any value to the third country. International trade just came to a screeching halt, because there is no common trade commodity.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

What you fail to understand Mr. partdeux is that government must first take from others (through taxes & fees) the results of their hard labor. The velocity of the money spent by the government is less than that in the private sector. Hence if the government really wanted to grow the economy, they'd *lower taxes* so that the private economy would take off and generate more tax revenue. The last 5 years have shown the limits of Keynesian economic theory.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

tenOC said:


> Reagan was a deficit spending. Compare the Reagan recession to the beginning of the Clinton era when we were flush with money because the cold war was over. We closed bases everywhere and the economy prospered because they spent the money elsewhere. Clinton left with a recession looming too.
> 
> I know some people have too much pride to consider this, but unless you're one of the very richest in the country paying substantial amounts of taxes, you have NOT been covering the expenses for the benefits you've enjoyed through your life. Ever since before the Space Race, you've benefited from the huge expenditures of debt by government, which SOLD that debt to increasingly larger numbers of poorer nations. And those poorer nations have been bilking their people for the resources for your benefit. So you and I have been flourishing off the desperate conditions in foreign nations who have bought our debt through history. That was an eye opener for me when I realized it.
> 
> ...


Reagan wasn't a deficit spender. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for 50 years. Tip O'Neill always made it a point to say that Reagan's budget was dead on arrival. Congress controlled spending. Reagan wasn't able to get the spending cuts he wanted. Farm subsidies in particular. Starting with Carter we had baseline budgeting where spending increased across the board by 13%. Increasing spending by a smaller amount was considered a cut.


----------



## BlueShoe (Aug 7, 2010)

Marcus said:


> What you fail to understand Mr. partdeux is that government must first take from others (through taxes & fees) the results of their hard labor. The velocity of the money spent by the government is less than that in the private sector. Hence if the government really wanted to grow the economy, they'd *lower taxes* so that the private economy would take off and generate more tax revenue. The last 5 years have shown the limits of Keynesian economic theory.


I think we, I mean they, are only pursuing part of Keynes' theory. The part we aren't following is during good times Keynes said to stock pile surpluses. The government just spends money in good times. Keynes says to expand deficit spending during bad times, some of that being the surplus you have been holding. But surplus in government is not something I want. If they have a surplus, they need to return it.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

partdeux said:


> The dollar used to provide that, BUT, there is nothing of value that can take it's place.


You forget the obvious answer.
Gooold (and its stepsister, our precious precious silver...)



tenOC said:


> We benefited greatly for the overspending the government has done.


100% correct. You go into it partially later, and the point is NOT actually the food stamps, and all the other crap (see below).



TheAnt said:


> BillS is right about the only folks that have benefitted and I am not among them.


We all benefit greatly from the fact that the dollar is the reserve currency. Imagine (we all have on this forum) if it wasnt? Our costs for everything would be much higher.
The obvious downside to this is that we have only one way to keep it this way. War. Most of our recent wars in the ME have revolved around this principle. Our agreement with the Sauds to protect them. Libya and Iran threatening to deal in other currencies. Its more important than the oil itself. Unfortunately if one serves in our current military, this is what you would be protecting, our 'way of life'. Not our freedoms. Our money.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

Marcus said:


> What you fail to understand Mr. partdeux is that government must first take from others (through taxes & fees) the results of their hard labor. The velocity of the money spent by the government is less than that in the private sector. Hence if the government really wanted to grow the economy, they'd *lower taxes* so that the private economy would take off and generate more tax revenue. The last 5 years have shown the limits of Keynesian economic theory.


I understand it perfectly. BUT, if you were to suddenly take 1.5T of govt spending out of the US govt's budget, the impact on the GDP would be much greater then 1.5T, which further reduces revenue. Right now, almost 50% of US households receive a significant portion of their income from Govt. That's substantial and makes me wonder how much of the GDP comes from the govt spending.



BillS said:


> Reagan wasn't a deficit spender. Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for 50 years. Tip O'Neill always made it a point to say that Reagan's budget was dead on arrival. Congress controlled spending. Reagan wasn't able to get the spending cuts he wanted. Farm subsidies in particular. Starting with Carter we had baseline budgeting where spending increased across the board by 13%. Increasing spending by a smaller amount was considered a cut.


Reagan ran a deficit each and every year he was in office. That data is available straight from the OMB website. The following years (from 1960 on) had non deficit spending
1960
1969
1998
1999
2000
2001

That's it, over 52 years, and only SIX years had non deficit spending. Funny thing, most of those occurred with Democrat President


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

partdeux said:


> That's substantial and makes me wonder how much of the GDP comes from the govt spending.


In theory its 1/3rd. but its gotta be much more than that, doesnt it? 
e.g. -If I live in section 8 housing, how is that money counted if it goes straight to the homeowner? In reality wouldnt it have to be counted twice?


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

partdeux said:


> I understand it perfectly. BUT, if you were to suddenly take 1.5T of govt spending out of the US govt's budget, the impact on the GDP would be much greater then 1.5T, which further reduces revenue. Right now, almost 50% of US households receive a significant portion of their income from Govt. That's substantial and makes me wonder how much of the GDP comes from the govt spending.
> 
> Reagan ran a deficit each and every year he was in office. That data is available straight from the OMB website. The following years (from 1960 on) had non deficit spending
> 1960
> ...


So your argument is that Democrats are more responsible with money than Republicans? Then how is that hope and change working for you?


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

BillS said:


> So your argument is that Democrats are more responsible with money than Republicans? Then how is that hope and change working for you?


Don't know me very well then 

I think they're all a bunch of crooks and the whole lot need to be thrown out.

The best economic performance has come from a D president, and an R congress, that dug their heels in.


----------



## Magus (Dec 1, 2008)

Like the man says, crooks/clean house.

Now we HOPE somebody CHANGEs it back!


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Marcus said:


> What you fail to understand Mr. partdeux is that government must first take from others (through taxes & fees) the results of their hard labor.


While this is of course true, flooding the system with printed money is worse. At least we can see the taxes.



Marcus said:


> The velocity of the money spent by the government is less than that in the private sector. Hence if the government really wanted to grow the economy, they'd *lower taxes* so that the private economy would take off and generate more tax revenue.


I cant dispute the idea, but I would have to say that the bulk of gubt spending goes directly into some human beings pocket and therefore would be the same. I tried to actually look this up but couldnt find anything. The only portion I can see that glaringly jumps out at you is gubt pensions. The part that is not actually pension payments would seemingly have a lower velocity. Any form of direct payment to a citizen(ism) would at least in theory have the same velocity as if they made it at their job, no?
At risk of sounding like a socialist (heh, wouldnt be the first time) I think one could debate the differences in V between payments to the rich and the poor. I would guess that V is much higher among the poor, or at least in the sense that V is 'beneficial' to society at large.
Oh, if this was in a non money thread I'd get torn apart. But please, discuss, or let me have it if you feel so inclined! Since it certainly looks like I am advocating giving more money to the poor.



partdeux said:


> I understand it perfectly. BUT, if you were to suddenly take 1.5T of govt spending out of the US govt's budget, the impact on the GDP would be much greater then 1.5T, which further reduces revenue.


And therein lies the rub. Austerity. I assume were all for it in principle, but its a double edged sword. Its great to talk about hypothetically, but imagine the Greeks and Spanish? The average person is gonna get the shaft, whether theyre on the dole in some way or not. In our utopian world of 'every dollar they spent came out of my hard work, so every dollar they dont spend is automatically back in my pocket' is obviously false. Money printing and fractional reserve banking take care of that. Its great to talk about lowering spending in the abstract, not so much when it closes down the plant and finds you out of a job.

Oh, and the reason I posted in the first place, China courting Chile to avoid the dollar.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

partdeux said:


> Government spending doesn't fuel GDP...
> 
> Welfare mom buying formula doesn't create GDP for the formula producer or provide wages for the grocery store clerk?
> 
> ...


If government spending fuels GDP then why don't we have prosperity following an additional $5 trillion in deficit spending?

The reason is that the cost to the economy of government spending is greater than the benefit derived from it.

If government spending created prosperity than communism would work.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

tenOC said:


> I know some people have too much pride to consider this, but unless you're one of the very richest in the country paying substantial amounts of taxes, you have NOT been covering the expenses for the benefits you've enjoyed through your life. Ever since before the Space Race, you've benefited from the huge expenditures of debt by government, which SOLD that debt to increasingly larger numbers of poorer nations. And those poorer nations have been bilking their people for the resources for your benefit. So you and I have been flourishing off the desperate conditions in foreign nations who have bought our debt through history. That was an eye opener for me when I realized it.


I don't understand this. You seem to be blaming the American people because the government overspent. I never asked for that. I never voted for that. The worst presidential spenders are Democrats and they get elected by pretending to be conservative.

Some of the worst federal spending is welfare. Like food stamps, AFDC, and the Earned Income Credit. All things that reward having illegitimate children and being irresponsible.


----------



## alwaysready (May 16, 2012)

BillS said:


> I don't understand this. You seem to be blaming the American people because the government overspent. I never asked for that. I never voted for that. The worst presidential spenders are Democrats and they get elected by pretending to be conservative.
> 
> Some of the worst federal spending is welfare. Like food stamps, AFDC, and the Earned Income Credit. All things that reward having illegitimate children and being irresponsible.


You have a good point but foreign aid trumps all of these.


----------



## Freyadog (Jan 27, 2010)

BillS said:


> I don't understand this. You seem to be blaming the American people because the government overspent. I never asked for that. I never voted for that. The worst presidential spenders are Democrats and they get elected by pretending to be conservative.
> 
> Some of the worst federal spending is welfare. Like food stamps, AFDC, and the Earned Income Credit. All things that reward having illegitimate children and being irresponsible.


Amen. Best quote yet.

when Thumper was unemployed winter before last for 4 1/2 months we never even went and applied for food stamps or anything else. We ate out of our stored stuff and never looked around for what we could get for free. It never dawned on us to ask or apply for anything.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

I dont see how you guys are missing this. We all benefit immensely from our standing in the world, both through gubt spending and the dollar being the reserve currency, which is kept in place due to the military.
Poloticians that spew that nationalistic patriotic crap about supporting our troops are blowing smoke up your patoot (I have never written that word before in my life). It has nothing to do with 'protecting our freedoms' or 'defending our way of life' at least during my lifetime. Its all about protecting our beloved access to resources (oil) but MOST IMPORTANTLY the dollars reserve status. If we didnt protect the Sauds someone else would, and then their currency would be the reserve, and we would be screwed. Yuan? Ruble? Anyone?

There is no difference between the two parties! Thats what they want us to think, so we expect a different outcome by voting for the other!

And Freya, I totally respect your stance on not taking any gubt assistance, but think of it this way. You have been paying for it all of your working life, directly or indirectly. Whats wrong with getting some of that money back? Dont think of it as a handout, because unless you have never paid into the system, its not.
I dont know how it works in your state, but for me, unemployment insurance comes directly from my paycheck. Ill be damned if I wont take it if needed.
They have been stealing my money forever, so if I can get anything back from them, I damned sure will.
I am not trying to come down on you, thats your point of view and certainly your prerogative. Do you not write anything off on your taxes? Did you not take the $300 (or whatever you got) from the Bush tax rebate? Whats the difference? They are stealing your money! Whats wrong with getting some of it back, however they want to phrase it?


----------



## Hooch (Jul 22, 2011)

*austrailia and china bypass $ too now*

I read a few days ago that china and austrailia just made a deal to bypass using the dollar in trade agreements. another nail in the coffin...


----------



## db2469 (Jun 11, 2012)

Hooch said:


> I read a few days ago that china and austrailia just made a deal to bypass using the dollar in trade agreements. another nail in the coffin...


I thought the australian dollar WAS their currency..
DB


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

db2469 said:


> I thought the australian dollar WAS their currency..
> DB


The Australian dollar is their currency but they use the US dollar for foreign trade. Until the last few years the vast majority of foreign trade was done in US dollars.

In a way, the US dollar has been the world's biggest scam. All those dollars sitting around in central banks doing nothing allowed almost unlimited dollar printing over the last 40 years. Imagine if you borrowed money from everyone you knew and gave them IOU's. And instead of cashing them in they started using them when they bought stuff from each other. That would be an awesome deal for anybody. It's estimated that 90% of the dollars in existence are held outside the country. When there's panic selling of the dollar it will be a catastrophe for America.


----------



## Hooch (Jul 22, 2011)

sorry... I shoulda been more specific. whoops...


----------

