I don't necessarily believe this, and if I did, I don't necessarily claim it's smart policy. I'm just thinking out loud.

I have long held to the view that at least part of the reason for invading Iraq on '03 was that it represented a chance to geopolitically neuter Iran, by surrounding them with U.S. occupied countries, client states/proxies, and relatively pro-western countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Qatar, UAE). I mean, Palestine is kind of a sticking point, but really the countries that matter in the region that we weren't on good (or good enough) terms with were Syria, Iran, and Iraq, and maybe the view was that taking a militarily easier Iraq would marginalize Iran enough to get 2 for the price of one, sort of. Plus, there has been the ongoing hypothesis that eventually the more progressive young masses would rise up in Iran and overthrow the hardliner government if we'll just wait it out. That, and Iran has the ability to disrupt oil flow from the Gulf via the Straits of Hormuz.

Fast forward to a few months ago, with the "Arab Spring", and now the (presumably) final chapter with Libya (again, with some "nudging" from the West). Anyone else suspect that the invisible hand of the CIA is involved in some (not all) of those countries rising up and successfully overthrowing governments?

I have to at least wonder if there has been a broad yet not explicitly stated (at least publicly) U.S. policy to basically "hard reboot" the entire region via the combined efforts of diplomacy, covert action, and military action.

8/22/2011 8:49:29 PM

Quote :

"I have to at least wonder if there has been a broad yet not explicitly stated (at least publicly) U.S. policy to basically "hard reboot" the entire region via the combined efforts of diplomacy, covert action, and military action."

Hard to say, and I doubt this would come to light until many years from now. We know that the CIA, in cooperation with the British government, overthrew Iran's elected government in 1953, two years after Iran (with the Shah's support) decided to nationalize their oil fields. Prior to that, the oil fields had been owned by a British company. Five American oil companies were then put in charge of the oil fields, after the coup. Even though Iran has been demonized quite effectively by U.S. figures, the circumstances there are most certainly a result of a chain of events set off by Western powers.

So, the policy of overthrowing governments is nothing new, but it's never been done for humanitarian reasons, it has always been to secure resources. The ruling class barely gives a shit about people in the United States, much less some ragheads in the Middle East. This has always been about serving American corporate interests, and I'm certain that U.S. involvement in the Arab Springs (as it has been branded) are no different.

It could be said, even, that the U.S. is served well by having despotic governments installed in the Middle East, and this is assuredly the view of those determining policy behind the scenes. When it comes to oil availability, the U.S. would rather have tyrannies firmly in place, as long as we have a hand in the oil trade. We don't want countries in that region using their resources to benefit their own people. That would increase the price of gasoline here. I think that the U.S. (and Western powers) have intentionally created chaos in that part of the world to prevent genuine democracy from taking root.

8/22/2011 9:25:44 PM

Who said anything about such a foreign policy being primarily rooted in charity?

8/22/2011 9:36:07 PM

No one, and I think you've expressed in the past that you don't think our foreign intervention is (or should be) primarily for humanitarian reasons.

My point is that I don't think our involvement there is intended to result in a positive outcome for the people of those countries. I think in many cases, we get involved to make sure that the revolution unfolds in a way that will be positive for us. Genuine liberal democracies in the Middle East are terrible for U.S., at least in the short-term. We want U.S. friendly military dictators in power that can easily be bribed. It's worth noting that what's "good" for the United States right this minute is not necessarily good for humanity in the long-term.

What I don't know is when the CIA actually pulls the trigger and starts making moves. Do they set off the revolution, or do they just hijack it? In Iran's case, they actually started it. In more recent events, I have to admit that I don't know.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 9:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2011 9:43:00 PM

duh op

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM. Reason : find chaos in the world or something wrong and the cia won't be far]

8/22/2011 9:52:41 PM

I think that's not a very balanced view of the CIA (though they have had some spectacular fails over the years, to be sure), and it's hard to really form much of an opinion about them, because you never hear about most of what they've done, let alone all the nuances of the situations.

Regardless, the entire premise is that I wonder if this is the broader policy at play here, beyond some CIA covert action or simply dealing with things like Iraq and Afghanistan on a short-to-medium term basis and viewed largely in their own vacuums.

8/22/2011 10:29:16 PM

Quote :

"Anyone else suspect that the invisible hand of the CIA is involved in some (not all) of those countries rising up and successfully overthrowing governments? "

I think you vastly overestimate the CIA.

Quote :

"I have to at least wonder if there has been a broad yet not explicitly stated (at least publicly) U.S. policy to basically "hard reboot" the entire region via the combined efforts of diplomacy, covert action, and military action."

That was explicitly one objective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 11:43 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2011 11:37:55 PM

you mean broad policy like something to benefit the corporations of the world? no way!. The days of national empires are long over. We live in the world of multinational corporations forming empires and renting out national armies to do their clear-cutting. US is simply an arm of the global sect of corporate empires.

8/22/2011 11:41:27 PM

You mean the Jews.

8/22/2011 11:48:52 PM

I dunno. I think that case could have been made with the Bush admin. But Obama has been a bit slow on the uptake in supporting revolutions throughout the middle east. If he is working to "nudge" the region, I would say he is only reluctant in doing so.

In any case, if the US is trying to reboot the region, I wouldn't give their efforts too much credit. I think the argument that recent food price volatility was a significant spark makes a lot of sense. There is certainly historical precedence (see Russian February Revolution).

8/22/2011 11:51:07 PM

Quote :

"Fast forward to a few months ago, with the "Arab Spring", and now the (presumably) final chapter with Libya (again, with some "nudging" from the West). Anyone else suspect that the invisible hand of the CIA is involved in some (not all) of those countries rising up and successfully overthrowing governments? "

Makes me feel like trolling - "anything that happens in the world, at all, is because we meant it to happen"

8/23/2011 7:56:52 AM

Quote :

"I think that's not a very balanced view of the CIA (though they have had some spectacular fails over the years, to be sure), and it's hard to really form much of an opinion about them, because you never hear about most of what they've done, let alone all the nuances of the situations."

Plenty of shit is known about the CIA and what he said might have been an exaggeration but it's not far from the truth

Quote :

"I think you vastly overestimate the CIA."

The CIA has done some pretty spectacular shit before. Have you read a history of the organization or through any of their declassified materials?

Quote :

"Do they set off the revolution, or do they just hijack it?"

Plenty of examples of both. In Costa Rica they essentially infiltrated leftist organizations to make them impotent. In Guatemala they staged an invasion. Really depends on what they expect will be effective.

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 8:05 AM. Reason : .]

8/23/2011 8:01:06 AM

I vaguely recall a notoriously dumb female poster being mocked mercilessly on here for suggesting the CIA involvement in some event...

8/23/2011 8:48:17 AM

Quote :

" have long held to the view that at least part of the reason for invading Iraq on '03 was that it represented a chance to geopolitically neuter Iran"

Wasn't pre invasion iraq already a pretty good balance of power for Iran in the region?

8/23/2011 9:06:59 AM

Quote :

"The CIA has done some pretty spectacular shit before. Have you read a history of the organization or through any of their declassified materials?"

There is nothing in their recent history (that I'm aware of) that would indicate to me that they are capable of causing a mass movement on the scale of the Arab Spring.

The CIA does a relatively decent job of providing arms and logistical support to rebel groups, and I don't doubt they are doing just that in Libya. But there is no way they managed to manipulate the psyche of the entire Arab world. If they could do something like that, well, shit, we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago.

Quote :

"In Costa Rica they essentially infiltrated leftist organizations to make them impotent. In Guatemala they staged an invasion. "

If the Arab Spring could possibly be the result of one group being infiltrated then I would consider your point. But I don't see any evidence of that being the case. Do you?

I mean, isn't the simplest (and therefore most likely) explanation that Arabs, suffering from poverty and repression, just got really pissed at their incompetent, authoritarian governments?

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 9:26 AM. Reason : ]

8/23/2011 9:18:42 AM

Quote :

"There is nothing in their recent history (that I'm aware of) that would indicate to me that they are capable of causing a mass movement on the scale of the Arab Spring. The CIA does a relatively decent job of providing arms and logistical support to rebel groups, and I don't doubt they are doing just that in Libya. But there is no way they managed to manipulate the psyche of the entire Arab world. If they could do something like that, well, shit, we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago."

I find it implausible that they currently have this capability as well, but it doesn't really pay to underestimate the CIA when it comes to either cleverness or self-serving maliciousness.

Quote :

"If the Arab Spring could possibly be the result of one group being infiltrated then I would consider your point. But I don't see any evidence of that being the case. Do you? I mean, isn't the simplest (and therefore most likely) explanation that Arabs, suffering from poverty and repression, just got really pissed at their incompetent, authoritarian governments? "

Yeah I'm not really trying to push "the CIA did it" here because I don't find it plausible. I'm just speaking as a voice of caution in this thread, because people tend to assume the CIA is/was a lot less powerful than it is/was.

8/23/2011 9:53:51 AM

Quote :

"Makes me feel like trolling - "anything that happens in the world, at all, is because we meant it to happen""

No, I'm not saying that...I'm saying that I wonder if we saw a few dominos wobbling, gave them a little bump, and then the rest unfolded from there, with our continuing to nudge or resist covertly as able, depending on the country.

Quote :

"Plenty of shit is known about the CIA and what he said might have been an exaggeration but it's not far from the truth"

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't say it's tough to form an opinion about them...but I do maintain that you have to be careful in your judgment, for the reasons I mentioned.

Quote :

"Wasn't pre invasion iraq already a pretty good balance of power for Iran in the region?"

After the routing they got from us in '91, and the sanctions imposed since, I'd say that a U.S. armed/occupied/client state Iraq would be not only a far better balance of power, but a balance more aligned with American interests (rather than being the lesser of two evils, as in the 80s).

Quote :

"There is nothing in their recent history (that I'm aware of) that would indicate to me that they are capable of causing a mass movement on the scale of the Arab Spring. "

I don't know about you, but even with my clearance, I haven't had a chance to read much about their recent history, period.

Quote :

"But there is no way they managed to manipulate the psyche of the entire Arab world. If they could do something like that, well, shit, we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan years ago. "

Quote :

"I mean, isn't the simplest (and therefore most likely) explanation that Arabs, suffering from poverty and repression, just got really pissed at their incompetent, authoritarian governments? "

Of course--that much is obvious. I'm not suggesting that the CIA manufactured the entire Arab Spring out of thin air or had any sort of omnipotent control over the collective situation, either to start it, stop it, or fully direct it. I'm just suggesting that it could have be fueled and shaped in a meaningful way in concert with diplomatic and military efforts over the last decade, as part of a broader, longer-term (like 50+ year horizon), better orchestrated policy than appears at first glance.

8/23/2011 10:18:22 AM

Well, I don't know what you've been reading that makes you think Langley, the Pentagon, or Foggy Bottom saw any of this coming, let alone had a hand in instigating it. All the reporting I've seen seems to indicate the exact opposite, which would not be a surprise, given the sad state of our intelligence agencies (at least when it comes to predicting macro-level developments).

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ]

8/23/2011 11:14:40 AM

If any of us actually had knowledge of or access to CIA intelligence, that intelligence would be worthless because everyone else in the world would know about it too. I don't think the CIA is in a sad state at all. I disagree with many of the policies they carry out, and I'm wary of the secretive, unaccountable nature of the organization, but I don't think they're incompetent.

8/23/2011 11:21:22 AM

While I don't doubt that our friends in Langley probably had a hand in fueling some of these events, I don't think there was a comprehensive strategy for it across the foreign policy bureaucracy. The way the administration handled Egypt appeared to me like a leadership that was caught off guard by events on the ground. If the administration was truly attempting to replace the Egyptian government, I think they would have been a lot quicker at calling for the end of the Mubarak regime.

8/23/2011 11:57:26 AM

I want to work for them.

8/23/2011 11:57:35 AM

Quote :

"The CIA has small teams of officers, backed by private U.S. contractors with special operations experience helping to guide Libyan rebel fighters, according to two former U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters. The Obama administration is debating whether to widen the role of those U.S. intelligence teams to include hunting for Gadhafi's weapons arsenal, several officials said. The administration has ruled out sending any U.S. troops to Libya, and is resisting internal calls inside the intelligence and counterterrorism community to expand the CIA's covert mission, two former U.S. officials said. Since the CIA teams are operating covertly, they are not considered to be official participants in the U.N.-sanctioned mission to protect civilians in Libya. "

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/25/us-says-libyan-chemical-nuclear-material-secure/ (AP)

Heh.

8/26/2011 10:51:04 AM

Quote :

"Fast forward to a few months ago, with the "Arab Spring", and now the (presumably) final chapter with Libya (again, with some "nudging" from the West). Anyone else suspect that the invisible hand of the CIA is involved in some (not all) of those countries rising up and successfully overthrowing governments? I have to at least wonder if there has been a broad yet not explicitly stated (at least publicly) U.S. policy to basically "hard reboot" the entire region via the combined efforts of diplomacy, covert action, and military action."

i'm not saying the CIA is not involved, but i think if forced to point to any one thing that led to "Arab Spring", i would point to Bernanke's QE2.

Food prices spiked once QE2 took hold -- meanwhile the existing Arab leaders were "letting them eat cake". the reason there was no Arab Spring in Saudi Arabia is because the kingdom enacted a bunch of economic stimuli and safety nets -- now, was this done at the behest of American suggestion (maybe the CIA), or was it foresight by their leadership? maybe a little bit of both..

8/26/2011 4:00:56 PM

Honestly, I would be disappointed with the CIA if it turned out they didn't have anyone on the ground in Libya.

8/26/2011 4:02:14 PM

Quote :

"now, was this done at the behest of American suggestion (maybe the CIA), or was it foresight by their leadership? maybe a little bit of both.."

Shit, I have no problem believing that there was a CIA or State Department push for QE2 (though there's no way that QE2 was simply a CIA plot) for that reason.

The U.S. most definitely engages in economic warfare. It's one of our greatest weapons. The CIA specifically also doesn't confine itself to spywork and surveillance, arming our rebels of choice, or direct paramilitary activity:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

I mean, I wouldn't put anything past that organization, haha. I may be giving them too much credit, but you are selling them short if you don't think that they have the brainpower and leverage to pull off some crazy shit.

[Edited on August 26, 2011 at 5:06 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2011 5:06:36 PM

It's not that the CIA isn't capable. They obviously can and have orchestrated revolutions behind the scenes. But I think that this particular set of uprisings, when looked at from a historical context, will ultimately be defined by how little the West had to do with their inceptions (other than the obvious influence the internet has had). The people of those nations were genuinely fed up with the hand they had been dealt since birth, and wanted a fair shot at earning the same quality of life that most of us here in the United States and Europe have enjoyed.

Another big part of it is that the oil money that has basically financed these dictatorships for the past 40 years or so is finally starting to dry up.

8/26/2011 5:32:11 PM

I don't think you or anyone else knows how these events will be viewed in a historical context, precisely because it's not history yet.

Presently, though, it's clear that unprecedented monetary policy has driven up wholesale prices worldwide. In regions where a relatively high percentage of income is spent on food, much of which is imported, social unrest tends to result. Do I think the CIA pushed for this outcome? I'm not even willing to speculate. It comes down to the age old question: are our leaders incompetent, evil, or a little bit of both. I hope they're just idiots and will eventually recognize the error of their ways. My fear is that they are sinister and are attempting to extract every last bit of wealth until they pull the rug from underneath the global economy and give the people a middle finger.

8/26/2011 6:47:03 PM

Its not clear that monetary policy is driving up food prices -- supply and demand can be blamed just as easily



More than Libya or Egypt I'd like to know if the CIA was actively involved in repressing uprisings in Bahrain or Saudia Arabia in any way.

8/26/2011 8:23:47 PM

That's part if why I wonder if there's a broader, more concerted US effort.

8/26/2011 11:06:30 PM

Quote :

"The CIA has done some pretty spectacular shit before. Have you read a history of the organization or through any of their declassified materials? "

I read through "A Legacy of Ashes," which could be dry but which was pretty thorough in its review of the CIA, an organization that has been plagued from the get-go by a muddled mission, incompetent/insane/destructively alcoholic managers at all levels, and an inability to coordinate with damn near anyone.

They've had few big wins. Most of the "overthrows" they get credited with were likely to have done fine without their help. In fact, IIRC, they almost screwed up coups that they supported on at least one occasion.

The last impressive piece of intelligence they got was predicting the Seven Day War. Given our ties with Israel, "impressive" is stretching it.

C'mon, Mike, you of all people should know that corporations are way better at this kind of shady shit than the CIA. Dole and Chiquita and whatnot managed to create a number of banana republics, to say nothing of overthrowing Hawaii so well that now it's the state that the president is from. They managed all that without the agency. Hell, CIA is lucky when it manages to kill all kinds of Cubans except for the one it actually wants to kill.

---

So no, I don't think CIA is heavily involved in the Arab Spring. Aside from what I consider their inability to pull something like that off, the targets don't make sense. Remember, there were demonstrations in Iraq (which we run), Egypt (with whom we had a good thing going, Mideast Peace-wise), Bahrain (key ally), Yemen (where the government, bag of assholes though it may be, was risking its ass to let us shoot missiles at people), Tunisia (a relatively moderate country in the region with no major interest to us), and Libya (with whom we had just re-established relations and oil deals). On top of all that, I've just listed a bunch of countries where real zealots aren't in charge -- and are thus candidates to fill any power vacuum.

If I'm an organ of the US government, I'm thinking Iran and Syria. If I'm really ballsy, I'm eying Saudi Arabia. You get a popular revolt in Iran or SA and you'd be hard pressed to find people even more extreme to take over.

8/27/2011 3:20:00 AM

Can't touch SA unless you overthrew Iran first.

Also the Saudi royals have been fairly moderate and historically fairly cooperative.

8/27/2011 9:38:33 AM

Moderate? Surely you jest. And even as far as cooperation goes, they agree with us out of one side of their mouths and keep pouring money into radical religious institutions that breed terrorists out of the other.

8/27/2011 3:25:23 PM

I think the CIA and possibly even OGA or SDF have played roles in every military or rebel uprising in the middle east. It makes too much sense and they way these fights progressed hinted at professional help/intel. And Obama saying "no troops on the ground" isn't entirely true. Sure, pure military troops aren't there (probably) but there are government and independent operatives on behalf of the U.S. in every middle eastern country and involved with these fights.

[Edited on August 27, 2011 at 4:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/27/2011 4:47:14 PM

Quote :

"Its not clear that monetary policy is driving up food prices -- supply and demand can be blamed just as easily"

Agreed. I think rises in food prices can be attributed to other factors: poor weather in several key global agricultural regions and hording by producer nations fearing social unrest from growing food prices.

8/27/2011 7:53:35 PM

Ethanol subsidies.

8/28/2011 11:41:28 AM

Quote :

"Its not clear that monetary policy is driving up food prices -- supply and demand can be blamed just as easily"

Yes, wholesale prices just happened to start skyrocketing in the years following extraordinary creation of fiat currency. Correlation does not imply causation, of course, but it seems like a pretty incredible coincidence.

8/28/2011 5:32:52 PM

Quote :

"Yes, wholesale prices just happened to start skyrocketing in the years following extraordinary creation of fiat currency. Correlation does not imply causation, of course, but it seems like a pretty incredible coincidence."

The age of digital computing dawns and then booms after the creation of fiat currency as well. Any other remarkable coincidences you want to catalog?

I'm happy to pile up some useless yet remarkable facts

Also LOL it would appear you're not very well-versed in commodity backed currency. How much financial history do you know?

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 7:55 AM. Reason : You want to see some prices jump around? TEh]

8/29/2011 7:53:28 AM

I'd argue that 2010-2011 was just an incredibly bad year for wheat




The price spike that is associated with the Arab Spring begins around August 2010. In the same month Russia, a top grain producer, banned all exports because of their epic drought/wildfires. Add on top of that the floods in Pakistan and Australia, the drought in China's wheat producing region and the volatility of oil/gas prices between August 2010 and spring 2011. QE2 didn't begin until after November.

Rice, which had a decent year, had a mostly flat price through the same period.

8/29/2011 8:10:13 AM

Quote :

"The age of digital computing dawns and then booms after the creation of fiat currency as well. Any other remarkable coincidences you want to catalog?"

Fiat currency is not new.

Quote :

"Also LOL it would appear you're not very well-versed in commodity backed currency. How much financial history do you know?"

I know a good deal more about it than you, apparently. Banking has been used since colonial times, and fiat currency was tried by the Chinese before that. Devaluation of commodity backed currency, of course, goes back much further. While the U.S. did not always have a central bank that could unilaterally create money (though it did at various times prior to the Federal Reserve), there have always been banks that were prodded to buy war bonds and things of that nature.

In nearly every case, the same thing happened: the government said it was okay for banks to renege on their commitments and not redeem their notes for specie (i.e. gold and silver), as was the original contractual agreement. The final nail in the coffin, on that front, was in 1971. This completely disregarded any notion of property rights.

While many historians have pointed to alleged "shortages of money," these deflationary periods were always preceded by reckless inflationary policies and the subsequent collapse of credit. There are no exceptions, and this time is not different. We may enter a deflationary spiral, but only as a result of the idiotic monetary policy that came before.

What's even more fascinating is that the initial boom in credit has almost always been to fund war efforts. Governments are notorious for either 1) Forcing the central bank to create credit or 2) Allowing private banks to lower their reserve requirements and create notes to buy war bonds. Of course, once the pyramid scheme is in full effect, the money gets spent on anything and everything, not just war.

^Yes...rice was flat until it spiked. Both commodities have failed to return to their original price.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 11:36:57 AM

The peak in rice prices occurred in about april or may 2008. Thats about 6 months before QE1 was announced. The price stayed relatively flat while QE1 was occurring and stayed that way through QE2.

I just don't think there is a strong connection

8/29/2011 12:13:41 PM

I'm not sure you're familiar with the way FOMC operates.

QE does not happen in "lump sum" injections. It's not as if QE1 or QE2 consisted of a single huge amount of currency being dumped into the global economy, immediately resulting in wholesale price increases. The money is "loaned" to banks at below market prices, and the banks can either keep the money as excess reserves, loan it out, or in some cases, invest it. Since most of this data is not made public until years after the fact, we don't know exactly where the money is going or how it circulates.

All that is certain is that, in the past few years while easing has gone on, commodity prices have taken off. Some of this is due to trading - the market recognizes that money creation is occurring, so they get out of money and into commodities. However, even this is an effect of inflation, and a rather predictable one. It's easy to blame everything on speculators, but speculators are just acting rationally - getting out of Federal Reserve notes and getting into things that have actual value.

8/29/2011 12:25:04 PM

So how does any of that explain how rice prices peaked well before QE1 and then flattened through QE1 and QE2? Why did investors choose to buy up wheat but not rice in 2010-2011?

I would argue the markets recognize that the supply of most commodities is tightening in the face of growing emerging market demand. Its the new normal and we should start expecting this whenever the weather is crappy.


/thread successfully hijacked.

8/29/2011 1:10:53 PM

Prices flattened out, but at a level substantially higher than they were at before. Rice peaks around Q2 of 2008, but that could easily been attributed the market anticipating debasement of the currency which was right around the corner. These spikes are usually the direct result of trading, but that doesn't change the fact that there has been an expansion of money and a decrease in purchasing power.

8/29/2011 1:28:16 PM

Quote :

"Prices flattened out, but at a level substantially higher than they were at before. Rice peaks around Q2 of 2008, but that could easily been attributed the market anticipating debasement of the currency which was right around the corner."

Except these investors are typically intelligent and not chumps who get their financial forecasts from zerohedge.org

Quote :

"These spikes are usually the direct result of trading, but that doesn't change the fact that there has been an expansion of money and a decrease in purchasing power."

The decrease in purchasing power is only true of the lower classes. CEO's and the otherwise managerial classes have more purchasing power than ever relative to their workers.

8/29/2011 1:32:38 PM

Quote :

"Except these investors are typically intelligent and not chumps who get their financial forecasts from zerohedge.org"

Zerohedge? Yeah right, bro. I watch CNBC for all my financial needs.

Quote :

"The decrease in purchasing power is only true of the lower classes. CEO's and the otherwise managerial classes have more purchasing power than ever relative to their workers."

Ah, yes. The ole lower classes that spend most of their money on food, energy, and rent, and live paycheck to paycheck. Surely, though, this inflationary policy of debasing the currency is benefiting them...somehow.

8/29/2011 1:59:02 PM

Quote :

"Rice peaks around Q2 of 2008, but that could easily been attributed the market anticipating debasement of the currency which was right around the corner"

Didn't the dollar index grow from about July 2008 to December 2008, when QE1 was announced. Shouldn't the market have anticipated that and we should have seen a weakening dollar?

8/29/2011 2:16:10 PM

I'm honestly too exhausted to get into a protracted argument about this shit, but I'm curious what you think about a couple of things, destroyer, if you don't mind.

I really need you to spell out your views on inflation more. Is any amount of inflation a breach of contract? What about deflation? I'm just curious what you expect out of a currency here; is it long-term price stability?

8/29/2011 2:20:55 PM

Quote :

"I really need you to spell out your views on inflation more. Is any amount of inflation a breach of contract?"

It's not necessarily a breach of contract. It has been in the past - throughout the 19th century (and even pre-1800), the U.S. government allowed private banks to suspend redemption of specie (that is, exchange their notes for the gold/silver that they originally deposited) when credit was overextended and money brokers attempted to crack down on this practice. In 1971 when Nixon took us off the gold standard and USD was established as the world reserve currency, this was intended to be a permanent suspension of specie.

Under our current system, though, the fraud of inflation is completely legal. The government can issue debt and debase the currency with almost no immediate consequences. I maintain that this is a completely immoral act, as it reduces the value (in real terms) of cash savings.

Quote :

"What about deflation? I'm just curious what you expect out of a currency here; is it long-term price stability?"

The value of money should go up over time, as production and value are added to the economy. This is not deflation in the sense that the money supply contracts - the money supply should actually increase. However, when production of other goods and services outpaces the supply of gold/silver/whatever, purchasing power goes up.

[Edited on August 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/29/2011 5:12:29 PM

Quote :

" The value of money should go up over time, as production and value are added to the economy"

Why? Sounds like you just want to get more money simply for existing over time.

8/29/2011 5:22:21 PM

Quote :

"Why? Sounds like you just want to get more money simply for existing over time."

That makes a lot more sense than losing money over time.

8/29/2011 5:31:58 PM