intresting.
I didn't know any state was still holding foreign currencies instead of gold.

^omfg.
that's .. like... omfg looris. you can't buy oil without dollars. so...

this is how bushco gets away with completely devaluing the dollar... nobody seems to be awake.

i earn GBP and USD, i spend EUR (well, LTL, but it's linked to EUR)
let me tell you, i have lost work from american clients because they just can't afford it.

this is VERY serious, and if anyone says "we need to stay in iraq to sort out the mess" just refer them to the fact that dollars aren't worth shit. i know it's nice to "bring democracy to the middle east" but if you just can't afford it, what are you gonna do?

also check out robert newman's history of oil for very interesting information about what happens to people (saddam) who try to abandon the dollar. notice that none of america's poodles are in the list. now you understand what the "axis of evil" is all about.

Just to sort of ellaborate on what MINK said:

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 subsidiser 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.

[...]

So far only one OPEC country has dared switch to the euro: Iraq, in November 20002, 3. There is little doubt that this was a deliberate attempt by Saddam to strike back at the US, but in economic terms it has also turned out to have been a huge success: at the time of Iraq's conversion the euro was worth around 83 US cents but it is now worth over $1.05. There may however be other consequences to this decision.[ed. my emphasis]

One other OPEC country has been talking publicly about possible conversion to the euro since 1999: Iran2,4, a country which has since been included in the George W. Bush's 'axis of evil'.

http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

As most of you already know, China holds over one trillion dollars value in dollar denominated assets including 400 billion in US Treasury notes. Additionally, massive Chinese US dollar holdings affords it historically unprecedented leverage.

Another factor to consider is the growing strategic triangle between Russia, India and China - in open defiance of US hegemony; we are currently seeing the development and signing of broad agreements (diplomatic, economic, military, natural resources, etc) "to ensure the world is not a unipolar world".

Will China sometime in the forseeable future begin a massive dollar dump or begin trading for tangible assets?

I think it will be interesting to watch.

"Nations and empires flourish and decay, By turns command, and in their turns obey."
- Ovid

China and the US are kinda wedded together by trade, shame we can't do that in Iran, eh?

The US is spending trillions on iraq.. while neglecting infrastructure. Worst president ever.

yeah i just have this feeling that if in 2002 they said "Iraq probably doesn't have WMD and isn't linked to Bin Laden but we want to spend trillions on smashing the place up and starting shit with Russia and Iran" then less people would have agreed.

I don't think that would have made much difference. Violence is the true religion of the United States.

It's the business plan of the leaders of the US, not the religion of the people, so the leaders have to lie to the people to get their agreement.

If the american people were so terrible, Colin Powell wouldn't need to do a powerpoint presentation full of bullshit to convince them to go to war.

That's certainly a big part of the equation. Sometimes it seems that the entire historical legacy of the United States is one long orgasm of violence. But I think you can trace the 'violence as ethical value' theme back quite a way and then follow it forward temporily through giant blocks of media-culture or national-myth, while keeping the gun-fetish thing always at your hip, of course.

but there's also the fact that the constitution is great.

i think rich rulers sending poor people to war is every nations' history, not just america's. it's in the bible, and that's a pretty old book.

.

I don't see how the US constitution is relevant. If you read my previous post you'll see I'm not just talking about warfare.

you said the entire history of the US was an orgasm of violence, i was pointing out that the constitution doesn't say "THOU SHALT KILL!"

man, i think you have a problem understanding that discussions on the internet are fluid, and impersonal. we are not even using our real names, and there's no body language or time continuity.

chill. why should i respond to your exact argument (even if i KNOW your exact argument from reading your mind or something)

roll with it!

if america's history is an orgy of violence, what is britain's? spain's? france's? russia's? etc etc etc.
we all had empires once, even lithuania.

MINK wrote: "you said the entire history of the US was an orgasm of violence, i was pointing out that the constitution doesn't say "THOU SHALT KILL!""

I think you need to read more carefully. I said "sometimes it seems that the entire historical legacy of the United States is one long orgasm of violence."

Once again, it should be pretty clear that I'm not saying the United States is the only nation with a legacy of violence. That would be an absurd statement. I'm talking about how violence is encoded into the US national mythology, which is fairly peculiar.

My statement in context: "Sometimes it seems that the entire historical legacy of the United States is one long orgasm of violence. But I think you can trace the 'violence as ethical value' theme back quite a way and then follow it forward temporily through giant blocks of media-culture or national-myth, while keeping the gun-fetish thing always at your hip, of course."

I think you either need to start reading--or stop reading. Do one or the other.

oh whatever dude, i can't possibly discuss something if you don't let us move on, away from what you said, to the next step.

if i say "all countries have violent histories" i am not saying "ner ner you're wrong!!!" i'm just moving things on.

it's the internet, difficult to understand exact meanings of things, not worth the effort to constantly type "but what i said was" etc etc forever.

i already said don't take it personally, if i want to address you individually i'll send you a private message.

For us to move on from what I've said you need to stop misquoting me, and then put forth a counter-argument, ie. something that isn't irrelevant.

I'm aware that the internet comes with certain inbuilt flaws when it comes to communication. That's why I make the effort to stay fairly concise. With you my guess is that English is not your first language. No problem, MINK.

I am english. karoche blet kas chia per nesamone, nezhinau.

It looks as if one or two countries decide to dump the dollar that it would be easy for the rest to follow. Whether they do or don't America is in for some very, very hard economic times ahead. Start saving kiddies as it's gonna be a rough ride.

save in euros.