Thread: American Bashing

Studley,

Yes, the gold standard was in place for a long time as was the Sterling standard. Also the USA gave Europe the Marshall plan to help rebuild immediately after the war.

But with everything they do a price had to be paid. It was not as altruistic as most believe.

They kept enforcing the gold standard at the artificial level of $ 35 for years after it was totally unrealistic to do so. They kept it so low until the UK and the commonwealth countries were forced to abandon the Sterling standard and start floating their currencies.

They did this by printing more and more dollars without any gold backing until it became so bad that most countries with strong currencies would no longer accept payment in US dollars. In particular near the end Australia could only pay for imports from Asia in yen's, even China would only accept payment in Remimbies, and from Germany and other European countries in DM's of francs . It was most frustrating working in a bank's foreign exchange department at that time.

The other aspect of the artificially low dollar was their economic imperialism was their wholesale buying of overseas companies with their cheap dollars to eliminate foreign competition. You only have to look at our country how they bought up industries and brands just to close them down.

Don't forget that even with the gold value now floating, and there being more gold available, to back the US dollar, if every dollar note in non US hands would be presented to their federal reserve bank the whole house of cards would collapse and the country would be placed in receivership. Unfortunately most US citizens don't realise this as their politicians are like ours and don't come clean on these things.


Peter.

Peter.

Originally Posted by Rocker

Hey, aren't we Aussies too in cane-toad country? Just because we don't all look alike, like you Southerners .....

Rocker

If you start wearing big funny hats and speak like Speedy Gonzales, you'll fit right in, Amigo.

Whilst I have only scant knowledge of the old Gold standard and ramifications, I certainly agree with the thrust of Peter's argument. It's said that the real losers of WWII were the Russians, in terms of suffering and dead soldiers (and probably Stalin thereafter) and the British in terms of debt and losing their Empire (partly to the US in exchange for some old destroyers). The real winners were the US (finiancially) Germany and Japan, with rebuilt economies and small reparations.

Certainly the US is guilty of economic imperialism, but its a bit hard to condemn them for this. The government of the US has always run the country like a global business, for the benefit of its citizens - like the British Empire was run. They've been very successful in this, and probably own half the world's assetts by now.

America is a business, always has been, well for a long time anyway. Their Civil War was primarily for economic reasons even back then.

They saved our ass from Japan and I think the vast majority of Americans are honest and decent people. If you're going to have an economic overlord, they're probably the best going around.

The thing I find interesting is that I think China may well replace the US, as the major military and economic power in our region, in the next 20 years. We may well look back on the days of US domination with nostalgia.

At least the food will be better, and I find the girls prettier.

Originally Posted by Bodgy

The thing I find interesting is that I think China may well replace the US, as the major military and economic power in our region, in the next 20 years.

That and the other main power will be a united Europe (including Russia) and the USA will become a bit player on the world's stage. Where that will leave us with our reliance on the USA is a great worry.

The future indeed will be a combination of what was described in " 1984 " and " A brave new world ".


Peter.

Originally Posted by Termite

Possably he is being frugal with his words and is saying,"If you get caught peeking then duck."

or maybe he's just having Peking duck for dinner?

Originally Posted by Sturdee

The future indeed will be a combination of what was described in " 1984 " and " A brave new world ".
Peter.

Not to mention 'Noddy Goes to Toyland'

What I found intersesting was an interview that Margaret Throsby was conducting a couple of years ago (for those who listen to ABC FM) and it appeared that the majority of US soldiers did not know the difference between Iraq and Iran, and there was only one currency and everyone spoke 'american'.
Of course if they don't understand, you shout to make it clear

90% of US citizens do not have a passport.

And it's very cold here in Austria at the moment.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

That and the other main power will be a united Europe (including Russia) and the USA will become a bit player on the world's stage. Where that will leave us with our reliance on the USA is a great worry.

The future indeed will be a combination of what was described in " 1984 " and " A brave new world ".


Peter.

The sheer size of China and its potential to be a military juggernaut will possibly lead to the amalgamation of nations in response to a perceived threat. Should China continue to militarise and modernise its forces (occuring on a massive scale at present), Asia, Europe, Oceania and the Middle East may form alliances that until now have seemed unlikely.

I fear we have the potential to be entering a dark age soon, politically and environmentally.

Originally Posted by Groggy

The sheer size of China and its potential to be a military juggernaut will possibly lead to the amalgamation of nations in response to a perceived threat. Should China continue to militarise and modernise its forces (occuring on a massive scale at present), Asia, Europe, Oceania and the Middle East may form alliances that until now have seemed unlikely.

I fear we have the potential to be entering a dark age soon, politically and environmentally.

It's a terrible thought but we are helping to finance their economy with our purchases of machinery.
On the good side China is one of the few countrys where we actually have a trading surplus.

This is getting to be a juicy sort of discussion.

Peter I am not making any aspertions or criticisms of you but keeping the US dollar down makes it harder for them to buy up things from other countries. A low dollar means you need more of them to buy things in other currencies. It is a clever form of protectionism to hold your currency low as it's buying power is reduced in the world market. It helps your exporters and restricts your importers.

Post WWII the Americans largely financed the reconstruction of the world. They gave money to everyone. Britain actually got more money from the Americans than Germany did. Britain did however spend it on housing and welfare not on wealth producing assets the rest is history.

This goes right to the heart of the question, "who pays for war?" Which always used to be "the loser" thus reparations etc. In this case America won and paid for the war but something interesting happened there were no productive resources in the way of factories and the like in Europe to cover the high demand for reconstruction. As a result most of this American money was going back to America to purchase just about everything.

Really that is a long time ago now and right or wrong it is what they did at that time. It is easy to make better decisions with hindsight.

China is another interesting topic. Did you know that China's economy is
1/6th the size of Japans? Likewise I don't think there is much risk they will go on a rampage to rule asia or anything else like that. It is bad business to bomb your customers. Of course China is going to become a major economic force when that happens is anyones guess. Likewise India also is an emerging economy likely to become a major force. However I don't think America will go away anytime soon. Europe is bedded in it's social democracy way of doing things, this conflict in particular between the French and the Germans will take time. The French badly want to keep their agriculture subsidies. So for Europe to become an economic powerhouse that could dominate the world will take time.

I can't see any rapid change coming about however there is always change and as others have pointed out large forces are in play that could dramatically alter the world we live in. It will be different perhaps but not neccesarily any worse.

Stephen

This is a bit offsided but Americans out there this is my reply to benny laid. The cabbage patch fella. We only love you while we are playing.


Hey benny laid,
fficeffice" />>>
You know why Tasmanians have two heads don’t you?
>>
It’s so we can have a decent conversation when we go to the mainland!!!
>>

Thanks for the clarification. For the record, most Americans I know don't like "our" foriegn policies either. I enjoy this forum and learn plenty, even some about woodworking.