lowe
pre 13 godina
I see you are back!
“Of course because the data was not showing that. That’s why a news report is not a fact. It should rather serve as an incentive to research the facts.”
As I already told you previously, I considered that news source to be credible enough for me to use. B92 readers generally do this by the way in case you have not noticed, including those who are pro-Pristina or Pro-Yankee in case. Again you refer to your past data – how can they possibly show any POLITICAL decision to replace the greenback? Please answer this question.
“Somebody who thinks (they did not say it, but let’s assume for the sake of the argument that you had able mind readers) to dump the US dollar would not go to buy US treasuries (unless it’s stupid). Rather they would have started long ago to dump the treasuries.”
You used past treasury sales data showing PAST decision to buy US debts. How can these PAST data about US debts prove FUTURE decisions about replacing the dollar?????
“Not because they want to borrow, but because they CAN borrow. Creditors will not lend humongous amounts of money to somebody who’s not well off.”
So having to pay humongous interest payments, thereby representing a huge economic opportunity costs foregone is your idea of doing well! And conversely people who don’t need to borrow and don’t want to borrow are by your reasoning doing badly! Twisted logic if you ask me!
“I have the data :) I don’t trust the views; those are subjective.”
Your data are IRRELEVANT data because they are past data as I already pointed out above.
“They did not contain anything about China ?! But I thought they were about China !!! “
Those 3 specific links were NOT about China’s finances! Please stop pretending to overlook this material point. They were about the US financial position and the worries of US politicians and people! So, as I already stated so many times, using them as your proof amounts to pure falsehood!
“You are saying that now… Being “past” was the only reason you mentioned before”
Being past data was one reason why they are irrelevant and so I was not originally wrong. The second reason why they are irrelevant, as I already told you, was because they concerned US debts. Both reasons cannot explain any possible future political decision by G20 leaders to dump the dollar.
“They predict the future for decades to come. If A lends to B for 30 years, A has to be sure that B's currency is OK for, at least, 30 years, otherwise it may get paid back with worthless paper.”
Show me the proof that they are being used to predict poltical decisions of the future, in this case, about POLITICAL decisions to dump the greenback.
“Of course is has to be paid back with interest. But money is not borrowed to put it under the mattress. It is borrowed to do something with it. It that something generates more than the interest, than the debt is good, if not it is bad. I don’t have data for either the good or the bad. If you do, please show them. Show what is the net economic benefit of the US from this debt; is it positive or negative ? “
Show me the proof that the money borrowed is in fact being used to “generate more” for the entire US economy. Your claim doesn’t seem to square with the worries that US leaders and citizens have been airing in the news! And you have no proof to back your claim in any case.
“No, I did not say having a lot of money in a bank account means doing badly. But those articles you provided about China did not show that China has a lot of money in a bank account (or, at least, I missed it).”
Those 3 specific links were not about China’s finances and so for you to use them as your proof amounts to false proof. It is like using an article about Mongolia to make a claim about Kosovo.
“That may be your logic, but not mine, I did not say that people with “fat bank accounts and do not owe any money to anyone must be “doing badly””. They may be doing good or bad; it depends. The same thing with people owning money; they may or may not be doing badly. All depends on what’s higher; the income or the expenses.
(icj1, 5 March 2011 20:26)”
You basically made the claim that the US is doing great because of its humongous debts from its huge borrowings. I therefore asked you about the flip side -- whether people who have fat accounts and don’t need to borrow are conversely doing badly to show the absurdity of your logic. So far you have failed to show that the entire US economy borrowed in order to reinvest and benefit from the net gain, and that this was its main intention for borrowing in the first place.
81 Komentari
Sortiraj po: