The dollar is dead: long live the ?

I'm just purely by accident watching a documentary that persuasively points at the CIA in relation to the Lockerbie bomb

Slim Buddha wrote:

It matters because what the film demonstrates is the fairy story of the 9/11 commission's report has not been put under the necessary media scrutiny to illustrate the fatal flaws in it. It is bullshit. Look at the 9/11 section again and tot up the examples of evidence which go contrary to the official version. Then ask yourself, which is more plausible, bearing in mind who are in the White House?

Propoganda is a powerful weapon. We saw it in action in the way the Georgian events were, and are, portrayed. People are easily manipulated.
The press and media were directly complicity in lies, not just lazy.

*** cactus posted before this

Slim Buddha wrote:

It matters because what the film demonstrates is the fairy story of the 9/11 commission's report has not been put under the necessary media scrutiny to illustrate the fatal flaws in it. It is bullshit. Look at the 9/11 section again and tot up the examples of evidence which go contrary to the official version. Then ask yourself, which is more plausible, bearing in mind who are in the White House?

The way I believe it in my gut is that America deserved it anyway, the bastards.

What about the Amero currency? Is that such a bad thing in the end? Truly it would be the end of the dollar but I'm not sure I can make the link between the war and conspiracy side of it and the emergence of the Amero on top of a North American unification of Mexico, Canada and the US. Is this NAU a fact?

I think should have a special thread for conspiracy theories, and another for 'WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!' scenarios, which seem to abound. This one's gone a weeny bit off-topic.

Eh, not an expert on financial matters, but I hear there's a danger in all this upset with Russia that they might undermine the dollar by changing their reserve currency. Stiglitz describes how China could do this at any time, but wouldn't wish to rock the boat. With Russia though, politics could easily trump economics. Has Russia enough money in reserves for this? It certainly wouldn't help the currency.

Auditor #9 wrote:

*** cactus posted before this

Slim Buddha wrote:

It matters because what the film demonstrates is the fairy story of the 9/11 commission's report has not been put under the necessary media scrutiny to illustrate the fatal flaws in it. It is bullshit. Look at the 9/11 section again and tot up the examples of evidence which go contrary to the official version. Then ask yourself, which is more plausible, bearing in mind who are in the White House?

The way I believe it in my gut is that America deserved it anyway, the bastards.

What about the Amero currency? Is that such a bad thing in the end? Truly it would be the end of the dollar but I'm not sure I can make the link between the war and conspiracy side of it and the emergence of the Amero on top of a North American unification of Mexico, Canada and the US. Is this NAU a fact?

I'm all for one big global confederation - you have to fight your corner for democracy and rights no matter what form of area government. So Yes to One World government. Its the only way we could get rid of those bloody nuclear bombs.

Auditor, whatever you feel towards America, I don't think the people who died in 9/11 "deserved" it. I disagree a lot with US foreign policy and have an intense dislike for the US Republican Party but the familys of the innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks deserve our sympathy.

On the Amero, not much publicity has been given to this or the NAU. I think if this was a done deal, we would hear a lot more about it. But until now, we have heard nothing really. But I think the present regime in the White House is capable of absolutely anything. I really hope Obama wins, if only to stop the Republicans holding on to the White House.

The American government has directed the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, millions if you count the people who've died because of sanctions and the "golden straightjacket". They are understandably hated and despised internationally.

Terrorist attacks are ineffective in removing regimes. They are a form of protest, usually not understood or accepted by the people on the receiving end. They usually damage and kill innocent people who had no direct hand or part in what their government does. Terrorist attacks increase hostility and division and don't advance the cause that the terrorists claim to represent.

The British government was never bothered by terrorist attacks and may well have been complicit with them: they were used as a convenient excuse for bringing in laws that would otherwise not have been accepted by the public. That is what has happened in the US and is one of the reasons why there is such strong suspicion that 9/11 was a false flag operation, or was knowingly allowed to happen. One of the valid points in the video was that the US government benefitted from the attacks as they were used as a permission for agressive wars.

The American government and people are not entirely the same thing, thank goodness. We all have to accept some responsibility for our governments, but once we have voted against them there is a limit to what we can do. Terror attacks hit soft vulnerable targets, including children, that are considered dispensable by governments. People who carry them out are either naive and led, or imo have an agenda that is not a 'liberation' agenda.

Slim Buddha wrote:

Auditor, whatever you feel towards America, I don't think the people who died in 9/11 "deserved" it. I disagree a lot with US foreign policy and have an intense dislike for the US Republican Party but the families of the innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks deserve our sympathy.

I'd rather keep my sympathy for the million Iraqis and Afghans who were killed subsequently.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Auditor, whatever you feel towards America, I don't think the people who died in 9/11 "deserved" it. I disagree a lot with US foreign policy and have an intense dislike for the US Republican Party but the families of the innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks deserve our sympathy.

I'd rather keep my sympathy for the million Iraqis and Afghans who were killed subsequently.

I agree with sympathising with the Iraqis and Afghanis. But direct your ire at Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush rather that at some poor bastards who got fried in a high-rise

Slim Buddha wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Auditor, whatever you feel towards America, I don't think the people who died in 9/11 "deserved" it. I disagree a lot with US foreign policy and have an intense dislike for the US Republican Party but the families of the innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks deserve our sympathy.

I'd rather keep my sympathy for the million Iraqis and Afghans who were killed subsequently.

I agree with sympathising with the Iraqis and Afghanis. But direct your ire at Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush rather that at some poor bastards who got fried in a high-rise

And the verdict is out as to whether Chesney, Rumsfeld and Bush were behind the job.

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Auditor, whatever you feel towards America, I don't think the people who died in 9/11 "deserved" it. I disagree a lot with US foreign policy and have an intense dislike for the US Republican Party but the families of the innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks deserve our sympathy.

I'd rather keep my sympathy for the million Iraqis and Afghans who were killed subsequently.

I agree with sympathising with the Iraqis and Afghanis. But direct your ire at Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush rather that at some poor bastards who got fried in a high-rise

And the verdict is out as to whether Chesney, Rumsfeld and Bush were behind the job.

The verdict as to who is directing an illegal war of occupation in Iraq intended to weaken the region as a whole while Iraqs natural resources are plundered is blindingly clear.

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Auditor, whatever you feel towards America, I don't think the people who died in 9/11 "deserved" it. I disagree a lot with US foreign policy and have an intense dislike for the US Republican Party but the families of the innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks deserve our sympathy.

I'd rather keep my sympathy for the million Iraqis and Afghans who were killed subsequently.

I agree with sympathising with the Iraqis and Afghanis. But direct your ire at Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush rather that at some poor bastards who got fried in a high-rise

And the verdict is out as to whether Chesney, Rumsfeld and Bush were behind the job.

The verdict as to who is directing an illegal war of occupation in Iraq intended to weaken the region as a whole while Iraqs natural resources are plundered is blindingly clear.

That is very clear. There is ample evidence that the attack on Iraq was planned for years before 9/11 and that Iraq in any event had nothing to do with 9/11.

The same thing is now going on with Georgia and the Caucasus. The US has been sniffing around there since the 1970s.

Another bank gone, many more to go. Is this why they're digging into the oil reserve?

New US bank failure

Quote :

Nevada regulators have shut down Silver State Bank, in the 11th failure this year of a US government-insured bank.

Quote :

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver of the bank, located in Henderson. It had US$2bn (€1.4bn) in assets and US$1.7bn (€1.2bn) in deposits as of June 30.

The 11 failures so far this year compare with three for all of 2007, and federal banking officials have said that more US banks are in danger of collapse.[/quote]

cactus flower wrote:

Another bank gone, many more to go. Is this why they're digging into the oil reserve?

New US bank failure

Quote :

Nevada regulators have shut down Silver State Bank, in the 11th failure this year of a US government-insured bank.

Quote :

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver of the bank, located in Henderson. It had US$2bn (€1.4bn) in assets and US$1.7bn (€1.2bn) in deposits as of June 30.

The 11 failures so far this year compare with three for all of 2007, and federal banking officials have said that more US banks are in danger of collapse.

[/quote]
US Press say Freddie and Frankie are going to be put under "conservatorship" - in effect, they will be Nationalised and bailed out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7601701.stm

They are described here as twice as big as the UK economy.

Post - (originally posted by Cael) Endgahl on Freddie and Fannie - (IRRB)

http://admin2.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=9272

Cael says nothing. The piece is by William Engdahl

YoungDan

What would you consider the necessary fall back in property prices to be in USA before they reflected again peoples ability to pay?

In the UK I would think it needs to see about a drop of 25% followed by 3-4 years of losing against inflation which should cut it back to around 40%-50% That should see the average house down below £100,000 in many regions. London and parts of the South different matter. One of the problems is 'down sizing' or retiring out of London is doing all sorts of strange things to house prices across the South and West coasts and into Oxfordshire and beyond.

In Ireland I am not at all sure as the economy is less diverse and some of the prices seem utterly insane. Also in the UK there is an overall housing shortage in Ireland, apart from the North, there may be a housing surplus albeit often of the wrong house types, and in the wrong place.

Property is only part of the overall, but it gives us some idea of the scale of the problem we need to face in the coming 5 years and has a major effect on the competitiveness of an economy.

Biggest problems in the UK and Ireland is governments who are wed to spending other peoples money. They really don't know how to cut back. Yesterday was having a chat about some community enterprise scheme. Now these people can get a grant (100% from various sources including the council) to build shops whose rent then pays for the community workers. Now to me this sounded all a bit sick. If the community group wants money it should have to go out and borrow it and repay with interest, why should someone who owns shop units elsewhere and who pays rates be in competition with government and council sponsored schemes? It is beyond me. Why should the rate payers be paying for this sort of nonsense?

Nobody knows the answer to that because we are at a pivotal point in history. With the Freddie news it would really be a nitwit that would think of buying a house here. Also the interest rate on the 10 year bill which most mortages track can not go much lower than it is now. Then you have property taxes that will really be the stake through the heart. It may well be next to impossible to even get a mortage if there is nobody to buy the mortages off the banks. Maybe the banks themselves will be wiped out. As happens every Friday another one went bust. Slightly bigger at 2 billion in assets but still tiny compared to the big ones.

The day when a house will be viewed as a depreciating abode instead of an appreciating investment might be here. If the dollar holds steady an 80% drop for these McMansions(800000) which are everywhere. Similiar houses all over Ireland They could become practically worthless because heating them will be costly and real estate taxes will be huge. A modest house(300000) will drop maybe 40%.

Lets see how the markets trade next week because the holding pattern is over.

Interest rates were low because productive industry was foundering in competition with the developing economies.To compensate for the low interest rates, the banks over the last few years have pushed up the volume of lending to bolster their earnings. This contributed to the problem of the US, UK and Ireland that individuals are personally indebted on such a massive scale (credit card, student loans, mortgages) that a significant interest rate increase would mean a wipe out. Now that these dodgy loans can't be repaid the banks have nothing to lend.

The system of having some parts of the world very rich and the others very poor is shifting to a far more even situation geographically, but with very sharp division between the handful of ultra rich and the vast majority in the middle and working classes facing impoverishment.

The USSR going out of the equation had something to do with it too - no pressure on the western states to redistribute wealth. Galbraith said that one of the reasons for the Crash and Great Depression was the concentration of too high a proportion of wealth in too small a number of hands. This is an inherent trend in capitalism.

At the same time, we've got climate change and a huge challenge to invest in different energy sources and different living patterns. Climate change is perhaps the ultimate market failure.

A new model is required.

cactus flower wrote:

Interest rates were low because productive industry was foundering in competition with the developing economies. To compensate for the low interest rates, the banks over the last few years have pushed up the volume of lending to bolster their earnings. This contributed to the problem of the US, UK and Ireland that individuals are personally indebted on such a massive scale (credit card, student loans, mortgages) that a significant interest rate increase would mean a wipe out. Now that these dodgy loans can't be repaid the banks have nothing to lend.

Now that's very well said cactus. Though interest rates were low, prices started to quickly skyrocket so interest paid in effect became enormous though interest rates stayed the same. A 150k mortgage in 2001 at 5.5% costs a lot less money than the same house nearly 6 years later with a market value of 300k and the same interest rate. You will end up paying 300k for the house bought in 2001 and 600k for the same house bought in 2007/8. That assumes a good bit of economic stability and expansion which could happen over the 30-35 years of the mortgage. How people became so mentally obsessed so quickly with buying a property with little regard for the absolute cost of the building is part of the bubble effect of course and I think it disenfranchised many who might have been in the market for property if the prices had been less insane. We allowed ourselves to switch en masse and very suddenly from being a conservative and short-term people with our cash to going for these huge investments in our own property market. I think we saw it less as an investment in a home than a pure financial investment which is a big cultural jump to take but we gambled and maybe we're going to learn that lesson now.

Market economics must break down with bubbles like the one we saw here - though prices of houses rose, the interest rate didn't because surely banks should have seen that as a property rises from 130k towards 250k and beyond in such a short period as we have seen, then to offset the higher risk the interest must rise. This would have taken steam out of the market and allowed it to simmer away but now it looks like the pot is overflowing and some of your water is going to get burned on the cooker. That water might be banks and bankers but could be the ordinary Jo/e. AIB have been making billions in profit each year for the last while, maybe they should put some of that to use by restructuring mortgages...? Perhaps even do this while economic figures are unfavourable and then return to normal rates of interest afterwards when/if the numbers go up a bit again.

Quote :

A new model is required.

Can we call it "The Visible Hand" ?

In days of old you had land, surfs worked the land and the Lord's fields and did service and depending on where you were in this hierarchy was your level of power. If you were powerful you could raise your own army and do a neighbour over and acquire more land. The system relied on land, cheap labour, alliances and a system that prevented, to some extent, constant wars with other land owners.

Some found that the land could produce crops that had value as a product that could be exported, such as wool and others found that through trade you could buy goods cheap and sell at a good profit. A class of producers and middle men developed. Land was still important but not exclusively so.

We then had industrialisation of production. King Coal and all that. The industrialists, resource producers and merchants became decidedly more important than the landed gentry. Empire was about resources, trade and markets. But power and wealth was with those who produced resources, owned manufacturing, traded or to a lesser extent owned land. Wealth still had a tangible base.

In the last century, particularly post WW II we moved into the era of La La economics. All sorts of novel concepts were postulated and became common currency.
1 You can make money not by working or producing, but by playing the markets? Up to a point that can work, but if a lot of people are at it it will either fail, or becomes an enormous burden on those that produce, or is inflationary.
2 That the markets reflect reality; well do they?
3 That you run an economy on Services, only works if the services are mainly to others and they balance imports on manufacturing and resource deficits.
4 You can live on the backs of cheap labour and production abroad.
5 That we somehow have a God given right to a certain standard of living. Do we?
6 This is all coupled with a complete disconnect with the reality that Government spending and intervention is with our money. We pay the bill.
7 That M3 money supply does not matter.

I would like to see a system where we returned to the concept that you gain wealth only by producing, trading, saving and investing long term. The concept of usury is a good starting point.

I would like a system where money supply remained fairly static relative to population, and I don't think that necessitates a Gold standard which brings all sorts of problems of its own. A system where taking real risks, doing and investing long term are rewarded and short term speculation discouraged. We need to move forward from the idea that our companies are run short term for short term gain. Investments are not short term and houses should be just houses.

That's my wish list, but I agree we could be at one of those historic pivot points. The west is rapid decline and seems unable to wake up to reality.

Squire wrote:

In days of old you had land, surfs worked the land and the Lord's fields and did service and depending on where you were in this hierarchy was your level of power. If you were powerful you could raise your own army and do a neighbour over and acquire more land. The system relied on land, cheap labour, alliances and a system that prevented, to some extent, constant wars with other land owners.

Some found that the land could produce crops that had value as a product that could be exported, such as wool and others found that through trade you could buy goods cheap and sell at a good profit. A class of producers and middle men developed. Land was still important but not exclusively so.

We then had industrialisation of production. King Coal and all that. The industrialists, resource producers and merchants became decidedly more important than the landed gentry. Empire was about resources, trade and markets. But power and wealth was with those who produced resources, owned manufacturing, traded or to a lesser extent owned land. Wealth still had a tangible base.

In the last century, particularly post WW II we moved into the era of La La economics. All sorts of novel concepts were postulated and became common currency.
1 You can make money not by working or producing, but by playing the markets? Up to a point that can work, but if a lot of people are at it it will either fail, or becomes an enormous burden on those that produce, or is inflationary.
2 That the markets reflect reality; well do they?
3 That you run an economy on Services, only works if the services are mainly to others and they balance imports on manufacturing and resource deficits.
4 You can live on the backs of cheap labour and production abroad.
5 That we somehow have a God given right to a certain standard of living. Do we?
6 This is all coupled with a complete disconnect with the reality that Government spending and intervention is with our money. We pay the bill.
7 That M3 money supply does not matter.

I would like to see a system where we returned to the concept that you gain wealth only by producing, trading, saving and investing long term. The concept of usury is a good starting point.

I would like a system where money supply remained fairly static relative to population, and I don't think that necessitates a Gold standard which brings all sorts of problems of its own. A system where taking real risks, doing and investing long term are rewarded and short term speculation discouraged. We need to move forward from the idea that you companies are run short term for short term gain. Investments are not short term and houses should be just houses.

That's my wish list, but I agree we could be at one of those historic pivot points. The west is rapid decline and seems unable to wake up to reality.

Great post.

Audi said

Quote :

Market economics must break down with bubbles like the one we saw here - though prices of houses rose, the interest rate didn't because surely banks should have seen that as a property rises from 130k towards 250k and beyond in such a short period as we have seen, then to offset the higher risk the interest must rise. This would have taken steam out of the market and allowed it to simmer away but now it looks like the pot is overflowing and some of your water is going to get burned on the cooker.

Once we were in the Eurozone, the ECB sets the interest rate to suit the biggest part of the EU economy - Germany. They needed the low interests rate as their economy was flat and they were dealing with unificiation. They also have a terror of inflation for historic reasons. The Irish economy is really of no account in EU terms, apart from the irritant of the low corpo. tax rate.

The squire said

Quote :

Empire was about resources, trade and markets. But power and wealth was with those who produced resources, owned manufacturing, traded or to a lesser extent owned land. Wealth still had a tangible base.

In the last century, particularly post WW II we moved into the era of La La economics. All sorts of novel concepts were postulated and became common currency.
1 You can make money not by working or producing, but by playing the markets? Up to a point that can work, but if a lot of people are at it it will either fail, or becomes an enormous burden on those that produce, or is inflationary.
2 That the markets reflect reality; well do they?
3 That you run an economy on Services, only works if the services are mainly to others and they balance imports on manufacturing and resource deficits.
4 You can live on the backs of cheap labour and production abroad.
5 That we somehow have a God given right to a certain standard of living. Do we?
6 This is all coupled with a complete disconnect with the reality that Government spending and intervention is with our money. We pay the bill.
7 That M3 money supply does not matter.

After WWII the Western economies had a constant eye on the Red Peril - going back to mass unemployment and poverty was not an option. Imo a series of inflationary booms was the chosen solution.

The markets and middlemen all want to take a slice of the profits made from productive industry, extractive industry and agriculture. The idea that an economy could be sustained long term by consuming rather than producing was always bizarre. Ultimately something like that could only be maintained through slavery or near slavery of foreign populations, or else on credit by printing money. Printing money dilutes the value of currency if the value of the economy that backs the currency stays the same.

The idea that our situation of enormous privilege is deserved and the natural way of things should surely not be as entrenched in Ireland as in the rest of Europe. Famine and emigration were the norm for 150 or the last 200 years.

I am wondering whether the geniuses running the country really did not understand that public sector employment is a cost on the productive sectors of the economy? Rockyracoon could well be right in saying there are serious understanding deficits.

There are signs now of the old consensus being a little disturbed, with Cowen saying he's happy to let Partnership go hang, and FG saying that they've no interest in another Tallaght. In one way, this is disturbing in that our social cohesion has been one of our strengths. In another way, it may open things up to a much more realistic debate. The cosy cartels may all be at each others throats by the end of the year.

The idea of a zero growth but very productive economy is very interesting. Is the system not dependent though on investing and extracting profit which is then reinvested, and doesn't this require continuous growth ?

cactus flower wrote:

Audi said

Quote :

Market economics must break down with bubbles like the one we saw here - though prices of houses rose, the interest rate didn't because surely banks should have seen that as a property rises from 130k towards 250k and beyond in such a short period as we have seen, then to offset the higher risk the interest must rise. This would have taken steam out of the market and allowed it to simmer away but now it looks like the pot is overflowing and some of your water is going to get burned on the cooker.

Once we were in the Eurozone, the ECB sets the interest rate to suit the biggest part of the EU economy - Germany. They needed the low interests rate as their economy was flat and they were dealing with unificiation. They also have a terror of inflation for historic reasons. The Irish economy is really of no account in EU terms, apart from the irritant of the low corpo. tax rate.

The application of Stamp duty might have been some attempt at making up the difference. Another tax could have been applied anyway - I'd suggest a Greater Dublin Area levy which might have taken a bit of the nuttiness out of it. Yet another one might have been an Urban Nuisance Offset Tax or just raise building standards towards self-sufficient plumbing and heat/electricity. Anything to not just slow the craziness but to hedge against the future.

Quote :

There are signs now of the old consensus being a little disturbed, with Cowen saying he's happy to let Partnership go hang, and FG saying that they've no interest in another Tallaght. In one way, this is disturbing in that our social cohesion has been one of our strengths. In another way, it may open things up to a much more realistic debate. The cosy cartels may all be at each others throats by the end of the year.

The idea of a zero growth but very productive economy is very interesting. Is the system not dependent though on investing and extracting profit which is then reinvested, and doesn't this require continuous growth ?

FG and FF are like a couple, one of whom is an alcoholic and keeps running up bills and the other keeps banging on and on just enough to keep the wolf in New York. This co-dependency might end though with FG giving the finger to FF.

I'm not sure an economy has to require continuous growth moreso than continuous activity. Growth in areas which do not deplete natural resources is different from growth which does. Imagine a growth in the number of people exercising? Does that automatically mean that there is somewhere else a drain on resources?

Auditor #9 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Audi said

Quote :

Market economics must break down with bubbles like the one we saw here - though prices of houses rose, the interest rate didn't because surely banks should have seen that as a property rises from 130k towards 250k and beyond in such a short period as we have seen, then to offset the higher risk the interest must rise. This would have taken steam out of the market and allowed it to simmer away but now it looks like the pot is overflowing and some of your water is going to get burned on the cooker.

Once we were in the Eurozone, the ECB sets the interest rate to suit the biggest part of the EU economy - Germany. They needed the low interests rate as their economy was flat and they were dealing with unificiation. They also have a terror of inflation for historic reasons. The Irish economy is really of no account in EU terms, apart from the irritant of the low corpo. tax rate.

The application of Stamp duty might have been some attempt at making up the difference. Another tax could have been applied anyway - I'd suggest a Greater Dublin Area levy which might have taken a bit of the nuttiness out of it. Yet another one might have been an Urban Nuisance Offset Tax or just raise building standards towards self-sufficient plumbing and heat/electricity. Anything to not just slow the craziness but to hedge against the future.

Quote :

There are signs now of the old consensus being a little disturbed, with Cowen saying he's happy to let Partnership go hang, and FG saying that they've no interest in another Tallaght. In one way, this is disturbing in that our social cohesion has been one of our strengths. In another way, it may open things up to a much more realistic debate. The cosy cartels may all be at each others throats by the end of the year.

The idea of a zero growth but very productive economy is very interesting. Is the system not dependent though on investing and extracting profit which is then reinvested, and doesn't this require continuous growth ?

FG and FF are like a couple, one of whom is an alcoholic and keeps running up bills and the other keeps banging on and on just enough to keep the wolf in New York. This co-dependency might end though with FG giving the finger to FF.

I'm not sure an economy has to require continuous growth moreso than continuous activity. Growth in areas which do not deplete natural resources is different from growth which does. Imagine a growth in the number of people exercising? Does that automatically mean that there is somewhere else a drain on resources?

Ha! ha! Auditor ! They are a sad old couple indeed. Growth up to now has relied heavily on depleting natural resources. We have a big adjustment of our notions to make, on that score alone.
If more people want to exercise, they may need to do so by digging the spuds or cycling to generate electricity.

cactus flower wrote:

If more people want to exercise, they may need to do so by digging the spuds or cycling to generate electricity.

Well speaking of growth, couldn't one thing we could do is to promote allotments to allow people to cultivate stuff. I fear that there was a big change in our culture away from the nature and the land at some point and that has not been helpful to our culture as a whole. Don't you think we've lost some land connection at all?

Anyway, back to growth as it is the most pertinent thing to this thread which is about the American Dollar - I've no doubt that "growth" can be sustainable but it'll have to be redefined in terms of quality rather than quantity. The Americans need to do this now to save their dollar.

I think.