Trust the 'experts' to find someone to blame for what is essentially the result of catastrophic US policies ever since the underhanded coup d'etat.
Maybe you could clarify something for me. I've lived in the USA for about 40 years altogether, and have studied USA history for over thirty-three of those years. To which coup d'etat are you referring?
On 15 April 1861, the anniversary of which event is celebrated by American taxpayers every year, Abraham Lincoln issued the first executive order in the current numbering scheme for same. Since that order illegally called forth militia to put down a "rebellion" which was the constitutionally empowered secession of several states, I think it amounts to a coup d'etat. It was quickly backed by a declaration of emergency by Congress, a declaration of emergency which is still in effect. It was the basis for numerous unconstitutional acts and orders.
On 9 March 1933, Congress declared a second emergency, this time a national banking emergency. It was the basis for another flurry of executive orders, this time by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Again, it is an emergency declaration which is still in effect. It has been officially renewed every two years by each sitting Congress. It is the basis for many unconstitutional acts and orders. At one point in 1933, the Congress amended and the president signed the act amending the enemy aliens act of 1917 to extend the definition of an enemy alien to include everyone living in the USA.
I suspect that you are talking about something other than one of these two coups d'etat, but I'm not sure. Are you referring to that little matter of the USA Supreme Court being called upon to validate the electoral college vote giving the 2000 presidential election to GW Bush? I think that's a pretty paltry matter in comparison to the coups indicated above.
As well, what do you expect can be accmoplished with voting? There are about 300 million people living in the USA, of which about half are qualified to vote. The others are resident aliens, former convicted felons, people in prison, and minor children. Of those qualified to vote, half are registered to vote. Of those registered to vote, half voted in November 2000.
Of those who voted, a bit less than half voted for one crook, GW Bush, and a bit less than half voted for the other major crook, Algore. Some million or so voted for Ralph Nader (Green) or Harry Browne (Libertarian - crooked) or some other candidate. If you've been keeping track, something less than one sixteenth of the population voted for GW Bush for president.
But, so what? If voting were going to change anything, the powers that be would have made it illegal.
The reason for invenstors'a nthipathy toward US assets is that crooks are on top, protecting crooks in the middle and are making Joe Average pay for it all, while using Joe's kids to meddle in the affairs of foreign crooks.
These attributes of the USA economy are certainly true. They were, however, equally true in 1995 and in 1999, so I'm not sure what that proves. Investors seemed quite eager to invest in the USA economy in those years, in spite of the dramatic crashes in 1987 and 1997.
Rather than gold being responsible for investors shunning US assets, it is them shunning US assets being responsible for the increase in the gold price.
I think that explains some of the rise in the US dollar price of gold, but it doesn't explain the rise in the EU euro price of gold. I think my friend Clyde Harrison, a managing member of the Rogers Raw Materials Fund, makes a better point: "fiat currencies do not float, they just sink at different rates."
last attempt of the Roman empire to stay in charge,
Really? I wonder whether they mean, say, the attempts following thoroughly decadent Nero? About 200 more years of rule from Rome followed Nero, as I recall. After Constantine, there were several hundred more years of rule from Constantinople, which considered itself the Roman empire although many historians regard it as the Byzantine empire. Then there is the Holy Roman Empire which followed Byzantium. The Norman Franks regarded themselves as successors to the likes of Charlemagne. So a case could be made that the British empire represents an extension of the Roman empire, though that is the sort of pro-British nonsense I rarely tout. With respect to bureaucracy, since Constantine the Roman bureaucracy has survived in the form of the Roman Catholic church bureaucracy. So, let me know when the "last attempt of the Roman empire to stay in charge" took place. I'd be kinda curious. <smile>
America will self-destruct from internal rott.
The USA government is certainly corrupt, decadent, and rotten. I think there is a serious chance of significant Balkanization of the USA in the next 20 years. You read it here first. <smile>
America is risking to become irrelevant in a few decades
Isn't it really the case that all governments have always been irrelevant? One of the first Americans to reach this conclusion was Henry David Thoreau, though much of what he wrote followed on the work of Anacharsis from c. 650 BC.
with them go both, brains and cash.
Sure. Money and brainpower go where they are welcome.
Can you say 'Dawn of the Asian Century'?
<voice="Fred Rogers">I thought that you could.</voice>
PS - didcha miss me?
Yes, but to be candid, I wasn't shooting at you.
Regards,
Jim http://www.ezez.com/
--- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
