On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 18:48, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
> You seem to be taking a very literal approach, which I'm afraid misses much
> of the picture. Let me spell it out a little more.
>
When you said "The US Dollar is backed by the might of the scariest
military in the world. It may not be
You seem to be taking a very literal approach, which I'm afraid misses much
of the picture. Let me spell it out a little more.
American exceptionalism including the centrality of the dollar is
ultimately backed by the US military.
The US has layers to its power, which is what makes it superior
If your thesis that a country's currency's value was a function of the
strength of its military then we should see a clear correlation between
strong countries and strong currencies, and weak countries and weak
currencies. But we don't, instead currencies values are correlated with the
economic
On Sat, 1 Jun, 2019, 5:42 PM Charles Haynes, wrote:
> Surely I don't have to point out that when Teddy Roosevelt was president
> the USA was still on the gold standard, so his remarks are completely
> irrelevant to modern currency markets.
>
That's irrelevant - big stick diplomacy has formed
Surely I don't have to point out that when Teddy Roosevelt was president
the USA was still on the gold standard, so his remarks are completely
irrelevant to modern currency markets.
-- Charles
On Fri., 31 May 2019, 7:04 pm Srini RamaKrishnan, wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 1:13 AM Charles
