On Thursday, March 11, 2004, at 02:07 PM, Mark Secker wrote:
On 11 Mar 2004, at 09:52, Kathy Quinlan wrote:
The sooner we get an international currency the better I say.
I agree but don't expect that in our lifetime.
The US "adopted" the metric system in 1866 and was supposed to
transition (by act of congress) over a 10 year period from 1975.
LOL! and now they'll never adopt it - 'couse it's a "French thing"
Personally I think the Fench should rescind Rochambeau's acceptance
of the British surrender of Yorktown.... Ladies and gentleman of
America please be upstanding for the entry of your new head of
state.... "HM, Queen Elizabeth II" <to the rousing strains of "Rule
Britannia" and "Land of Hope and Glory">.
any ways...
no matter what currency - one, none, a dozen - the old economic
twins Supply and Demand will ensure the prices on the ground do not
necessarily vary much from how they do under the current system...
remember exchange rates are a (roughly accurate) indicator of a
average economic supply and demand of all resources with in the
trading block so the effect of the Aus dollar going up (or down) is in
it's self simply a reflection of real current or expected future
changes in our ability to supply a certain demand of export goods and
services and our willingness to demand a certain available supply of
imported goods and services.
THEN and even then local markets factor in to it as well -
particularly WA with it's transportation logistics (if Australia is,
as Mr Keating said, "The Arse End of the World" what, dare I may ask
does that make Perth?
Whoa Dobin !
"Down under: in Sydney they may be at "The Arse End of the World"
but up here in Perth
I live on TOP OF THE WORLD.
It's all those other people that are in trouble , AND DON'T FORGET TO
KEEP ON TELLING THEM SO.
Bob
