[anasawad]

Human labor is part of wealth true.

Why does deflation bring poverty ?
It increases the purchasing power of the currency ? which is considerably good to stabilize the economy and strengthen it while expanding it through other policies and trades.
And wealth increases as we dig out more resources and produce more goods. But shouldn't it be better to measure the amount of money we print based on the amount of resources and production we have and keep producing
to bring more stability ?


And BTW, oil is barely used by us and our wealth is not based on it. Those would be the Arabs. We have other industries.

[Scamp]

Because Obama said so. But we can't blame him.

Let's blame everything and everyone else.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is a silly question POD. We do not support Islamic rule. We needed the oil. Now that we do not we are moving away from SA pretty quickly.

You may wish to dwell in the past...why did we fight the Barbary Pirates, but now is what is important.

The US still supports Saudi Arabia. Current ties between the two countries have remained stable for decades.

The notion that the US put Saddam in power is absurd. Do try to read a little history. Actually when he took power he was a royal pain in the ass for us.

He was such a pain in the ass that the US supported him in the Iran-Iraq war and defended his gov't against claims of genocide.

[Harmattan]

Why does deflation bring poverty ?
It increases the purchasing power of the currency ? which is considerably good to stabilize the economy and strengthen it while expanding it through other policies and trades.

Since wages have to remain constant under a constant monetary volume, the situation is not more beneficial for wages than the fiat currency situation where wages increase faster than prices.

However with a constant volume all the economy is slowed down by deflation: actors refuse to sell at lower prices than the ones they were used to, they are less interested by investment, money sleeps without being used which causes unemployment, no one can borrow money because loans become more expensive with time, etc. When the economy is bad, no one profits, neither riches nor poors.

Now how riches and poors compare under a constant volume?
* Since borrowing is difficult, riches are the only ones with capital. They are the only ones who can invest, change the society and seize power.
* Poor people cannot buy a house now and reimburse later, they have to save money for twenty years, then buy the house.
* Riches are harmed by the mediocre economy like everyone else but they do not care so much about money itself. They care more about power and this is related to the assets they control. In a stable and mediocre economy it is easy for them to slowly concentrate more and more capital and transmit it through generations.


That being said, do Iranians put their savings in financial products, or do they keep banknotes in their mattresses? If the latter, then this is the problem you must fix. Not screw your economy to perpetuate this custom. Forget moralism regarding the financial world: it works and this is how you build a rich country. Of course it ends up derailing but this is true with all economic systems. All economic systems (and others) go through growth-sclerosis-disruption cycles.

And wealth increases as we dig out more resources and produce more goods.

First of all there may come a time where global production will constantly decrease. But even before that you would not want to index your currency on a foreign resource. And your domestic deposits will only last a few decades.

And after you tied your economy and citizens' well-being to your extraction speed, you will naturally want to extract as fast as possible, more than you need it, wasting it, causing great environmental damages, and spoiling your descendants from this resource.

And all in all the global production volume still varies rapidly and you would artificially submit your economy to those variations. If tomorrow a new deposit is closed, deflation will increase and the reimbursement of your loans will brutally increase, creating a severe crisis.

But shouldn't it be better to measure the amount of money we print based on the amount of resources and production we have and keep producing to bring more stability ?

When things go well, outside of crises, this is exactly what we do: the central bank raises its rates to slow down the printing of money to keep inflation in check. In other words it ties the monetary growth to the economic growth.

During crises however, stability would bring instability. Because agents prefer to not use their money during crises, so you need to force them to or things will go worse. At this time the central bank must increase the monetary volume, which generates activity and forces everyone to use its money to not waste it.

Fiat currencies are more difficult to handle than resource-based ones and some govts abused them. But they can potentially bring a faster growth and more stability. Because they are printed based on economic reality and needs.

And BTW, oil is barely used by us and our wealth is not based on it. Those would be the Arabs. We have other industries.

According to wikipedia, oil accounts for a fifth of your GDP, 60% of your govt's revenue, 80% of your exports. Since at this stage your growth is tied to your capacity to purchase more advanced foreign goods to accelerate your economy, it seems like it is extremely important. Let's not mention the fact that you need resources you cannot produce and that no country today can be autonomous.

[Istanbuller]

Libya was the last territory Ottomans had in Africa. It lost that to Italy in 1912.

Since Ottoman withdrawal, Libya has never been relevant again. But i am hopeful about ISIS and other militants. They will bring Libya back to daddy.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

It's hard to read the inner workings of an organisation like NATO so rather than pondering why NATO decides to destroy countries I instead find myself asking questions like " how long until NATO decides to destroy my country". NATO is a military force like this planet has never seen and if it wasn't for nukes they would have mankind plunged into a perpetual world war. It is a hostile organisation that has members who in the past have even threatened nuclear war against its enemies. NATO isn't a defence or peace keeping force, it's a war industry. It needs conflict and destabilisation to exist and like any industry its main goal is to expand.

The problem is we are already too late to do anything about it without potentially plunging the world into chaos. Everyone has hopes for a bright future for mankind but the reality is that while organisations like NATO are allowed to continue unfettered war will always find a reason to manifest itself in some poor or small nation with little offensive capability and while it seems to be a game to NATO history has thought us that the feelings of resentment and anger that grow from these conflicts can linger for generations.

[Drlee]

It's hard to read the inner workings of an organisation like NATO so rather than pondering why NATO decides to destroy countries I instead find myself asking questions like " how long until NATO decides to destroy my country". NATO is a military force like this planet has never seen and if it wasn't for nukes they would have mankind plunged into a perpetual world war. It is a hostile organisation that has members who in the past have even threatened nuclear war against its enemies. NATO isn't a defence or peace keeping force, it's a war industry. It needs conflict and destabilisation to exist and like any industry its main goal is to expand.

The problem is we are already too late to do anything about it without potentially plunging the world into chaos. Everyone has hopes for a bright future for mankind but the reality is that while organisations like NATO are allowed to continue unfettered war will always find a reason to manifest itself in some poor or small nation with little offensive capability and while it seems to be a game to NATO history has thought us that the feelings of resentment and anger that grow from these conflicts can linger for generations.

Not a single word of this is true. No response is necessary.

[Potemkin]

It's hard to read the inner workings of an organisation like NATO so rather than pondering why NATO decides to destroy countries I instead find myself asking questions like " how long until NATO decides to destroy my country". NATO is a military force like this planet has never seen and if it wasn't for nukes they would have mankind plunged into a perpetual world war. It is a hostile organisation that has members who in the past have even threatened nuclear war against its enemies. NATO isn't a defence or peace keeping force, it's a war industry. It needs conflict and destabilisation to exist and like any industry its main goal is to expand.

The problem is we are already too late to do anything about it without potentially plunging the world into chaos. Everyone has hopes for a bright future for mankind but the reality is that while organisations like NATO are allowed to continue unfettered war will always find a reason to manifest itself in some poor or small nation with little offensive capability and while it seems to be a game to NATO history has thought us that the feelings of resentment and anger that grow from these conflicts can linger for generations.

Every New World Order needs to have gendarmes to enforce its decrees, Jessup.

[anasawad]

Hmmmm.
So basically to improve the conditions of lower classes we need more market volatility with an upward trend( and a downward trend for the value of the currency) accompanied with a number of policies to keep it in check.

That being said, do Iranians put their savings in financial products, or do they keep banknotes in their mattresses? If the latter, then this is the problem you must fix. Not screw your economy to perpetuate this custom. Forget moralism regarding the financial world: it works and this is how you build a rich country. Of course it ends up derailing but this is true with all economic systems. All economic systems (and others) go through growth-sclerosis-disruption cycles.

No the larger part of the Iranian public is either part of a religious structure or a tribal structure, meaning their surplus of income would find its way into many investments and projects mostly either
into social welfare or into industrial projects.

According to wikipedia, oil accounts for a fifth of your GDP, 60% of your govt's revenue, 80% of your exports. Since at this stage your growth is tied to your capacity to purchase more advanced foreign goods to accelerate your economy, it seems like it is extremely important. Let's not mention the fact that you need resources you cannot produce and that no country today can be autonomous.

Last i checked in 2016 oil revenues rise to only around 15-20% of GDP, with it being a main source for foreign currencies.
The Iranian economy is based currently on 40 industries having most of GDP generated by it.
Along with social (religious and tribal) structures putting 30% of the GDP as it plays part in one hand in redistributing wealth between classes and on the other hand its the main investment tool in foreign markets.
My family being an example as we have investments in many places including Europe and the US mainly, which its revenues is distributed between increasing investment, back to Lebanon in public institution mostly welfare.
And a good part back to Iran where the rest of my family is.
And the company i used to work for is although its a automobile upgrade and development company however its started by my uncles whom both are investors in the Iranian defense sector which basically means most of the companies revenues goes back to the Iranian defense industry.

[Mircea]

There are many reasons floating around mainstream media that try to explain why rich Western nations destroyed a developing African success story. None of us can say with any certainty what the real reason(s) are/were, but after all you've read on the subject, which of the following reasons seem most likely to you.

Libya was destroyed in furtherance of US Geo-Political Strategy, just like Yugoslavia was destroyed.

The strategy involves denying the Russians the use of any airbases or ports in the Mediterranean Sea.

The next target is Syria, followed by Iran, then Central Asia. That gives the US control over most of the world's oil and natural resources to ensure they are sold in US Dollars and not in Euros, Rubles or basket currencies.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Yeah, that's pretty much it but at least Russia is fighting back while the wimps in Europe actually help America to overthrow them.

[Political Interest]

The next target is Syria, followed by Iran, then Central Asia. That gives the US control over most of the world's oil and natural resources to ensure they are sold in US Dollars and not in Euros, Rubles or basket currencies.

Will the US seek the further disintegration of Russia after achieving dominance in the Middle East and Central Asia?

[Mircea]

Yes.

That is the US Geo-Political Strategy.

[Political Interest]

Yes.

That is the US Geo-Political Strategy.

And can America choose not to pursue that or is it imperative?

I think there are some American isolationists who don't want this.

[quetzalcoatl]

And can America choose not to pursue that or is it imperative?

I think there are some American isolationists who don't want this.

Alas, no. They cannot choose not to pursue this strategy. The unraveling of the Deep State that would be required is no longer available through electoral means.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

That's why he world needs someone like Trump, not because he's competent or savvy but because he is not those things and can maybe do some damage from the top down whereas Hillary is a text book globalist leader.

[Rei Murasame]

Except for the part where none of that makes sense, because choosing the most reactionary candidate has never led to non-reactionary results.

If your intent is to continue down the path to crisis, then Hillary Clinton is the choice.

[Godstud]

Trump is the very epitome of the 1%. He's the people everyone wants gone. How will he truly be the "Champion of the people", when he's really just the same guy they want to get rid of?

[Scamp]

So even a thread about NATO destroying Libya, becomes all about Trump.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

my fault