<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Should Obama take over Citicorp? - Bank nationalization</title> <atom:link href="http://www.capital-flow-watch.net/2009/04/20/bank-nationalization-the-secondary-effects/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.capital-flow-watch.net/2009/04/20/bank-nationalization-the-secondary-effects/</link> <description>Conservative economic commentary from the top-down</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:51:36 -0400</lastBuildDate> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: John Schroy</title><link>http://www.capital-flow-watch.net/2009/04/20/bank-nationalization-the-secondary-effects/#comment-178</link> <dc:creator>John Schroy</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:01:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://capital-flow-analysis.com/capital-flow-watch/bank-nationalization-the-secondary-effects.html#comment-178</guid> <description>Good question, Chris!The problem with the &quot;financial supremacy thing&quot; is that having the US dollar as the world reserve currency has created easy money for US citizens since World War II.This has made it easy for millions of Americans to buy homes and cars, because the trade deficit has created a vast source of credit.The supremacy of the US dollar has also caused other nations to be eager to sell goods in exchange for US dollars, which means goods have been cheap and financing has been easy.With the end of the &quot;supremacy thing&quot;, prices of imported goods would go up and financing would become scarce.  Not only that, Americans would have to pay for foreign goods in some other currency, Rupiah, Yen, Euros ... and would end up borrowing from abroad not in dollars, but in foreign currency.When a country needs to borrow not in its own currency but in a foreign currency, the stage is set for a whole country to go bankrupt as happened in the Asian crisis of 1997.So, it&#039;s not rational to voluntarily drop the &quot;supremacy thing&quot;.  This is a precious asset that took generations to achieve.Without the &quot;supremacy thing&quot; and with a country that has become largely de-industrialized over the years, and with educational standards already far from the top, it would no longer be &quot;Morning in America&quot;, to put it mildly.It would not be a &quot;rational decision&quot; to drop the &quot;supremacy thing&quot; ... it would be a political decision ... and a severely uninformed one at that.By the way, the nice thing (for Americans) about the &quot;supremacy thing&quot; is that you never have to really worry about paying back &quot;foreign debt&quot; anymore than citizens of New Jersey worry about their &quot;foreign debt&quot; with citizens of Florida.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good question, Chris!</p><p>The problem with the &#8220;financial supremacy thing&#8221; is that having the US dollar as the world reserve currency has created easy money for US citizens since World War II.</p><p>This has made it easy for millions of Americans to buy homes and cars, because the trade deficit has created a vast source of credit.</p><p>The supremacy of the US dollar has also caused other nations to be eager to sell goods in exchange for US dollars, which means goods have been cheap and financing has been easy.</p><p>With the end of the &#8220;supremacy thing&#8221;, prices of imported goods would go up and financing would become scarce.  Not only that, Americans would have to pay for foreign goods in some other currency, Rupiah, Yen, Euros &#8230; and would end up borrowing from abroad not in dollars, but in foreign currency.</p><p>When a country needs to borrow not in its own currency but in a foreign currency, the stage is set for a whole country to go bankrupt as happened in the Asian crisis of 1997.</p><p>So, it&#8217;s not rational to voluntarily drop the &#8220;supremacy thing&#8221;.  This is a precious asset that took generations to achieve.</p><p>Without the &#8220;supremacy thing&#8221; and with a country that has become largely de-industrialized over the years, and with educational standards already far from the top, it would no longer be &#8220;Morning in America&#8221;, to put it mildly.</p><p>It would not be a &#8220;rational decision&#8221; to drop the &#8220;supremacy thing&#8221; &#8230; it would be a political decision &#8230; and a severely uninformed one at that.</p><p>By the way, the nice thing (for Americans) about the &#8220;supremacy thing&#8221; is that you never have to really worry about paying back &#8220;foreign debt&#8221; anymore than citizens of New Jersey worry about their &#8220;foreign debt&#8221; with citizens of Florida.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: chris</title><link>http://www.capital-flow-watch.net/2009/04/20/bank-nationalization-the-secondary-effects/#comment-177</link> <dc:creator>chris</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:16:35 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://capital-flow-analysis.com/capital-flow-watch/bank-nationalization-the-secondary-effects.html#comment-177</guid> <description>&lt;p&gt;So, what if it&#039;s a perfectly rational decision to drop the financial supremacy thing, given the huge (realised) risk?&lt;/p&gt;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, what if it&#8217;s a perfectly rational decision to drop the financial supremacy thing, given the huge (realised) risk?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
