Slashdot Mirror


Local Currencies To Replace Dollar For 5 Countries' Dealings

An anonymous reader writes "Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — the BRICS group of fastest growing economies — signed an agreement to use their own currencies instead of the predominant US dollar in issuing credit or grants to each other. The world does need a new financial architecture, but the BRICS by themselves are unlikely to be able to drive that change."

34 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Bad News for USD by hinesbrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is VERY bad news to an already weakened dollar.

    1. Re:Bad News for USD by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      In practical terms it's not. As the articles mention, this only applies to loans, not to trade. Think about it, who ever wanted a loan of Brazilian Reales? Trade is where the real action happens, and it will still happen in dollars. If this has an effect on the dollar, it will be because of investor fear, not because of any real change in the fundamentals.

      People trade in dollars because it is so liquid in terms of finance options. As one example, if you are Korean, you can send a shipment of parts to Peru in exchange for dollars. Then, since you don't have to pay your suppliers for a month, you can buy treasuries or something for a month, then at the end, sell them. You've thus made a few percentage in the interim. It isn't always so easy to find something to invest in other currencies, thus the dollar has a competitive advantage. This is why the BRICS are unable to move away easily from the dollar.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Bad News for USD by benjamindees · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More like you *have* to buy treasuries for a month otherwise your dollars lose 3% of their value due to inflation. India and China would love to get loans of Reals. Hamburger futures are going up in value.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:Bad News for USD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The dollar is kept artificially high in value due to international trade. The current status quo kind of subsidizes the US way of life.

      The US has had the ability to influence and bargain what are essentially one way "free trade " agreements. This is all about to come to an end.

        The dollar will drop somewhat on Monday and unless something big happens within 10- 15 years the US will eventually become like Germany in 1923.
      Not to sound like chicken little but Americans should prepare for the worst, international currency and economic policy is changing with less regard taken for preserving US$ backed wealth than you would think.

      Internationally, Ghadaffi was pushing for a gold backed currency (US gold reserves are actually quite small and has had counterfeiting problems) the problem with this is that to keep the same amount of paper money in circulation gold would be valued at almost $20,000 an oz. To counter this we would need to set back $$$ values and circulation to levels seen pre WWII.

    4. Re:Bad News for USD by rve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is VERY bad news to an already weakened dollar.

      The dollar has been overvalued for decades, and look at the result: manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, and a vastly negative trade balance. With an over valued currency, It's simply cheaper to import something than to produce it locally.

      A high exchange rate doesn't make a currency strong anyway, long term stability and low inflation are more important.

    5. Re:Bad News for USD by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Call on line 1. Something about an excluded middle.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Bad News for USD by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One could argue that the dollar *is* what the US manufactures. Since it's been used as the world's reserve currency, printing dollars has behaved essentially like mining gold would have a hundred years ago.

    7. Re:Bad News for USD by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In more practical terms, the dollar loses it's importance to the world. Remember the '70's (if you're old enough) when the oil producing countries decided that they wouldn't accept the dollar as payment for their products. They wanted something real to back up the payments. Gold.

      All by itself, this erosion of faith in the dollar wouldn't mean diddly. But, this is just a streamlet which feeds a good sized river. One day, the dollar won't even be accepted in half the countries of the world. "Your green money is no good here, white man - go exchange it for real money, then we'll barter!"

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Bad News for USD by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, deflation is the best thing that happens to economy. You have never observed deflation - which is literally contraction of monetary supply.

      Money must be valuable, otherwise it drives investment capital out and with that go the jobs. Yes, deflation is the best thing for economy from point of view of consumers as well - they get the benefit of saying: today I bought some bread. It was CHEAPER than a year ago.

      Deflation is only the enemy of the state officials who rely on inflation to wipe out their ever increasing debts, because they can't stop consuming and they like to give free money to corporations and to voters for obvious reasons.

      Welcome to the economics.

    9. Re:Bad News for USD by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Deflation is generally regarded by economists as an econonic disaster (which you would know if you actually studied economics).

      - Keynesians to economics is what astrologists are to Astronomy, so shut up about 'economists' who are on the government/system payroll.

      If you want to see a real economist, look no further than my sig.

      Why buy today, when you can buy something cheaper tomorrow? or even cheaper the day after that?

      - yeah, because this is such a terrible thing that a TV or a computer that you are buying today will be worth half of the price a year from now.

      But that is EXACTLY what happens, yet people buy things anyway, because you only have ONE LIFE, you do not wait to buy food, clothing, energy, rent and consumer goods for the next life, because it might be cheaper that time.

      Modern day Japan is a case study in the stagnation that arises from slowly falling prices

      - WTF? Japan SHOULD have deflation, instead it prints so many yen, that they counterbalance the effect of the necessarily falling prices by ever increasing monetary supply.

      Japanese government, just like any other government on this planet right now is in the same Keynesian trap. Too bad for them.

      no one wants to spend because everything is cheaper tomorrow

      - this is nonsense. People are buying less only because they have less purchasing power.

      Japanese would be buying PLENTY if they didn't collectively decide to subsidize the US consumer by printing its own currency to match the US dollar.
      -

      This place (/.) is filled with economic ignorance, it's discouraging.

    10. Re:Bad News for USD by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's nonsense. Inflation means that your money will be worth less tomorrow, so you can't generate savings to start a new business - nobody WANTS your money for labor/tools/whatever.

      You are completely disregarding the fact that USA had deflation throughout the 19 century and past WWII, when prices were falling naturally due to the currency that was gaining in value and people had higher and higher standards of living. However past WWII the problem was that government saw the increase in economic activity as an invitation for more inflation (money printing), while in 19 century they did not have fiat in the first place, so they couldn't devalue the currency.

      In 19 century the bread people bought a year ago cost MORE than one they bought year from then, and it was good for general welfare (which is what USA Constitution promotes, not personal, but general welfare, and general welfare implies stronger currency).

    11. Re:Bad News for USD by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The less the rest of the world uses the US dollar, the worse it becomes for the USA. This is actually a serious issue for the USA.

      Analogy: in Zimbabwe when Mugabe printed lots of Zimbabwe dollars, he was basically taxing everyone who held Zimbabwe dollars. He transferred wealth from them to him and his cronies (who I assume got some of it). The rest of the world mostly didn't care or laughed because they didn't use Zimbabwe dollars.

      The rest of the world however is living in USA's "Zimbabwe" because petroleum, grain, CPUs, country-sized loans and lots of other stuff are all in US dollars. Many countries hold billions or trillions in US dollars to trade stuff with each other.

      So in the past the US could create money at will and thus "tax" the rest of the world ( everyone who holds net positive amounts of US dollars including net creditors[1]). They could spend the created money on big projects and pay (or owe) the rest of the world in US dollars for oil, food, toys etc. As long as they didn't over do it, nobody seemed to notice or care.

      Recently the US created trillions of US dollars (google for Federal Reserve trillions) but rather than the money going into making most of the USA richer, those trillions went to bail-out cronies who lost/siphoned/wasted trillions in the first place.

      The rest of the world is probably starting to notice that created trillions whether directly or indirectly, hence they are switching from the US dollar. They cannot switch too fast because if they start a panic, their billions or more in US dollars could become worth even less.

      [1] Take China as an example. The USA owes China trillions. Foolish people think that means the USA is screwed. But imagine if Hasbro owed their suppliers millions in Monopoly money. Who really is screwed here? Creating US dollars in computers is a lot cheaper than printing Monopoly money ;).

      The USA is only screwed if China says, you can't owe us in US dollars any more. It has to be paid in Euro or RMB.

      So this news is certainly bad for the USA.

      --
    12. Re:Bad News for USD by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have studied it, albeit years ago.

      Two reasons to do this: first, they retain more control over monetary and fiscal policy by not using another commodity, be it gold or USD, particularly if the value of the commodity (USD) doesn't appear that it will be as stable in the future as it has been. If they really believed in this advantage or the weakness of the USD, they would have gone in more than what they have. Although perhaps it is testing the waters.

      The second, probably bigger issue, is pride. This group of five economicallly small nations could stand up to the big bully on the global scene.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    13. Re:Bad News for USD by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Informative

      You take tungsten, slightly less dense than gold, and a lot cheaper, mix it with a small amount of a more dense but more expensive metal to get up to the right density, then mix and plate it with about 50% gold. Very difficult to detect if you do it right, and costs a little over half the price of real gold.

    14. Re:Bad News for USD by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah because the US dollar is not undergoing any inflation at all. Oh wait no, the US simply measures inflation differently by first taking out the prices that are going up (like say energy and transport), then massaging the numbers with subjective bullshit algorithms like hedonics, and then printing a number that has absolutely no contact with reality anymore and calling it inflation.

      Tell me why I should buy a 10 year note at 3.4% per year in a currency that is shedding value like never before on foreign exchange markets and whose government is denying inflation while at the same time conducting policy that is leading to a very real risk of hyperinflation? No thanks. I can get 8% interest on the Costa Rican colon and surprisingly thanks to the devaluing US dollar, the exchange rate is also working in my favor giving me a net of about 10% per year in US dollars. Now when a currency from a 2 bit 3rd world banana republic is more solid than the US dollar, you know that you guys are in trouble.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:Bad News for USD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The US is always giving someone the finger. It's called "US foreign policy". Recently the US tacked on a clause to a treaty with my country that guaranteed immunity from prosecution for war crimes for US citizens while in this country. My country rejected the treaty.

      Then you wonder why people hate you, and why things like 9/11 happen. How about learning to live with the rest of the planet, instead of trying to tell it what to do all the time? The US is certainly not an example to follow - its economy stinks, they're not world leaders in anything (except perhaps waste produced per capita), its empty promises of freedom and democracy have been raped and usurped by its own self serving politicians, its human rights record is appalling, its warmongering is not tolerable. What's to like about the US? You can keep it.

    16. Re:Bad News for USD by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a Canadian all I can say is that it is very sweet, with the Americans needing $1.04 to get one of our Canadian dollars, to remember all the jibes about Canadian currency being worthless as little as 5 years ago. What is even sweeter is that many Americans can no longer afford to travel abroad. Yeah it sucks for the tourism industry, but we welcome Europeans and Asians who have real money, don't speak so loudly in restaurants, and wear something other than dirty T-shirts, shorts and flip flops...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:Bad News for USD by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

      USD is currently experiencing a 10% inflation. Since the bulk of inflationary pressures caused by the US Gov spending was expected to kick in throughout 2011, it's only expected to get worse.

      I have no idea where you're getting that number, or that suggested cause, but neither of them are even remotely correct. My guess is the rantings of some TV personality, but you and other readers need to know that it's pure nonsense.

      The 12-month price change index (one of the more common measures of inflation) is close to 2.7%, slightly higher than normal but not really out of whack given the huge sums of money destroyed when the real estate market crashed. As far as government spending, in the last year the federal government went from spending about $3.6 trillion in 2010 to spending about $3.7 trillion in 2011 (both of those figures include Social Security and Medicare, which are not part of the general fund). That's an increase that's actually slightly less than inflation.

      The first chart also has a clear answer on what is inflating, although it doesn't add up close to the suspiciously round 10% you cited: Gas prices are much higher in the US than they were a year ago. The most likely reason for this appears to be oil speculators buying up futures in anticipation of the Libya War causing supplies to drop. An increase in the price of crude would also cause a price increase in industrially-produced food, which we're also seeing. But that's different from having $1 today worth only $0.91 next year.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    18. Re:Bad News for USD by Omestes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      , not space flight (rocked the moon)

      Err... how long ago was that? And looking around, we're going to not have any form of space program pretty soon. We're down to leasing use of Russian capsules to actually get people in space now. Hell, we aren't even able to replicate the aging technology that got us to the Moon in the first place. As a space nerd, these are very depressing times.

      May I reiterate? We need Russian technology and approval to get a human in space! Sounds like we're winning, no?

      We won the space battle, but completely lost the space war.

      Thank god too, because who wants the responsibility of helping the whole goddamned world.

      Vast swaths of the world (I'm thinking South America especially) would be very happy if the U.S. never "helped" it. Actually many of the problems we're today "fixing" were caused by us in the first place. U.S. foreign policy is very much damage control over past U.S. foreign policy.

      I'm an American, and I'm not particularly anti-American, I just don't think that we're really the best at anything anymore. I find "exceptionalism" to be a bit odd, what are we really exceptional at? Metrics that matter? Education, not too exceptional. Health, not really that much better off than the rest of the "first world". Standard of living, we're so-so. Technology, falling all the time. Crime, I suppose we're exceptional in a bad way there. Etc... All exceptionalism means is hubris and the lack of ability to learn from more successful countries.

      America should STRIVE to be better, and not just sit around claiming it is, empirically we aren't.

      But then again I've always been suspicious of patriotism. How can we be "#1" when most of the world also claims that the land and people within their fictional borders are also "#1". Most patriotism boils down to the simple tautology "America is the best because we do everything better. We do everything better because America is the best!".

      I like my country. Its terribly flawed, and growing more flawed every day. I'm deeply ashamed of some of our actions, and embarrassed for some of our people. Our government isn't something to really be proud of. Our respect and empathy for the average American (i.e. anyone not in our club) is deplorable and depressing. Our public debate is less mature than that which can be heard in a 3rd grade playground. Our institutions and infrastructure is decaying, and now much worse than other first world countries. Our government looks out for the rich at the expense of the other 90% of the population. We're barely literate. We're morbidly obese. We commit war-time atrocities and torture people.

      I like my country and would like it to be better. We can live up to our ideals. But if we just sit around patting each other on the back for the accidental features of our birth, we're really not going to get anywhere, and will probably continue down of downward spiral.

      Liking something is also admitting its faults, and striving to make it better. Blind pride is stupidity and generally only leads to decline.

      That said, I will always hold my friends and family above any grand concept of "America". I more view myself as a citizen of the desert southwest than an American, really. Proximity breads importance, distance mere abstractness. What does "America" really even mean? We don't share a universal ideal, a universal value system, a universal culture. We somewhat share a language, but that's rapidly changing, and we will be fully bilingual by the time I die.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    19. Re:Bad News for USD by superwiz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pick your favorite news source: http://www.google.com/search?q=us+inflation+10%25

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    20. Re:Bad News for USD by Kelbear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I definitely agree that the US should not spend so much on the military.

      But I'll just share an anecdote on a little game we played called Guns and Butter in history class back when I was in high school. Students were grouped up into teams and the teams were assigned resource profiles which were simple, but broadly analogous to various countries of the world, middling economies with no oil, high economies with little/no oil, middling economies with a some oil, low economies with lots of oil.

      During each round, each team could allocate their resources to quality of living, improving their economy, or building a military. They could also negotiate with other countries and trade resources in whatever bargain they could strike.

      There were no goals assigned, each country gets to decide for themselves what they wanted to do. My team was assigned the US. The highest amount of resources, and highest amount of military to start.

      We quickly decided internally that our goal was to develop the most prosperity. We bought oil as needed, but mainly poured all resources into our economy on every turn, and even traded a little of our military resource away for some oil to increase our prosperity even further(prosperity is increased through economic resource, and some oil, and will in turn increase economic output slightly in future turns). Of course, we kept some of the military resources we started with, which should be more than enough since the rest of the world had virtually no military to speak of at the start of the game. We were one of only 2 countries that started off with enough military resources to fire a nuclear strike that would obliterate any country foolish enough to pick a fight.

      As the game unfolded, the oil-rich nations bonded together into a parallel of OPEC. This was troubling to us, since this limited our growth potential. It was interesting how quickly this happened given that these kids had probably never even heard of OPEC, but recognized that it dramatically increased the value of their oil in trade when they all collectively set prices. Nevertheless, we kept right on with pouring everything into increased prosperity. We were quickly shut out by the oil alliance because they didn't want us to succeed, and were jealous that we had already started off with so much. But we just bought oil from 2 middling nations instead and we had enough for our purposes.

      The middling nations pretty much kept to themselves, just cutting a handful of trade deals. Eventually the oil nations, while still incredibly poor, and individually weak, had amassed a significant military in the aggregate. But that still meant that the first to attack us would get nuked by us and drop out of the game. So we weren't too concerned. They even roped in a few middling nations towards the end, and we lost one of our oil contracts. This cut into our prosperity initiative since we weren't getting enough oil to improve on each turn. None of the other countries would deal with us to avoid getting burned on their own contracts with the powerful oil alliance. But we knew our goal and just invested in prosperity on every other turn when we saved up enough oil.

      Then the nukes launched. The oil alliance had grown so incredibly paranoid of our power that their ultimate goal for the entire game was to take us down. One of the poor nations had volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb that kept building up military(with the assistance of the alliance) to the exclusion of all else, until they could fire a nuke.

      We were aghast, we'd lost all of our progress in the game. We had been entirely peaceful, and aside from 2 oil contracts were complete isolationists. We sighed and fired our 1 nuke back. It was all we had left of our military since it was the highest possible deterrent and we didn't need conventional military arms for conquest. In the end, the small oil country was vaporized, and the US was nearly wiped out, and the useless remains were conquered by an oil nation on the following turn. The end of the game came

  2. BRICS unable to change it my ass by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ENTIRE modern financial structure depends on trust. That's that. Void papers and monies backed by various privately owned central banks or private investment firms had been the perpetrator of this trust system so far. And all the world obliged by it.

    If you really go down to it, there is nothing real left backing the financial and monetary values and papers right now. They are SO inflated and complicated that, one top hedge fund manager said on cnn, even he himself doesnt know the exact composition of the fund he was managing. However this fund too, is taken as a real fiscal value, and is also considered as a backer of monetary value of the country it is being traded in.

    water vapor. if you erase that water vapor and overinflated stocks, you will see that nothing remains backing the money of most countries like switzerland, britain, usa.

    whereas this BRIC alliance that the summary so gleefully drops down, actually PRODUCES value. they have solid backing for their money. contrary to the others, you can actually buy solid products and services with that money from those countries.

    Once there is traction behind these, and the water vapor of the established financial scourge in the west is ignored, everything easily will change.

    really. china produces most of the world's products now. so, what ? some investment bank from wall street, is going to threaten china ? oh boy. what will happen if china says 'give me yuan' ?

  3. hahahahaha ... by unity100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "repatriate" your manufacturing ... WHERE will you sell your products to ? europe ? china ? russia ? india ? all the while where china produces the same product for dimes ? with its 1.5 billion population ?

    in case you are not yet aware, china is the BIGGEST market on the planet, and one of its cards in his hand, is this. noone can ignore the market that is china and be set.

  4. Re:i don't understand what you are trying to say by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Informative

    the american economy suffered a burst bubble from an overheated real estate market in 2008. it might be a long painful recovery

    but if it gets your political inclinations excited to derive deeper portents, have at it

    people trade in the currency that is seen most stable RELATIVELY. some background: as the 2008 crisis began, people began to flee the dollar. then, as the crisis began to ripple across the rest of the world, some places wound up weaker than the usa, and people began to return the dollar. why? not because the dollar was stable, but because the dollar was RELATIVELY stable compared to the problems in many other places, like europe

    currently, the yuan is probably the most stable currency, but china has plenty of exposure to potential problems that could blow up worse than the usa. then the dollar might again be the most RELATIVELY stable currency, or not, or some other currency. i don't know. neither do you

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  5. Re:Yeah! ... The Almighty buck is no more! by smallfries · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The dollar jumped to the forefront of all this because (IMHO) they managed to ensure OPEC only sells using dollars.

    Your opinion is wrong: OPEC sells in dollars because that is the world's reserve currency. America has retained it's dominance this long because everything is denominated in dollars at some level. It doesn't seem to be just your misunderstanding, the second indiatimes link makes the same mistake:

    Reserve currencies are not created by fiat; they emerge from historical forces of trade and investment. The dollar is the world's favourite currency because it is simply the most traded, circulated and accepted currency in the world. Brics or others hoping to supplant the dollar will have to develop large and deep markets, first within their own national economies and then across the world for bonds in those currencies.

    Reserve currencies are created exactly by fiat: this is how the dollar was chosen at Bretton Woods. Everything else is backwards: the dollar is the most traded, circulated and accepted currency in the world precisely because it is the international reserve.

    This move by BRICs does look like the first step towards expanding special drawing rights and replacing the dollar with a weighted basket of currencies.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  6. Oh that is easy by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trade to be done in non-us dollars. That will hurt the US very very badly.

    The oldest man just died recently, at 114 years of age. This means that he was born before 1900. When he was born and for a long time in his life, the British still had an empire. You wanna bet they didn't trade or loan money in USD? Who would use money from some backwards place filled with barbarous people with barely any history?

    And then, the world changed. The US rose up to be the new super power. Pact Britannica, replaced by Pact USA. Not british warschips but American carriers patrolled the oceans, protecting trade... as long as it followed their rule. It is not without coincidence that oil is traded in dollars and some dare suggest that America's wrat was raised when certain oil producing countries dared consider trading in Euro's instead of dollars. Look it up and see just how many seconds it took for the US to declare the leaders in power a danger to western civilization.

    All true? Partly. It is not like Saddam did not do plenty else to cause upset. Maybe it was just the straw that broke the camels back or one of the many straws already on the back. Who knows.

    What is important here is that this old man saw the world change, saw certainties wiped away AND then replaced by new certainties. Many above post that US dollars are just the way things are. Yes, they are. For as long as they have been alive at least. But there are those who knew different realities in their youth, realities that seemed just as sure and to be able to last forever. Go ahead, travel back to the 1897 and declare the british empire will crumble in London. Don't worry if your timemachine can't travel forwards in time, I don't think you are going to need a return trip.

    The BRICS countries are HUGE together and have tasted the downside of US dominance. Together they control more then half the world population. More resources then anyone else, more production then anyone else, more market then anyone else. And they realize this and are stirring. Should the US be worried? About as worried as the brits pre-WW1 should have been before the pound. Once the symbol of stability, now toilet paper.

    And the brits didn't learn, they still cling to their ideas of empire and that the pound will beat everything else. That is why they didn't join the Euro and still beat themselves on the chest about it despite mass unemployment and mass debt that is tearing their society apart from the inside.

    Is trade in another currency then dollars going to hurt the US? Yes and no. Yes because a lot of the value of the dollar hangs on the fact that it is used by everyone for trade. If this changes, a LOT of dollars will appear on the market because the need to have a huge pile in reserve to buy stuff (like oil) will disappear. Simply put, Holland needs a pile of dollars now if it wants to buy oil and a healthy reserve for emergency purchases whatever they might be. If oil trade changes to Euro's, then it doesn't need a pile of dollars anymore and even its reserves can go down since it already holds Euro's in reserve. That will lower the perceived value of dollars and might bring it down to the real value.

    If the perceived value of the dollar now is equal to the real value, then the US won't be hurt. Nobody really knows but many doubt it is. On the other hand, IF the US "collapses" it could stop being the world police man, go back on itself and save a fortune on its military budget. If the dollar is worth less, then importing makes far less sense, US might start producing on its own shores again.

    US bankers and the superrich won't like it. But the people of the US might be better off.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  7. The game is coming to an end by argoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You see, in a normal world if I printed up some paper and tried to use it to buy goods and services from you, nobody would take it. But if you tax people in that paper, and you take measures that people owe you debt denominated in that paper, and you start out with a commodity (like gold) and switch it out for certificates of promise, and then paper later on. Then you can force something that's worthless to have value. (Of course, none of this stuff can be done without the force of law to pounce the crap out of people)

    In a way, this is how all fiat money works. But since the US was the world reserve currency, we had the additional ability to print money more recklessly than in other places. That is, and get away with it without causing the US to become a banana republic. I think a lot of other countries are getting fed up with that (if not jealous), which is why the game is coming to an end.

  8. Pile of bullshit. by SEE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Brazil: Only major BRICS trading partner is China. Is major trading partner with US, Japan, Eurozone.
    Russia: Only major BRICS trading partner is China. Is major trading partner with US, Eurozone.
    India: Only major BRICS trading partner is China. Is major trading partner with US, Eurozone.
    China: No BRICS states among its major trading partners. Is major trading partner with US, Japan, Eurozone.
    South Africa: Only major BRICS trading partner is China. Is major trading partner with US, Japan, Eurozone.

    So, the only BRICS that's an important trading partner from the perspective of any of the other BRICS is China, and none of the other BRICS are important trading partners from the Chinese perspective. That means the only BRICS currency of any real importance in inter-BRICS economic activity is the Chinese renminbi.

    And what are the major characteristics of the renminbi? It neither freely floats nor is freely convertible, which means it's unusable as a reserve currency. Further, since the major components of its currency basket are the dollar, euro, and yen, any general move to the renminbi from those currencies would require China to buy them to maintain the "managed float".

    Oh, and the agreement is only about credit and grants, not use in trade, which makes it particularly pointless. None of these countries are major investors in each other, or likely to be anytime soon. Is the Chinese government going to stop building plants in China to start building them in India? Really?

  9. This year by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but the BRICS by themselves are unlikely to to be able to drive that change.

    However a recent Bloomberg article pointed out that China is now Germany's #1 client, replacing the US which has held that position almost since WW2. Considering that China's growth has "slowed" to a mere 9.7% per year, it won't be long at all before they are the largest economy in the world and we will have to do as China says. Another interesting side note is that all those German imports - precision factory machinery, BMW's and other cars, electronics, etc require energy to run. China's demand for oil is about to explode, at a time where we may be nearing peak oil. This is going to be very, very interesting.

    The other side of the coin is that the US dollar as the world currency reserve means that the US is in a very special situation. The US is the only country in the world that can print US dollars. Every other country needs to trade valuable goods and services to obtain one US dollar with which to purchase commodities. The US can simply print it, and in fact this is what it has been doing for a while now. However the minute the US stops being the world reserve currency the US no longer can print its way to importing vital commodities. It will have to earn them like everyone else. Historical data shows that every country that loses status as the world's reserve currency (recent example, the British Pound pre WW2) undergoes severe economic distress. Americans are in denial of this, but irresponsible monetary policy always has consequences. A big hint is the Euro at 1.44 (as if the Euro were in great shape) and the Canadian dollar at 1.04 - not to mention all the other currencies. People don't want US dollars anymore, thanks to Ben and his buddies.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  10. Try this... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    India and China alone are over ONE THIRD of humanity.

    Now, when that one third of humanity gives loans to itself (C-I, I-C) it is no longer dependent on the current or the future state of US economy, nor does it have a reason to care about possible changes it may create there.
    Where will this become apparent? Fungible assets that they spend more than anyone else - like food and fuel.

    They take out a loan from each other to import goods, pay goods in dollars because they have to, which influences the dollar value in a positive sense (it goes up or it doesn't go down, but since everyone else is trading in dollars it is usually invisible) - but now, the price of their loans does not increase with the amount of grain or oil they import.

    As a bonus, both economies being outsourcing centers for the US economy, the positive influence their importing makes on the dollar now makes the dollars they are paid in more valuable - while their interest rates and other costs of loan don't go up along with the value of the dollar.
    Bonus points if the exporter country is the lender at the same time. Like say... Russia for grain/oil/coal.

    A smaller economy/country would probably not have that much of a positive effect, but we ARE talking India and China here. And Russia.
    And 2.5 billion people can eat a lot of food and burn a lot of fuel.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Try this... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it is no longer dependent on the current or the future state of US economy, nor does it have a reason to care about possible changes it may create there.

      Well, that's not right. Just because they aren't directly dealing with the US, doesn't mean the US has no affect. It would still affect trade, the non-BRICS loans (C-I, I-C), it would affect their partners, the other banks they deal with, etc.

      Ups! Should have added "regarding that particular action". No... wait... I DID add that.

      when that one third of humanity gives loans to itself

      And you should read a bit more carefully... Where exactly did I say "US has no affect"?
      Granted... might be a bit hard to read the type on Slashdot while on horseback, but still...

      If you're talking about the underwriting services provided by banks, such as bank bills so when trading with international companies, they can be assured the deal will go through, then you're wrong. First of all, bank bills and these notes (as far as I have seen) have always been denominated in the local currency. The bank isn't protecting them from exchange rate risk, only default risk.

      Who said anything about "banks"? We are talking central financial institution of one country issuing a loan or grant to another country. At best it is A bank, or as the article puts it "our designated banks".
      We're not talking commercial banking here - these are governments handing out loans to each other through the banks that are effectively extensions of their respective treasuries.
      But that is besides the point.

      The point is, they can give out a loan/grant in local not_directly_dependent_on_the_dollar currency to each other (let's call it loan A), which they can use to cover their loan from their local bank(s)/financial_authorityTM to get the dollars to buy goods they need. Call that the loan B.
      That way, even though their loan B doesn't cover them from exchange rate risks directly, the loan B itself is covered by the loan A which does all the risk covering.
      They do this reciprocally and they are both covered.

      The article even states "this will not affect trade". This policy regards only loans made by banks, to entities in a BRICS country.

      One, no it does not state that second part. It states "an agreement...in issuing credit or grants to each other."
      You seem to be thinking that all trading EVER is done only between companies - and it is not. Governments CAN trade too.
      Particularly in things like food and fuel which they are obligated to keep national reserves of.

      Two, try thinking about it rationally. Would a cheap loan of great quantities of money to a country have an effect on the trade that country does? Hell yeah it would! They just found a huge pile of money. They're not going to use it as toilet paper. They're going to spend it. How do you do that? Ding! You buy stuff!

      What would the absence of directly visible effect in such a case mean? Well, that might mean that there really is no effect on the trade cause they are trading with fairies OR that the effect is being masked somewhere in the chain.

      Where would that masking take place? In the part where they would otherwise influence the value of the dollar in a positive manner, which would in turn influence their budgets in negative manner through increased costs of the loan.

      They are practically saying it out loud - only it is politi-talk.

      The rest of your response is babbling nonsense, and from what I can tell its still about trade, and is mostly addressed by the above. Are you sure you studied this at university?

      Don't be silly! Who studies common sense and reading between the lines in university?
      I mean, clearly, you didn't. Right?

      Or you would pick up on the fact that I am not waving the banner of my extensive bachel

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  11. Archimedes called from Syracuse... by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You take tungsten, slightly less dense than gold, and a lot cheaper, mix it with a small amount of a more dense but more expensive metal to get up to the right density, then mix and plate it with about 50% gold. Very difficult to detect if you do it right, and costs a little over half the price of real gold.

    Look, Archimedes called and he wants his density method for counterfeit detection back. The method you describe may be sufficient to sell fake bullion to Ethiopia, where it seems that you don't even need to get the density right, but it will not fool any serious gold trader.

    The problem is not density alone, hardness is fundamental, because practical methods to identify metals today are based on speed of sound in the metal.

    Ultrasonic thickness measuring equipment is the best way to detect fake metals, it works in a principle similar to the traditional "ringing sound" method for detecting fakes. Gold coins and bullion have a precisely defined thickness, if you use an ultrasonic transducer to measure it and get a wrong result it's a fake. And, of course, the transition inside the bar from gold to tungsten is trivially detected when you have the proper equipment, which you surely have if you are trading in large amounts of gold.

    In an "arms race" scenario, technology definitely works against the counterfeiters. It's much harder and more expensive to create a gold-coated tungsten bar than to detect it.

    1. Re:Archimedes called from Syracuse... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1. You wouldn't collect SS if you were a committed Randian because your principles would stop you. Like every one of her fictional characters would refuse to collect.

      2. SS doesn't steal your money. It forces you to invest it in the safest available investment, US debt, that returns about 50% interest. That also invests in running your country, which keeps all your investments safe.

      If you're really just committed to grabbing as much money as you can, without any actual consistent principles, then you can do as Ayn Rand did. If you're willing to leave the majority of old people with losses instead of gains in their retirement investments, then you can get rid of Social Security. Congratulations! You're a reckless greedmonger, the kind that steered our country and its millions of old people into the grinding poverty of the Great Depression. AKA "Randian". Even if Ayn Rand herself was not. She was merely a hypocrite and a fiction writer.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  12. you've been duped, it is 10% by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

    By the 1990 definition of CPI, we're at 6% (a 10% change over last year). shadowstats.com to see unemployment and inflation by older measures, before the government decided to sugar coat.