India offered rupees no takers

Soldi

All year long in place of dollars for an oil deal NO TAKERS

Soldi

India's push for rupee as payment currency for crude oil imports finds no takers: Oil ministry
2 min read
26 Dec 2023, 11:52 AM IST
Join us
Whatsapp
Livemint
India's push for rupee transactions for crude oil import has not found any takers as suppliers have expressed concern about the repatriation of funds and high transactional cost

cohodk

Imagine that. Who da thought? Lol

RiveraFamilyCollect

India and China have leverage when buying oil from Russia, they are forcing Russia to deal with Rupee and Yuan. Maybe India's head got a little too big and they assume they have more bargaining power than they do.

GoldFinger1969

@RiveraFamilyCollect said:
India and China have leverage when buying oil from Russia, they are forcing Russia to deal with Rupee and Yuan. > >Maybe India's head got a little too big and they assume they have more bargaining power than they do.

Well, yeah, India demonetized their economy a few years ago so who can trust them ?

And Russia is dealing with a $60 U.S. limit on international oil sales so yeah, a 20% premium in other currencies you immediately dump makes sense.

Long Live King Dollar !

jmski52

India will figure it out, and that's what the BRICS are doing - figuring it out. Jim Rickards has noted recently at a conference in Dubai that the BRICS won't have to do anything with a BRICS currency other than to link it to the price of gold. They don't have to create a reserve currency or a gold standard. Their transactions will be linked to the dollar via the price of gold.

Higashiyama

Various quotes attributed to @jmski52, followed by a question or comment.

"India will figure it out"

What exactly will they figure out? How to run a modern economy? How to manage their trade and currency so that the currency is widely accepted outside of India as a means of exchange? They certainly may figure it out, but not within the next few years.

"that's what the BRICS are doing - figuring it out."

Same question, especially in the context of what Rickards said.

"the BRICS won't have to do anything with a BRICS currency other than to link it to the price of gold."

So, what exactly is a BRICS currency? It is not a gold standard, but it is linked to gold? Is it a currency or a payment system?
Is it the intent that the value of the BRICS currency moves lock-step with the value of gold? Call the BRICS currency the BC. If India buys from the US, they trade Rupees for BCs and use the BCs to buy dollars? So the Real, Ruble, Rupee, Yuan, and Rand will all float independent of the BC. It sounds like a lot of talk without much substance.
.

jmski52

@Higashiyama - what will they figure out? It seems to me that in joining the BRICS they are figuring out how to get away from dependence on the SWIFTS system and the Western financial system.

Your allusion that India doesn’t know how to run a modern economy is somewhat unfortunate because that type of thinking is what got dozens of countries thinking about joining BRICS to get away from the dollar.

What is the BRICS currency? Nobody knows yet. Some kind of announcement was anticipated in December, but the only announcements were by UAE that they would no longer take dollars for oil, and a little earlier by the Saudi prince that they would accept other currencies besides the dollar.

Rickards, if I understand him accurately, thinks that as you suggest - the local currencies will float against the price of gold, which is priced in dollars.

Apparently they are modeling their payment system after SWIFTS and their banking system after the IMF. Talk without much substance? I doubt that. All of this wouldn’t be happening if the Western banking system hadn’t screwed the pooch by issuing debt up the wazzoo in an unsustainable spending orgy.

Soldi

what is a landmark development for the BRICS nations, India has made its first-ever local currency payment to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in an oil trade. Indeed, the agreement saw both countries settle the trade in rupees after agreeing to abandon the US dollar in bilateral dealings earlier this year.

jmski52

what is a landmark development for the BRICS nations, India has made its first-ever local currency payment to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in an oil trade. Indeed, the agreement saw both countries settle the trade in rupees after agreeing to abandon the US dollar in bilateral dealings earlier this year.

Looks like India is figuring it out.

Soldi

@jmski52 said:
what is a landmark development for the BRICS nations, India has made its first-ever local currency payment to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in an oil trade. Indeed, the agreement saw both countries settle the trade in rupees after agreeing to abandon the US dollar in bilateral dealings earlier this year.

Looks like India is figuring it out.

I recently read, I don't remember where, that India has the most stable economy of all the BRICS .

cohodk

.> @jmski52 said:

what is a landmark development for the BRICS nations, India has made its first-ever local currency payment to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in an oil trade. Indeed, the agreement saw both countries settle the trade in rupees after agreeing to abandon the US dollar in bilateral dealings earlier this year.

Looks like India is figuring it out.

So America should trade oil in rupees?

jmski52

So America should trade oil in rupees?

Since you are so well-versed in finance, tell me how it's going to work then.

Soldi

Geopolitical Monitor
September 7th 2023
Does a good job of summing it up. Article "BRICS is not a threat to US"

jmski52

In situations where the BRICS have a dominant position in various natural resources or commodities - pick one - I would expect that whenever a non-BRICS country wants to buy, the price will be higher than when it was bought in dollars.

The trade war is already underway, and the US gambit of confiscating Russian assets apparently did not pay off.

I don't think that anyone knows which way this thing is going.

cohodk

@jmski52 said:
In situations where the BRICS have a dominant position in various natural resources or commodities - pick one - I would expect that whenever a non-BRICS country wants to buy, the price will be higher than when it was bought in dollars.

The trade war is already underway, and the US gambit of confiscating Russian assets apparently did not pay off.

I don't think that anyone knows which way this thing is going.

Sure. Those BRICS that have have resources that others want can stifle supply thus creating inflation, discontent and chaos.

Meanwhile, the USA, with all the resources the BRICS have will sit back and laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

Soldi

https://watcher.guru/news/brics-india-gets-reality-check-ditching-us-dollar-impossible

GoldFinger1969

@Soldi said:
I recently read, I don't remember where, that India has the most stable economy of all the BRICS .

The U.S. has per-capita GDP approaching $60,000 per person. China has $12,000 per person.

India is at $2,000 per person.

GoldFinger1969

@jmski52 said:
In situations where the BRICS have a dominant position in various natural resources or commodities - pick one - I >would expect that whenever a non-BRICS country wants to buy, the price will be higher than when it was bought in >dollars.
The trade war is already underway, and the US gambit of confiscating Russian assets apparently did not pay off.
I don't think that anyone knows which way this thing is going.

We didn't confiscate anything. The assets are frozen. As they should be.

cohodk

@GoldFinger1969 said:

@jmski52 said:
In situations where the BRICS have a dominant position in various natural resources or commodities - pick one - I >would expect that whenever a non-BRICS country wants to buy, the price will be higher than when it was bought in >dollars.
The trade war is already underway, and the US gambit of confiscating Russian assets apparently did not pay off.
I don't think that anyone knows which way this thing is going.

We didn't confiscate anything. The assets are frozen. As they should be.

Sympathizer's have a different view.

Soldi

@GoldFinger1969 said:

@Soldi said:
I recently read, I don't remember where, that India has the most stable economy of all the BRICS .

The U.S. has per-capita GDP approaching $60,000 per person. China has $12,000 per person.

India is at $2,000 per person.

Yeah, reminds me of the good ol days 12c 16 oz cokes 2c deposit no screaming about save the planet plastic.......then of course there's 2 billion people piled on top of one an other in India

Peter89

@Soldi said:

I recently read, I don't remember where, that India has the most stable economy of all the BRICS .

.

Probably this is not precisely what you meant, but somehow

GoldFinger1969

@jmski52 said:
India will figure it out, and that's what the BRICS are doing - figuring it out. Jim Rickards has noted recently at a >conference in Dubai that the BRICS won't have to do anything with a BRICS currency other than to link it to the price >of gold. They don't have to create a reserve currency or a gold standard. Their transactions will be linked to the >dollar via the price of gold.

Really ? They have the gold to back a BRICs currency ?

Let's see it. Let's even see them TALK it !!!

In other news....the BRICs said they will put a Man on Jupiter by the end of next decade....develop warp speed technology....and solve Climate Change ASAP so they can work on preventing a collission between the Milk Way and Andromeda Galaxies !!

Soldi

And if you go chasing rabbits And you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call
Call Alice
When she was just small.......

Peter89

@Peter89 said:

@Soldi said:

I recently read, I don't remember where, that India has the most stable economy of all the BRICS .

.

Probably this is not precisely what you meant, but somehow

.
How about this one
.
You will find more infographics at Statista

Estil

Rupees are Legend of Zelda currency too!

Peter89

"India will figure it out"

What exactly will they figure out? How to run a modern economy? How to manage their trade and currency so that the currency is widely accepted outside of India as a means of exchange? They certainly may figure it out, but not within the next few years.

.
Look at the projections above.
Do you think OECD and IFM would disagree?

jmski52

What exactly will they figure out? How to run a modern economy? How to manage their trade and currency so that the currency is widely accepted outside of India as a means of exchange?

I think that they, and the other BRICS have already figured out that they don't have to have a world reserve currency as long as they can make bilateral trade agreements.

By now, they've probably figured out that using US currency leaves them as vulnerable to Federal Reserve-created inflation and extravagant Congressional spending as it does to those of us here in the US, and they don't see much value in that type of dependency.

The Federal Reserve is in it for themselves and they are a parasitic group that benefits no one but themselves and their paid operatives in banking & government. If the BRICS have figured it out, we should too.

cohodk

@jmski52 said:
What exactly will they figure out? How to run a modern economy? How to manage their trade and currency so that the currency is widely accepted outside of India as a means of exchange?

I think that they, and the other BRICS have already figured out that they don't have to have a world reserve currency as long as they can make bilateral trade agreements.

By now, they've probably figured out that using US currency leaves them as vulnerable to Federal Reserve-created inflation and extravagant Congressional spending as it does to those of us here in the US, and they don't see much value in that type of dependency.

Yes, because they certainly wont be vulnerable to the money creation systems of other countries and their perfect and upstanding political systems. LOL

jmski52

they certainly wont be vulnerable to the money creation systems of other countries and their perfect and upstanding political systems. LOL

Who do you think they model their illicit money creation systems after?

cohodk

@jmski52 said:
they certainly wont be vulnerable to the money creation systems of other countries and their perfect and upstanding political systems. LOL

Who do you think they model their illicit money creation systems after?

Do you now see the hypocrisy?

jmski52

So, you agree that having a central bank in charge of “money creation” is a scam perpetrated upon the working population?

I don’t know how the other central banks are structured, but a privately-owned entity (like the Fed) has NO business running the economy of a country. My opinion.

cohodk

@jmski52 said:
So, you agree that having a central bank in charge of “money creation” is a scam perpetrated upon the working population?

I don’t know how the other central banks are structured, but a privately-owned entity (like the Fed) has NO business running the economy of a country. My opinion.

Nope, dont agree.

I really with those that incessantly bash the FED could go back and live a century earlier. If you whine now, I cant imaging how you would have cried and complained during the massive boom and bust cycles of the 1800's, always blaming "them".

dcarr

@cohodk said:

@jmski52 said:
So, you agree that having a central bank in charge of “money creation” is a scam perpetrated upon the working population?

I don’t know how the other central banks are structured, but a privately-owned entity (like the Fed) has NO business running the economy of a country. My opinion.

Nope, dont agree.

I really with those that incessantly bash the FED could go back and live a century earlier. If you whine now, I cant imaging how you would have cried and complained during the massive boom and bust cycles of the 1800's, always blaming "them".

Modern technology is what has made living better, NOT the Federal Reserve or banks.

Boom and bust cycles are a product of over-speculation, enabled by banks.
And the pre-Fed "boom and bust" episodes were nothing compared to the Great Depression.

cohodk

And how do you think that technology was funded, by a little Leprechaun? It just magically appeared and was distributed to masses?

Yup, no Depressions in almost 100 years. Seems like something has been done "mostly" right.

Most scholars agree that in the 100 years pre-Fed the economic contractions were more severe and lasted longer than in the 100 years post-Fed.

blitzdude

God bless the FED, god bless America. RGDS!

dcarr

@cohodk said:
And how do you think that technology was funded, by a little Leprechaun? It just magically appeared and was distributed to masses?

Yup, no Depressions in almost 100 years. Seems like something has been done "mostly" right.

.

The economic and industrial growth in the United States from the mid 1870s to about 1906 was enormous.
Advancements in technology provided the impetus - no central bank needed.

But every recession has been the result of overhanging debt and leveraged speculation that major banks fostered, until suddenly it couldn't be serviced or supported anymore.

With the advancements in technology since WW2, standards of living should have risen more than they have. But the central bank has managed to siphon off their significant cut of the benefits of those advancements.

.

@cohodk said:
Most scholars agree that in the 100 years pre-Fed the economic contractions were more severe and lasted longer than in the 100 years post-Fed.

.

You presume to speak for "most scholars", but you are not one of them or their official representative.
Going off the gold standard allowed the printing of fiat money at will. And while that shortened the duration and lessened the severity of recessions, price inflation has taken off dramatically as a result. Standards of living have not increased much at all (if any) since the gold standard was mostly abandoned in 1971.

.

cohodk

@dcarr said:

@cohodk said:
And how do you think that technology was funded, by a little Leprechaun? It just magically appeared and was distributed to masses?

Yup, no Depressions in almost 100 years. Seems like something has been done "mostly" right.

.

The economic and industrial growth in the United States from the mid 1870s to about 1906 was enormous.

Sure was. As were the economic booms and busts. And let's not even talk about the massive immigration during that time. Or that the USA was a fresh slate for growth due to the opening of the country via railroads and end of Civil War.

Advancements in technology provided the impetus - no central bank needed.

They didn't need financing? Lol

But every recession has been the result of overhanging debt and leveraged speculation that major banks fostered, until suddenly it couldn't be serviced or supported anymore.

Banks fostered or customers demanded?

With the advancements in technology since WW2, standards of living should have risen more than they have. But the central bank has managed to siphon off their significant cut of the benefits of those advancements.

.

Stating what should have happened is your opinion. Others might argue that it shouldn't be as good as it is.

@cohodk said:
Most scholars agree that in the 100 years pre-Fed the economic contractions were more severe and lasted longer than in the 100 years post-Fed.

.

You presume to speak for "most scholars", but you are not one of them or their official representative.

And by commenting as you have you presume to speak for them. You are not one of them or their official representative.

But you're right, I'm not. I'm just a simple hillbilly redneck that can seek research from many scholars.

Going off the gold standard allowed the printing of fiat money at will. And while that shortened the duration and lessened the severity of recessions, price inflation has taken off dramatically as a result. Standards of living have not increased much at all (if any) since the gold standard was mostly abandoned in 1971.

.

Haha. Never before has an entire generation amassed such wealth, as has your generation. The wealthiest demographic this planet has ever seen, largely amassed since 1971. Or maybe you live in a different country, Syria or Somalia?

dcarr

@cohodk said:

@dcarr said:

@cohodk said:
And how do you think that technology was funded, by a little Leprechaun? It just magically appeared and was distributed to masses?

Yup, no Depressions in almost 100 years. Seems like something has been done "mostly" right.

.

The economic and industrial growth in the United States from the mid 1870s to about 1906 was enormous.

Sure was. As were the economic booms and busts. And let's not even talk about the massive immigration during that time. Or that the USA was a fresh slate for growth due to the opening of the country via railroads and end of Civil War.

Advancements in technology provided the impetus - no central bank needed.

They didn't need financing? Lol

.

Try reading what I wrote.
They didn't need a Central Bank.
Regardless, a company can expand using profits instead of financing.
A railroad doesn't have to borrow to build their entire network.
They can use profits from initial routes to expand into additional areas.
And if a company did need financing, in those days they would sell bonds to the public instead of borrowing from a bank.

I never needed or used financing to build my minting business.

.

@cohodk said:

@dcarr said:
But every recession has been the result of overhanging debt and leveraged speculation that major banks fostered, until suddenly it couldn't be serviced or supported anymore.

Banks fostered or customers demanded?

.

Either way, the banks enabled it.

.

With the advancements in technology since WW2, standards of living should have risen more than they have. But the central bank has managed to siphon off their significant cut of the benefits of those advancements.

.

Stating what should have happened is your opinion. Others might argue that it shouldn't be as good as it is.

@cohodk said:
Most scholars agree that in the 100 years pre-Fed the economic contractions were more severe and lasted longer than in the 100 years post-Fed.

.

You presume to speak for "most scholars", but you are not one of them or their official representative.

And by commenting as you have you presume to speak for them. You are not one of them or their official representative.

But you're right, I'm not. I'm just a simple hillbilly redneck that can seek research from many scholars.

Going off the gold standard allowed the printing of fiat money at will. And while that shortened the duration and lessened the severity of recessions, price inflation has taken off dramatically as a result. Standards of living have not increased much at all (if any) since the gold standard was mostly abandoned in 1971.

.

Haha. Never before has an entire generation amassed such wealth, as has your generation. The wealthiest demographic this planet has ever seen, largely amassed since 1971. Or maybe you live in a different country, Syria or Somalia?

.

Asset prices are grossly inflated due to the devaluation of the dollar. I stand by what I wrote. Real standard of living (quality of life) has not increased much since 1971. Technology advancements (especially medical) have given a boost. But people spend more time sitting in traffic than ever before. People spend more years in debt servitude than ever before, especially for higher education. The average amount of land owned per person has decreased dramatically.

.

cohodk

Well, you have your opinion and scholars have theirs.

Don't know if this guy is a scholar, but he wrote a lot of words that make sense. Note particularly the extreme fluctuation in interest rates pre-FED. Note that part about recessions happening on average of about every 2 years. Note the words "boom and bust".

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/12/a-history-of-real-interest-rates/

Your comments about quality of life are just plain stupid. Oh, woe is me as I sit in traffic. I wish I had a horse and buggy, then I'd just zip along this big Ole highway. Lol

cohodk

https://rodneywhitecenter.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9109.pdf

Yeah...real nice interest rate stability in the 1800s.

Or you can just dismiss this scholar, and you'd be in the smallest minority.

https://rodneywhitecenter.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/9109.pdf

jmski52

Coho thinks debt is great as long as the banks can profit and any bad debt can be unloaded onto the public.

dcarr

@cohodk said:
Well, you have your opinion and scholars have theirs.

Don't know if this guy is a scholar, but he wrote a lot of words that make sense. Note particularly the extreme fluctuation in interest rates pre-FED. Note that part about recessions happening on average of about every 2 years. Note the words "boom and bust".

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/12/a-history-of-real-interest-rates/

Your comments about quality of life are just plain stupid. Oh, woe is me as I sit in traffic. I wish I had a horse and buggy, then I'd just zip along this big Ole highway. Lol

You make your living in finance, correct ?
So you would have a vested interest in people and companies taking on debt.

My point is, we are reaching the maximum number of people that the planet can support. And when "Mother Nature" steps in to limit the population, that isn't good for quality of life.

Debt structures will collapse when there are no new people coming into the system that are willing to take on new debt.
That is, unless there is significant debt forgiveness and money printing (which is what we have been experiencing).

cohodk

@jmski52 said:
Coho thinks debt is great as long as the banks can profit and any bad debt can be unloaded onto the public.

That's not what Coho thinks. But it's obvious Jmski can't handle what the Coho thinks. Weak.

cohodk

@dcarr said:

@cohodk said:
Well, you have your opinion and scholars have theirs.

Don't know if this guy is a scholar, but he wrote a lot of words that make sense. Note particularly the extreme fluctuation in interest rates pre-FED. Note that part about recessions happening on average of about every 2 years. Note the words "boom and bust".

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/12/a-history-of-real-interest-rates/

Your comments about quality of life are just plain stupid. Oh, woe is me as I sit in traffic. I wish I had a horse and buggy, then I'd just zip along this big Ole highway. Lol

You make your living in finance, correct ?
So you would have a vested interest in people and companies taking on debt.

My point is, we are reaching the maximum number of people that the planet can support. And when "Mother Nature" steps in to limit the population, that isn't good for quality of life.

Are we? Care to expound on this?

Debt structures will collapse when there are no new people coming into the system that are willing to take on new debt.

You seem to keep talking of mass human population decline. Do you work in a Chinese virus lab?

That is, unless there is significant debt forgiveness and money printing (which is what we have been experiencing).

Ok. So they revalue and life goes on. Poland had a massive revaluation 30 years ago. Is their standard of living better today than 30 years ago?

Has the USA ever had a revaluation? Yet here are, still kicking. Churning out your technology that you say makes life better.

Yeah, we have debt. Is it too much? Maybe. Will farmers keep growing crops and livestock? Yup. Will humankind continue to work on new technology and medical breakthroughs. Yup. Will folk still have needs and desires and will other folk seek ways to provide. Yup.

Will doom and gloomers continue to project their misery on others. Yup.

dcarr

@cohodk said:

@dcarr said:

@cohodk said:
Well, you have your opinion and scholars have theirs.

Don't know if this guy is a scholar, but he wrote a lot of words that make sense. Note particularly the extreme fluctuation in interest rates pre-FED. Note that part about recessions happening on average of about every 2 years. Note the words "boom and bust".

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/12/a-history-of-real-interest-rates/

Your comments about quality of life are just plain stupid. Oh, woe is me as I sit in traffic. I wish I had a horse and buggy, then I'd just zip along this big Ole highway. Lol

You make your living in finance, correct ?
So you would have a vested interest in people and companies taking on debt.

My point is, we are reaching the maximum number of people that the planet can support. And when "Mother Nature" steps in to limit the population, that isn't good for quality of life.

Are we? Care to expound on this?

Debt structures will collapse when there are no new people coming into the system that are willing to take on new debt.

You seem to keep talking of mass human population decline. Do you work in a Chinese virus lab?

That is, unless there is significant debt forgiveness and money printing (which is what we have been experiencing).

Ok. So they revalue and life goes on. Poland had a massive revaluation 30 years ago. Is their standard of living better today than 30 years ago?

Has the USA ever had a revaluation? Yet here are, still kicking. Churning out your technology that you say makes life better.

Yeah, we have debt. Is it too much? Maybe. Will farmers keep growing crops and livestock? Yup. Will humankind continue to work on new technology and medical breakthroughs. Yup. Will folk still have needs and desires and will other folk seek ways to provide. Yup.

Will doom and gloomers continue to project their misery on others. Yup.

.

"Mass human population decline" is NOT what I wrote, although it is possible at any time due to all sorts of potential events. Try and read better next time.

I stated that population growth is getting harder to come by and will stagnate (it already is to some extent). Pandemics, wars, scarcity of resources, etc will limit population growth. And that is not good for overall servicing of current debt loads.

.

cohodk

@dcarr said:

I stated that population growth is getting harder to come by and will stagnate (it already is to some extent). Pandemics, wars, scarcity of resources, etc will limit population growth. And that is not good for overall servicing of current debt loads.

.

Plenty of money out there. Just tax the boomers wealth when the pass. A 50% tax on the $80 trillion be inherited would pay off the debt. And before you get your panties in a wad, no I'm not condoning this tax, just showing that the debt could be covered. There are other avenues by which to pay it off as well. Yeah, more taxes suck, but if one is going to reap the benefits of this massive debt pile (wealth creation) then someone else will have to pay the price.

dcarr

@cohodk said:

@dcarr said:

I stated that population growth is getting harder to come by and will stagnate (it already is to some extent). Pandemics, wars, scarcity of resources, etc will limit population growth. And that is not good for overall servicing of current debt loads.

.

Plenty of money out there. Just tax the boomers wealth when the pass. A 50% tax on the $80 trillion be inherited would pay off the debt. And before you get your panties in a wad, no I'm not condoning this tax, just showing that the debt could be covered. There are other avenues by which to pay it off as well. Yeah, more taxes suck, but if one is going to reap the benefits of this massive debt pile (wealth creation) then someone else will have to pay the price.

Where did I state this was only about Government debt or the National Debt ?
Your tax plan won't do anything for corporate debt or household debt, except to make it worse.

There aren't enough younger working people to support the aging population or the overhanging debt (government, corporate, and household).

blitzdude

@dcarr said:

@cohodk said:

@dcarr said:

I stated that population growth is getting harder to come by and will stagnate (it already is to some extent). Pandemics, wars, scarcity of resources, etc will limit population growth. And that is not good for overall servicing of current debt loads.

.

Plenty of money out there. Just tax the boomers wealth when the pass. A 50% tax on the $80 trillion be inherited would pay off the debt. And before you get your panties in a wad, no I'm not condoning this tax, just showing that the debt could be covered. There are other avenues by which to pay it off as well. Yeah, more taxes suck, but if one is going to reap the benefits of this massive debt pile (wealth creation) then someone else will have to pay the price.

Where did I state this was only about Government debt or the National Debt ?
Your tax plan won't do anything for corporate debt or household debt, except to make it worse.

There aren't enough younger working people to support the aging population or the overhanging debt (government, corporate, and household).

Keep buying your rupees, rubles and RMBs. I'll stick with Dollars. God bless America. THKS!

dcarr

@blitzdude said:

@dcarr said:

@cohodk said:

@dcarr said:

I stated that population growth is getting harder to come by and will stagnate (it already is to some extent). Pandemics, wars, scarcity of resources, etc will limit population growth. And that is not good for overall servicing of current debt loads.

.

Plenty of money out there. Just tax the boomers wealth when the pass. A 50% tax on the $80 trillion be inherited would pay off the debt. And before you get your panties in a wad, no I'm not condoning this tax, just showing that the debt could be covered. There are other avenues by which to pay it off as well. Yeah, more taxes suck, but if one is going to reap the benefits of this massive debt pile (wealth creation) then someone else will have to pay the price.

Where did I state this was only about Government debt or the National Debt ?
Your tax plan won't do anything for corporate debt or household debt, except to make it worse.

There aren't enough younger working people to support the aging population or the overhanging debt (government, corporate, and household).

Keep buying your rupees, rubles and RMBs. I'll stick with Dollars. God bless America. THKS!

.

Your conclusions are extremely faulty.
I did not ever write that I advocate buying foreign fiat currencies.
I have never speculated in foreign currencies and I have no plans to ever do so.

.

cohodk

@dcarr said:

@cohodk said:

@dcarr said:

I stated that population growth is getting harder to come by and will stagnate (it already is to some extent). Pandemics, wars, scarcity of resources, etc will limit population growth. And that is not good for overall servicing of current debt loads.

.

Plenty of money out there. Just tax the boomers wealth when the pass. A 50% tax on the $80 trillion be inherited would pay off the debt. And before you get your panties in a wad, no I'm not condoning this tax, just showing that the debt could be covered. There are other avenues by which to pay it off as well. Yeah, more taxes suck, but if one is going to reap the benefits of this massive debt pile (wealth creation) then someone else will have to pay the price.

Where did I state this was only about Government debt or the National Debt ?
Your tax plan won't do anything for corporate debt or household debt, except to make it worse.

It's not MY tax plan. Just stating a possible solution. You folk always look at things as static or in a vacuum.

Unlike your Govt, corps locked in low interest rates and most personal debt is in the form of low interest mortgages.

There aren't enough younger working people to support the aging population or the overhanging debt (government, corporate, and household).

The aging population has all the money. And they will die. Every last one. And their money will go to the younger folk.

Yes, we as a country need to reign in our spending and save more. What else in new?