Readit NewsThis is a bit of popular myth on sites like this but isn't supported by economists, historians or people in finance. The total volume of oil trade is small fraction of total global trade or capital flows.
Like I said, the USD is the reserve partly because it's beneficial to these surplus economies to have somebody else holding the bags, but also because there aren't viable alternatives because anybody else who can do it dosen't want to. And given there are 180^180 possible exchanges, a reserve currency will exist for practical reasons.
>I don't actually think there's any law of nature that reserve currency status == de-industrialization.
A currency that assumes reserve currency status will strengthen due to increased demand, thus making their exports more expensive and thus uncompetitive on the international stage. Which is incompatible with the export-driven strategies of the EU, China or Japan, all the main contenders for alternative reserve currencies. If you look at the behaviour of their central banks, when they receive capital inflows, they in turn buy assets elsewhere to offset the appreciation to maintain the value of their currency. But the Fed cannot and dosen't do that.
Late reply. Could you supply some source material to look into this. What "assets elsewhere"?
If my children were older, I would immediately be educating them on the dangers of this policy and of the dangers of seeking ways around it.
I confess, as I type this, I have a lot of anger at the dangers you're putting children into.
I still think it's fair to say that the Commission does not represent the people. It is many steps removed from the people. Nobody voted for any of them.
According to wikipedia, this point of view makes me a euroskeptic. Which is not something I consider myself to be, I'm a big proponent of cooperation between European countries. But I am certainly very skeptical of unelected government officials deciding on far reaching legislation that infringes upon fundamental liberties. With zero political repurcussions or liability.
I can't really picture what a better structure would be. The elected member state governments should always be the ones driving policy. They need a way to get that done outside of their usual national structures and civil servants, so they create the Commission. People also want to feel represented in the final votes so we create the Parliament.
What would your structure look like?
Point is that these people are very far removed from elections and political consequences. They also seem to be the types who have no idea what "normal" people are like.
Were they wrong?
We live in absolute luxury and comfort today compared to pretty much any point in history.
It gets very tiresome hearing people complain about how hard they have it these days, which is just factually untrue. What I actually think the problem is, is apathy. People are looking to blame anything else for how they feel in life, rather than take ownership.
I see so many times people complaining about how fast modern life is, and yet they have a very real choice to go and live mostly off grid. There are communities all around the world where pro-active people have had the same thoughts and feelings, and actually had the guts to do something about it. This is all available to you right now, with the added benefit that it isn't even permanent if you don't like it (unlike 100+ years ago when there was no choice).
(waits for the downvotes)
i believe the problem is we don't understand actual neurons let alone actual networks of neurons to even know if any model is accurate or not. The AI folks cleverly named their data structures "neuron" and "neural network" to make it seem like we do.