The Pankian Metaphor wasGoodbye to USENET 3004

snip

The planting of Schweinefuhrt (Sp?) made this clear. The allies used a lot of resources on it, and lost a lot of planes, and the germans were producing as before after 2-3 weeks.

This huge loss was also probably the reason why the camps further east were never attacked seriously. They needed the capacity to plant industrial targets.

This is why equity holdings in corporations can be a lot better than shoddy cash. The corporations does produce tangible value, no matter what currency is used to pay for it.

In such a scenario (pre money-exchange) it makes sense to move all holdings away from money and into real goods and equity. As soon as sound money reappears these buttets make themselves available in the market again.

snip

Now, the US would never do that. The US would rather default on it's currency. The current system can actually do that without endangering the states; but it would crush the federal governement, and move a lot of power back to the states.

But what would Canada do if the US had serious monetary problems? Ditch NAFTA, join the EU?

And the US has an inflationary overhang that is becoming **bad**. It is around half as bad right now as what Germany had after WW1. Now, that does not necessarily mean hyperinflation, the german one was a quad whammy of reparations, overhang, political instability, and a deep recession.

When I mean overhang it is a burden that is noe acute, it is under control for the moment, but will mature sometime in the future and create pressure on currencies and interest rates.

Western allies in the far east, especially Korea, Taiwan and Japan are contributing immense resources to stabilising the US currency. They are in effect paying for the Iraq war.

-- mrr