English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

This is not yet happening. It is what caused Bush to invade Iraq, because Hussein announced that he was switching Iraqi oil accounts from dollars to trading in euros. Reversing that decision was the 'Mission Accomplished' of Bush.

As for other countries, the Saud family has not changed their accounts and have no plans to do so at this time. Iran has floated the idea of switching their accounts to euros also, and this is a major problem for the US, especially in light of the shaming of Israel by Iran's protege Hezbollah.

I would personally like to see diplomatic and value-based methods used for retaining the oil accounts rather than violent means employed. Honey is much better than vinegar when it comes to buying and selling commodities.

2006-08-18 01:01:41 · answer #1 · answered by nora22000 7 · 1 0

nicely the Democrats now administration Congress. they merely handed a three trillion dollar funds. and that i will wager money to doughnuts it gained't stability. i'm no longer likely to say Bush and the warfare are not a difficulty. yet there replaced into already a 6 trillion dollar debt at the same time as Clinton took place of work. And ALL of that replaced into Democrat Congress generated. you go with us out of Iraq? nicely so do I. What are your Democrats doing about it? did you recognize why we are spending money on exports? that's because there is no longer an selection! we are able to not spend money at abode if abode don't have something to promote. we are able to not spend money at abode at the same time as what's made the following is of lesser high quality and larger intense priced than what you purchase overseas places. the position are the Congressional recommendations? that is the position the recommendations would ought to commence in case you go with authorities to do something. The recommendations gained't commence contained in the White abode. You blame the FED. nicely let me provide you a clue. no man or woman twisted anybody's arm to purchase more effective abode than they could have the funds for. And banks did not carry guns to human beings's heads to get them to signal ARM loans. you go with more effective regulation? Why style? who're you going to regulate? All this telling human beings what they could and may't do sounds like more effective governmental administration. at the same time as what we really want is more effective own duty. in case your information is all from Stiglitz, he's no longer telling the completed tale.

2016-11-24 23:22:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

US investments are considered a 'safe' haven for monies throughout the world.

Although money from suspect(US government definition) countries/sources are either invested elsewhere or are well 'laundered' first AS 'frozen' assets are lost assets.

Yes I know there really is no CLEAN money as it is all tainted by the greed of mankind, so it really cannot be 'frozen' as it is too close to an extremely hot heat source.

Safe to say Iran is not placing their oil revenues here as they still
want the Shah's exploitation money back, excuse me, not the revenues that the Eisenhower Presidency was able to get from the British monopoly(they went from 100% to zero briefly then when US CIA intervened to return Shah Britain was quite disappointed to only recieve 40% back! Seems a bit muddled but to clear it up the Shah's cut he had mostly deposited within US
and those accounts were frozen after radical Mullahs/ students seized the country from the Shah(poor guy got run out twice!)

The zero US/British cut was when in their parliament(modeled after Britain's) an error by Britain's flunky allowed a beloved Iranian to be elected... and although he acted in a manner to make Washington and Jefferson proud... the removal of those monies and his strong belief in freedom led to the foreign engineered return of the Shah and his death squads which led to the climate that allowed radical Mullahs to gain power... too bad for US.

2006-08-20 12:06:12 · answer #3 · answered by uncledad 3 · 0 0

The US pays 5+% interest, which was why the Fed raised interest rates 17 times.

The influx of capital by the Arabs is keeping the mortgage business afloat, by counterbalancing Chinese and Asian influences.

2006-08-19 10:25:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Your guess is as good as mine. I believe the US has dropped their pants and are naked in controlling funds within our boundaries/banking institutions, let along our military strength. Why do you think the US is taxing everyone? They need to make up for what was taken out of our banks. Our friendship with other countries has dropped drastically, because we are a two-faced country.

2006-08-19 09:16:09 · answer #5 · answered by Ms-No-It-All 4 · 1 0

it was 3 dollars not 3 trillion.

2006-08-20 09:45:41 · answer #6 · answered by duc602 7 · 0 0

I don't know, does anyone really? I do know that we are going to start using gasoline that is distilled from corn (and it cost like $0.30 less that it is right now). The corn coming from America, Hoorahh!

2006-08-21 04:22:25 · answer #7 · answered by afbutters7777 1 · 0 0

check bank records. i dont believe it to be true, though it seems more sensible to have your money closer to you in europe than far away in america. i would have loved for them to have transferred it to african banks though.

2006-08-20 01:29:36 · answer #8 · answered by durhotimitoyea 3 · 0 0

I read UNCLE DAD answer and I like it.I urge you take him for points.It is very interesting news for me.Thanks.

2006-08-20 13:44:19 · answer #9 · answered by ryladie99 6 · 0 0

No

2006-08-13 10:40:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers