Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:First understand money (Score 1) 294

Since value is relative, then being the best currency means being the best currency, even with the shortcomings.

So far as I understand it the US has carried debt uninterrupted since the Civil War (maybe even before). Even in times of war and national emergency (including a few self-inflicted ones like the Tea Party trying to go kamikaze), the US Government has demonstrated its will to honor its debts and back the US dollar. It may be overvalued by some standards, but in general, I think the US dollar remains, and likely will remain for decades to come, the most important currency in the world. It really has no competitor.

Comment Re:I'm Argentinian and you are wrong (Score 1) 294

Apparently a helluva lot of Argentinians DO NOT agree with you, and just as importantly, or perhaps moreso, international markets do not agree with you.

Your economy and government are being horribly managed, and you're suffering for it. Quit blaming the rest of the world for your domestic problems.

Comment Re:The solution for Argentina is competent governa (Score 3, Insightful) 294

Argentina, like most Latin American countries, would do well to toss the Presidential system. The US, by and large, has lucked out, in no small part to what Bagehot referred to as Americans' "genius for politics". But in other societies, where the legislative and judicial branches have remained stunted as compared to the US Congress, SCOTUS and the Federal Courts, all the Presidential system does is deliver near-dictatorial powers into the hands of the President. The checks and balances may exist on paper in countries like Argentina, but the reality is that legislative assemblies and courts become little more than rubber stamps.

A parliamentary system like the Westminster system would, I think, work far better. The titular head of state of a parliamentary state does hold some potent reserve powers, but is restricted from using them in all but the most extreme circumstances. The "effective" government, that is the governing Executive, only survives so long as the legislative assembly retains confidence in it, and ministers are normally chosen from among members of the legislature, and thus, at least in a nominal way, remain equals to every other person sitting in the legislature. In a parliamentary system, the titular head of state represents a sort of negative power; in that he or she deprives the effective executive of absolute control of reserve powers and prerogatives.

Comment Re:First understand money (Score 2) 294

But is it really overvalued? Debt is only part of the equation. When the statement "the dollar is backed by the US Government", that means the whole thing; Executive (including the Federal Reserve, military, and so forth), the courts, and of course Congress, not to mention the collective will of the citizens of the United States. When you look at the greenback in that light, it's hard to imagine a currency in modern times as well backed.

Comment Re:"Cashless" is meaningless (Score 2) 294

Indeed. I fail to see what the difference between $1 electronically stored in a bank account or being transferred between two banks is measurably any better than a one dollar bill.

A unit of currency, whether digital or physical, is issued by a country's central bank and backed by the country's government. If Argentina burned all its physical currency tomorrow, everything would still be denominated in Argentinian pesos, whose value, by and large, would still be determined by the same mechanisms. I suppose certain aspects of physical currency, like counterfeiting and hoarding, might be eliminated, but it certainly wouldn't prevent monetary crises.

This article seems to have a rather odd view of what modern currencies are.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...