The fate of the world's currencies in the wake of the demise of the dollar. - page 28
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Does Britain count?
Relatively - the pound was minted in both Scotland and Ireland, but "legal tender" is only Bank of England notes and only within England and Wales, not within Scotland and Northern Ireland.Scottish and Northern Irish pounds in the strict sense of the term are not legal tender even in the territory where they are issued.
Indeed, early 20th century pounds are no longer legal tender either.
And in the US, all dollars since the 18th century have been ackowledged
No. The state is a legal person, not a legal person is the state. Because it is not only the state that is a legal person.
So, to summarise - states as legal persons have their own lifespan. The US as a state has existed since the 18th century with its Constitution (you were the first to write about it, not me) and currency (topic called what?). And you can't name similar states that exist now
I didn't start a dialogue about the US constitution. Here's what I wrote:
- "The United States of America was formed in 1776 when thirteen British colonies declared independence. The War of Independence lasted until 1783 and ended in victory for the colonists. In 1787, the United States Constitution was adopted... Only 230 years old. So not with centuries of history."
Probably shouldn't have mentioned the constitution. This is where you got caught up in it.
The point here is that as a country, as a people (if you like) it is a young country with not centuries of history.
It's not about the constitution itself, or the national currency.
The whole truth about the national debt and the US Fed.
I didn't start a dialogue about the US constitution. Here's what I wrote:
- "The United States of America was formed in 1776 when thirteen British colonies declared independence. The War of Independence lasted until 1783 and ended in victory for the colonists. In 1787, the United States Constitution was adopted... Only 230 years old. So not with centuries of history."
Probably shouldn't have mentioned the constitution. That's where you get caught up in it.
The point here is that as a country, as a people (if you like) it is a young country with not centuries of history.
It's not about the constitution itself, or the national currency.
Going around in circles - who's older? Young and old - comparative characteristics. Which country is older than the current one?
The situation is unfolding in such a way that what matters is not what I wanted to say, but what you can hear.
You have made a three-page argument about the age of the US, even though my point was only that people in the US have a solid background in business. 500 years - 5 centuries - is it a lot or not a lot of centuries? And the basic essence of this thesis is that an American with such experience can start life on nothing. So it is unclear about what collapse of the United States you are singing a song here.
Am I singing a song about the collapse of the United States?
Are you out of your mind, dear colleague?
I did not say anything about the collapse of the USA. :-)
P.S.
I don't know about centuries. But you have not paid attention to the fact that I have said the same thing about US citizens as you have. That's what I wrote:
"... After all, we all know that Americans, in general, are not lazy. Hard-working people, though hot-headed. America's financial power is a whole industry in investment."
So it's irrelevant and meaningless what you're saying here: "... it's not what I have to say that matters, it's what you can hear."
Walking in circles - who is older? Young and old - comparative characteristics. Which country is older than the current one?
I see. It seems you just want to chat.
About the collapse of the US am I singing songs about?
Are you out of your mind dear colleague?
I didn't say anything about the collapse of the USA at all. :-)
P.S.
I don't know about centuries. But you have not paid attention to the fact that I have said the same thing about US citizens as you have. That's what I wrote:
"... After all, we all know that Americans, in general, are not lazy. Hard-working people, though hot-headed. America's financial power is a whole industry in investment, after all."
So your statement: "... it's not what I wanted to say that matters, it's what you can hear. what matters is not what I wanted to say, but what you can hear."
Yes. From around the corner(here) hinted at a precarious position
Yes. The side from around the corner(here) hinted at a precarious position
In that case, I hasten to reassure you. Obviously you were inattentive again, and here's what you didn't understand from what you read;
P.S.In that post I shared my thoughts on the subject of the U.S. national debt. I suggested what the consequences might be.
There is no talk of any collapse.
By the way, don't you think the situation is shaky?
In that case I hasten to reassure you. Obviously you were inattentive again, and that's what you didn't understand from what you read;
P.S.In that post I shared my thoughts on the subject of the US national debt. I suggested what the consequences might be.
There is no talk of a collapse.
By the way, don't you think the situation is precarious?
The nominal size of government debt is irrelevant - it is only the ratio of government debt to GDP that matters, and the EU, Japan, Switzerland and other countries have an even higher ratio.
They wrote about it above and gave some statistics.
Japan has a public debt-to-GDP ratio of 239%, Italy 133%, Portugal 130% and the USA 107% (15th place)