The title itself is scary enough, but the (alleged) pumping of money into Iran by the CIA? Clayton, thoughts?
There are some kind of sanctions in place against Iranian banks including their central bank. I don't understand how they work or know what they do, but it seems this could be connected with the depriciation of rial. Sanctions Will Kill Tens of Thousands of Iranians: "The supposedly “smart” sanctions that the United States and its EU allies have imposed on Iran have been expanded to all areas, even if they are not part of the official sphere of sanctions. This is because the U.S. and its EU allies have imposed sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and practically all other Iranian banks that are involved in commercial transactions with the outside world. Since these banks open lines of credit for exports and imports and provide financial guarantees for commerce with the outside world, it has become very difficult, if not impossible, to import vital good and products into the country."
@Wheylous: LOL - I don't have any theories to offer. It strikes me as unlikely that CIA (or, more likely, Mossad) is behind this simply because of the logistical problems. Doubling the Iranian money supply or more with hard-printed cash would not only be very costly, it would be a downright logistical nightmare. And what would they be buying with all that fake currency? The Iranian central bank - at the end of the day - is a central bank and is the most likely culprit. The question, then, is: who really controls Iran's central bank?
Clayton -
It makes sense that the West would try to cause inflation. Look at why the Egyptians rioted...food prices...
Reptilians control Iran's central bank. Iranian reptilians, that's obvious. The point is that you do not necessarily get 80% depreciation when a central bank increases the money supply five fold. Depreciation hits when people wise up to the whole there's-more-paper-money-notes-every-day-but-the-same-or-even fewer-number-of-goods thing, become nervous and lose confidence with the currency. So the question really is who lost confidence in rial and for what reason? Did it had a lot to do with the fact Iran's economy is in peril because they apparently have such difficulty conducting trade due to international sanctions?
My understanding here is that the Iranian central bank has been inflating because when they sell oil, if the currency inflates they get a favorable amount of Rials sent back to them in exchange and get to spend that cash before the prices rise due to the inflation.
This is probably an early sign that the Iranian government is destabilizing and on the brink. 50% devaluation within a week? That's madness.
Iranian reptilians, that's obvious.
Obvious indeed.
There is a very simple and exciting solution to this issue that will in the long run turn Iran into a wealthy country: Get rid of the Iranian currency. Let the market place determine what the currency is. Then the foreign intelligence services, Iranian govenrment and whomever will have to waste their time duplicating hundreds or thousands of differeing bank forms of money instead of one. And look no further than the USA in 1830s when the country dissolved the Second National Bank.
Then simply take payments for oil and other exports in gold, best, or in the currency of Switzerland or Singapore.
Never gonna happen, Bogart.
And that means he owes it to you to not advocate it?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos: And that means he owes it to you to not advocate it?
Rather odd thing to say. My statement is about how likely it is to happen. That doesn't suggest anything you insinuate here. Advocate all day long, I don't even disagree. Doesn't change the fact that governments aren't likely to give up easily the power that controlling a currency gives them.
Stuff is getting real in Iran. Just saw a video of thousands protesting in the streets. Of course, I couldn't interpret the chants; they may have been saying "death to America" just as easily as they were protesting against Ahmadenijad.
think this is related?
Sad, the way to defeat the agression from the USA is to adopt a banking system identical to that of the USA 180 years ago.
Anenome:Rather odd thing to say. My statement is about how likely it is to happen. That doesn't suggest anything you insinuate here. Advocate all day long, I don't even disagree.
Well it seemed to me that the only reason you'd say that to Bogart is so he'd shut up about it. I mean, what does the likelihood of it happening have to do with whether it would help things if it did happen? Absolutely nothing. It's entirely irrelevant. Hence I suspect ulterior motives.
Anenome:Doesn't change the fact that governments aren't likely to give up easily the power that controlling a currency gives them.
Even though it's entirely irrelevant to what Bogart said, let me ask you: how is a likelihood a fact?
Autolykos: Anenome:Rather odd thing to say. My statement is about how likely it is to happen. That doesn't suggest anything you insinuate here. Advocate all day long, I don't even disagree. Well it seemed to me that the only reason you'd say that to Bogart is so he'd shut up about it. I mean, what does the likelihood of it happening have to do with whether it would help things if it did happen? Absolutely nothing. It's entirely irrelevant. Hence I suspect ulterior motives.
Nah, wasn't trying to be mean.
Autolykos: Anenome:Doesn't change the fact that governments aren't likely to give up easily the power that controlling a currency gives them. Even though it's entirely irrelevant to what Bogart said, let me ask you: how is a likelihood a fact?
It's a fact if and only if it corresponds to reality when the future finally happens, thus you can never know ahead of time. If we take a poll about who's going to vote for who, and it later proves to be have been accurate, then it was a fact, only we didn't know it at that time, but we got there by various means such as a representative sample and sufficient size of sample. We had a certain amount of confidence in that methodology and next time we'll have even more confidence.
Inductive reasoning, which you seem to abhor for some reason, is the only way to speak about the future intelligently, since the future has not happened yet there are no facts there. That doesn't mean we can't say something intelligent about the future based on what's likely, based on what know already.
Thus my statement to Bogart is based on how many states historically have given up control of their currencies like he suggests. Which is a very small figure indeed.
Anenome:Nah, wasn't trying to be mean.
Nah, I'm not sure whether to believe you.
Anenome:It's a fact if and only if it corresponds to reality when the future finally happens, thus you can never know ahead of time.
Hence it's... not a fact. It's a likelihood. So I'll ask you again: how is a likelihood a fact?
Anenome:Inductive reasoning, which you seem to abhor for some reason, is the only way to speak about the future intelligently, since the future has not happened yet there are no facts there.
I don't abhor inductive reasoning. What I abhor is people treating it as though it's deductively valid. Inductive reasoning is not deductive reasoning.
Anenome:Thus my statement to Bogart is based on how many states historically have given up control of their currencies like he suggests. Which is a very small figure indeed.
It's still entirely irrelevant to his point. I think you understand that and are just trying to avoid being called out on your rather transparent attempt to dissuade him (and, by extension, others) from talking about such things. After all, the more they talk about those things, the less they pay attention to your pet project.
Autolykos: Hence it's... not a fact. It's a likelihood. So I'll ask you again: how is a likelihood a fact?
When did I claim likelihood was a fact? A likelihood should be taken as an inductive claim of likelihood.
Autolykos:I don't abhor inductive reasoning. What I abhor is people treating it as though it's deductively valid. Inductive reasoning is not deductive reasoning.
I take inductive arguments as inductive ones and deductive as deductive ones. Maybe I made a mistake tho, how did I use inductive reasoning deductively, exactly?
Autolykos: Anenome:Thus my statement to Bogart is based on how many states historically have given up control of their currencies like he suggests. Which is a very small figure indeed. It's still entirely irrelevant to his point.
It's still entirely irrelevant to his point.
Not in terms of an inductive argument.
Autolykos:I think you understand that and are just trying to avoid being called out on your rather transparent attempt to dissuade him (and, by extension, others) from talking about such things. After all, the more they talk about those things, the less they pay attention to your pet project.
Lol, you have some interesting paranoid insinuations there. I'm not even talking about my pet project, because I haven't done enough background work and writing to reveal anything in a consumable form. Need to tie the fragments together.
I certainly won't deny interest in my own project, but I'm not so selfish as to derail every thread into being about it. You're the first one to even bring it up in this thread.
The great thing about attacking motives is you don't need any evidence. So I'm just going to walk away.
Anenome:When did I claim likelihood was a fact? A likelihood should be taken as an inductive claim of likelihood.
Right here: "Doesn't change the fact that governments aren't likely to give up easily the power that controlling a currency gives them [emphasis added]."
Anenome:I take inductive arguments as inductive ones and deductive as deductive ones. Maybe I made a mistake tho, how did I use inductive reasoning deductively, exactly?
Bogart seemed to be making a deductive argument, and you responded with an inductive claim.
Anenome:Not in terms of an inductive argument.
Bogart wasn't making an inductive argument.
Anenome:Lol, you have some interesting paranoid insinuations there. I'm not even talking about my pet project, because I haven't done enough background work and writing to reveal anything in a consumable form. Need to tie the fragments together. I certainly won't deny interest in my own project, but I'm not so selfish as to derail every thread into being about it. You're the first one to even bring it up in this thread. The great thing about attacking motives is you don't need any evidence. So I'm just going to walk away.
Oh come on - you started literally inviting people in the latest thread on "Obamacare" to contribute to your seasteading project. And I think walking away is telling, to be honest. Why would you walk away if I'm so wrong about this?
As I see it, there was absolutely no need whatsoever to tell Bogart that moving to a gold standard is never going to happen in Iran - because he was in no way claiming that it will necessarily happen or even that it's likely to happen. His point was about what could help the situation there. Likelihood had no relevance to his point at all. Do you really not see that?
Autolykos: Oh come on - you started literally inviting people in the latest thread on "Obamacare" to contribute to your seasteading project.
Oh come on - you started literally inviting people in the latest thread on "Obamacare" to contribute to your seasteading project.
Literally? I don't even have a foundation setup to accept donations, should I ever do so. Do tell how I literally did that. What website for donations and contributions did I give out, remind me?
None.
Autolykos:And I think walking away is telling, to be honest. Why would you walk away if I'm so wrong about this?
Because your argument amounts to "when did you stop beating your wife?"
Autolykos:As I see it, there was absolutely no need whatsoever to tell Bogart that moving to a gold standard is never going to happen in Iran - because he was in no way claiming that it will necessarily happen or even that it's likely to happen. His point was about what could help the situation there. Likelihood had no relevance to his point at all. Do you really not see that?
Fine, and my reaction to his good point was... drum roll, never gonna happen.
And you've blown that waaaay out of proportion, bro.
Are you actually claiming that Iran is likely to do as he suggests? Do you take any issue at all with the content of my statement?
So far, you have not. So, are you just arguing to argue, or what.
Oh, so now you aren't walking away. What made you change your mind?
Anenome:Literally? I don't even have a foundation setup to accept donations, should I ever do so. Do tell how I literally did that. What website for donations and contributions did I give out, remind me? None.
I think you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said - and, if that's true, I'm not surprised. This post sure sounds to me like an invitation to join (and thus contribute to, but not necessarily financially) your seasteading project. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Anenome:Because your argument amounts to "when did you stop beating your wife?"
And how is that, exactly?
Anenome:Fine, and my reaction to his good point was... drum roll, never gonna happen.
And once again, that's entirely irrelevant to his point! Do you see how it doesn't refute his point whatsoever? And if you weren't trying to refute his point, then just what were you trying to do?
Anenome:And you've blown that waaaay out of proportion, bro. Are you actually claiming that Iran is likely to do as he suggests? Do you take any issue at all with the content of my statement? So far, you have not. So, are you just arguing to argue, or what.
That's just it. I've been making post after post expressing just how I do take issue with the content of your statement with respect to the context in which it was made. You keep throwing red herrings my way as if I'll actually fall for one. Come on, I think you should know better than that. There's no way you'll distract me from my point, because I won't let you. Understand?
Now then, why don't you tell me where you think Bogart was claiming any kind of likelihood of the Iranian government doing what he suggested.
My first thought was that the recent inflation was an indirect result of economic sanctions. Due to the problems in Syria and Turkey, which as a result of the sanctions, is irans biggest markets, this has led to economic problems in iran.
Autolykos:This post sure sounds to me like an invitation to join (and thus contribute to, but not necessarily financially) your seasteading project. Do you disagree? If so, why?
It was a question as to whether he'd be interested. Not an invitation to join.
Autolykos: Anenome:Fine, and my reaction to his good point was... drum roll, never gonna happen. And once again, that's entirely irrelevant to his point!
And once again, that's entirely irrelevant to his point!
Why does it have to be relevant. Is my question.
Autolykos:Do you see how it doesn't refute his point whatsoever?
Beucase it wasn't an attempt to refute anything.
Autolykos:And if you weren't trying to refute his point, then just what were you trying to do?
To say that though I disagree with nothing he says, the Iranian gov will never choose to do so.
Autolykos: Anenome:Are you actually claiming that Iran is likely to do as he suggests? Do you take any issue at all with the content of my statement? So far, you have not. So, are you just arguing to argue, or what. That's just it. I've been making post after post expressing just how I do take issue with the content of your statement with respect to the context in which it was made. You keep throwing red herrings my way as if I'll actually fall for one. Come on, I think you should know better than that. There's no way you'll distract me from my point, because I won't let you. Understand? Now then, why don't you tell me where you think Bogart was claiming any kind of likelihood of the Iranian government doing what he suggested.
Anenome:Are you actually claiming that Iran is likely to do as he suggests? Do you take any issue at all with the content of my statement? So far, you have not. So, are you just arguing to argue, or what.
I don't think he was. I was.
I also think you're being unreasonable, splitting hairs, and making mountains out of molehills.
Jack Roberts: My first thought was that the recent inflation was an indirect result of economic sanctions. Due to the problems in Syria and Turkey, which as a result of the sanctions, is irans biggest markets, this has led to economic problems in iran.
But inflation can only be created by additional money hitting the market. How exactly would sanctions cause that.
Anenome:It was a question as to whether he'd be interested. Not an invitation to join.
Yes, it was a question as to whether he'd be interested to join your effort. That's an invitation to join, isn't it? What real difference is there?
Anenome:Why does it have to be relevant. Is my question.
Well, why would you say it if you agree that it's not relevant?
Anenome:Beucase it wasn't an attempt to refute anything.
Thanks for finally admitting that.
Anenome:To say that though I disagree with nothing he says, [I think] the Iranian gov will never choose to do so.
Please note what I added in the brackets in quoting you above. I will do this every time you pretend to be clairvoyant.
Now then, my own experience has been that a person says something like "Never gonna happen" when he wants the other person to shut up. Saying instead something like "Never gonna happen, so there's no use talking about it" makes his intention explicit. That's what I figured you wanted to convey to Bogart. It wasn't just that you think it's never going to happen, but because you think it's never going to happen, there's no use in anyone (including Bogart) ever talking about it. I may have gone out on a limb in accusing you of doing that so people would focus (more) on your seasteading venture, but I maintain that you didn't want Bogart (or, by extension, anyone else) to talk about how the Iranian government (and perhaps, by extension, other governments) could improve its monetary situation.
Anenome:I don't think he was. I was. I also think you're being unreasonable, splitting hairs, and making mountains out of molehills.
As I said above, I think a person says something like "Never gonna happen" to convey the hidden message of "It's of no use talking about this" which in turn conveys another more hidden message of "Stop talking about this". If that's really not what you wanted to convey to Bogart, then please, by all means, lay out your case.
Very simple. In January the Iranian Central Bank (ICB for convenience from now on) announced an 8% devaluation of the rial. In August they announced a further round of inflation which is why we are seeing this huge drop.
Why is that? Iran has been cut off from foreign banking and its economy is extremely weak. Natural gas and crude oil are the only exports of any importance and they have been seriously weakened by both sanctions and a drop in demand. They need cash to pay for welfare, military expenditures, bureacrats etc.
Of course inflation is distorting the price system: despite having huge quantities of natural gas and crude they cannot sell abroad, fuel prices have increased about 300% since the beginning of the year. As I said before Iran has a very weak economy: despite its oil wealth its petrochemical industry is both completely obsolete and woefully inadequate to supply the internal market.
Part of the inflation is going into direct cash subsidies to citizenry: somewhere between 80 and 90% of the Iranian people receive 730000 rial monthly fron the government. This scheme was launched in 2010 in the aftermath of the failed "color revolution": it's not very different from Western welfare in scope. The Iranian leadership is buying consent and binding as many people as possible to itself.
Obama intended to use these sanctions against the State of Israel and perhaps the people of Iran. That was what he and Ahmadinejad wanted. That said, Bibi's IQ can't be what he alleged it to be. Maybe half of it at best.
The Neo-Axis powers are going to crash and burn and neo-communism will thrive in the countries in which it is popular... for a time at least. True Revolutions are rare and are never permanent. The same is true of counter revolutions althouh counter revolutions have lasted longer historically. Perhaps when Bibi crashes the State of Israel and when Romney crashes Washington there will be a good voluntaryist revolution by correction of the Enlightenment Era and the Church of Rome era... unless the earth really is about to end and the Judeo-Christian Bible is true.
Kakugo: Very simple. In January the Iranian Central Bank (ICB for convenience from now on) announced an 8% devaluation of the rial. In August they announced a further round of inflation which is why we are seeing this huge drop. Why is that? Iran has been cut off from foreign banking and its economy is extremely weak. Natural gas and crude oil are the only exports of any importance and they have been seriously weakened by both sanctions and a drop in demand. They need cash to pay for welfare, military expenditures, bureacrats etc. Of course inflation is distorting the price system: despite having huge quantities of natural gas and crude they cannot sell abroad, fuel prices have increased about 300% since the beginning of the year. As I said before Iran has a very weak economy: despite its oil wealth its petrochemical industry is both completely obsolete and woefully inadequate to supply the internal market. Part of the inflation is going into direct cash subsidies to citizenry: somewhere between 80 and 90% of the Iranian people receive 730000 rial monthly fron the government. This scheme was launched in 2010 in the aftermath of the failed "color revolution": it's not very different from Western welfare in scope. The Iranian leadership is buying consent and binding as many people as possible to itself.
Wow, thanks for the update. Crazy stuff.
War has often been used by regimes to bring the country together ideologically in order to prop up support for a government. Might be that war with western powers is exactly what Iran wants, in order to keep the regime from failing.
In any case, looks like war is intevitable under these circumstances. Either Israel will bomb them, or they'll bomb Israel.
It gets even crazier.
Until now importers of foreign goods bought dollars from the government (which obtains dollars from oil and gas sales) at highly subsidized rates. Importers of "essential" items (food, medicines etc) could get huge discounts this way (up to 50% off market prices) while everybody else still got a favorable deal. Now the Iranian government has decided to divide imports in ten categories according to how they are judged "essential" to the country. Importers of good belonging to the two highest categories will now have to buy dollars on the open market. These good include mobile phones, furniture, cars and, curiously enough, all clothing items. Importers of the remaining eight categories will still be able to buy dollars from the government at favorable rates, though nowhere near as favorable as in the past. Iran had roughly 100 billions dollars in its coffers in January but all analysts agree a good chunk has gone by now. At this rate Iran will completely deplete its dollar reserves in a year at most.
And there's more. The recent Nobel prize recipient, the EU, not wishing to be outdone by Barack Obama in celebrating this prestigious award by murdering innocents, is preparing another round of sanctions which will effectively forbid any interaction between European and Iranian firms, both private and public. Needless to say this idea is the brainchild of Avigdor Lieberman, who so far has more or less run EU politics towards Iran directly from his office in Tel Aviv meeting no opposition whatsoever. Has the Samson Option been used once again to blackmail the world?