Iranian Currency Falls 17% in One Day
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.
Obvious indeed.
Clayton -
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?
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.
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.
Even though it’s entirely irrelevant to what Bogart said, let me ask you: how is a likelihood a fact?
Nah, wasn’t trying to be mean.
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.
Nah, I’m not sure whether to believe you.
Hence it’s… not a fact. It’s a likelihood. So I’ll ask you again: how is a likelihood a fact?
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.
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.
When did I claim likelihood was a fact? A likelihood should be taken as an inductive claim of likelihood.
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?
Not in terms of an inductive argument.
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.
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].”
Bogart seemed to be making a deductive argument, and you responded with an inductive claim.
Bogart wasn’t making an inductive argument.
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?
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.
Because your argument amounts to “when did you stop beating your wife?”
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.