Dinar Daily
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Get Daily Updates of the NEWS & GURUS in your EMAIL

Enter your email address:

Sandyf Commentary & Clarification  4/3/18 DinarDailyUpdates?bg=330099&fg=FFFFFF&anim=1

Sandyf Commentary & Clarification 4/3/18

Go down

Sandyf Commentary & Clarification  4/3/18 Empty Sandyf Commentary & Clarification 4/3/18

Post by Ssmith on Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:19 am

​Sandyf Commentary & Clarification  4-3-18

sandyf: It has been Quing Ming for our family today, been to the tomb of my wife's parents for a remembrance service and offer food and gifts to them. The Thais are a morning people, even the wedding service starts at 7am.
There is something that should be clarified straight away, it is xyz that is making the assertions, I am not a guru and certainly have nothing to prove.
 If anyone has any doubts over anything I have said there is plenty of information on the internet and all they have to do is look. I am more than happy to be corrected if someone comes back with a credible source.

sandyf: The CBI financial statement has been been freely available on the CBI website since 2005 so I have to wonder if the question is more an attempt to cast doubt rather than any genuine interest. All you have to do is scroll to the bottom of the page and click on financial statements.
If I remember right, in the current statement the point in question is addressed in Note 13.

In the years prior to the current statement there were those that maintained the currency in circulation was being reduced but the statement would indicate otherwise.
The current statement is for 2016 and just because the gurus were misleading people then it does not mean they are still doing it now, its 2 years since and things have changed, the Tebow theory.
sandyf: The currency in circulation has risen from under 10 Trillion in 2005 to 45 Trillion in the current statement. People are perfectly free to believe what they want in terms of how its altered since then, nobody will know any different until the 2017 statement is published.

I often see the term "note count", what is that supposed to mean when it has no meaning.
The CBI sits on all the currency that has been printed and when required they bring some "into circulation", the remainder just remains off the books.
sandyf: Ref the WTO. Iraq started negotiations in 2004 and had a second meeting in 2008. Probably for various reasons they never met again until November of last year.

An obvious reason would have been when the Tariff Law was finally implemented in early 2015 the Kurds had control of their borders and would not apply the tariffs claiming they were exempt.
It is a requirement for any country to join the WTO that they have a credible tariff profile and the WTO sees Iraq as one country, so the tariff profile would need to be uniform.

Following the Kurdish referendum Iraq took control of the Kurdish borders and shortly after they had a meeting with the WTO, may well have been coincidence, who knows.
sandyf: xyz brought up various other points but I cannot see a question unless he is disputing the Investment law and the terms of Article 8.
sandyf: @chattels - There is a multitude of info regarding the global collateral accounts. I am reluctant to point to any particular website as there are different take on the matter.

The people normally associated with this topic are Neil Keenan and Michael C Cottrell.

There used to be posts about this from a guy called Markz who was held in fairly high regard, not sure what happened to him.
sandyf: @dinard: @sandyf can the introduce a new currency and value it differently at the same time? - The answer is in the question. If it is a new currency it will be a new value and cannot be different. What you really mean is would it be different to the currency it replaced and the simple answer is yes.
A new currency is introduced through a redenomination and redenominations work on a ratio basis. Iraq is talking about 1000 to 1(3 zeros), the last redenomination in Zimbabwe was 1 Trillion to 1, and when the UK redenominated it was 2.4 to 1. There would be very little point in a 1 to 1 redenomination.
The only other answer to what you are implying would be a redenomination followed by a revaluation. Two separate events witha variable time gap, although a possibility, not a scenario people would want to face.
sandyf: My name is Alexander and I was brought up in Scotland where it is normal for someone named Alexander to be called Sandy. I left school at 15 and was in the RAF from 63 to 77, serving a year near Dubai in 1970 when it was still a shanty town before they had the oil. 

​After the service I spent many years in business exporting capital equipment around the world and did the last 15 years of my working life as an IT consultant on Sage Business & accounting software.
You will have to take my word for that, I do not have a link. I do not expect anyone to believe what I say, I would prefer they didn't and check it out for themselves, it is the only way to learn fact from fiction.
sandyf: End of post that disappeared from other page.

sandyf: Anyone in favour of a float should read this document, particularly the last paragraph. It is a contentious issue and always a possibility although not normally considered a good move for an emerging market. If it were to go ahead, appreciation would be limited with very little in the way of returns.


Posts : 20038
Join date : 2012-04-10

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum