Did you watch the videos I linked?  Do you have a solution (as an  economist) to Triffin's Dilemma?  If so, you can probably win a Noble Prize.

Two steps took us off hard currency: FDR made it illegal to private citizens to own gold during the Great Depression (lasted until 1973) and Nixon in 1971 in response to Europe wanting its gold reserves back.

Both moves were hyper-inflationary.  The 1970's in particular sucked and we are in many ways repeating them.  The petro-dollar was a stop-gap hard (commodity) solution, but recently Saudi Arabia started accepting other currencies to settle trade.  Foreign banks have largely stopped financing the US debt since 2008 and QE.

Speaking to "stability of South American currencies", El Salvador is in the middle of a major turn around (as is Argentina -- and Melei, is president, IS an economist).  El Salvador will begin issuing bitcoin-backed bonds.  Argentina is considering it too.  RFK Jr only suggested increasing the already existing US reserve of bitcoin.

I have no great love of bitcoin, but the point is a hard-backed currency (i.e. no nation can manipulate/inflate) is needed to solve many of the current global debit problems.  As the video points out, fiat currencies on average only last 80 years.  The US dollar took on that role post WWII.  You do the math.

You win buzzword Bingo Steven, but I get the feeling that, quite possibly, you have little to no real understanding of what you speak of, and hence mostly rely on appeal to authority arguments.

The  real solution comes in the form of a combination of careful fiscal policy - not like the irresponsible tax cuts Trump doled out to the rich during an expansionary phase for example; and not the typically large, expensive (in fixed, and most importantly ongoing costs) military expansions which are GOP/far right SOP.

I am sorry to say Koroush, that I feel precisely the same way --- despite my preference for logical thinking 100% above experts who (*cough*)  flash their credentials in your face.  As the not-really-Einstein quote says, "If you can't explain it to your Grandmother, then you don't really understand it."

But keep insulting me.  I can take it.

Jan Trump +12

May. Trump +7

August Trump +5

Hmmmm.  I see a pattern, and I like it.  And Sen Ted Cruz only currently leads his opponent by +2, which is within the margin of error.  

As I said in the Harris thread though, I think flipping Florida will become the big prize by November,

"Hmmmm.  I see a pattern, and I like it.  And Sen Ted Cruz only currently leads his opponent by +2, which is within the margin of error."

I think polls clearly show Harris closing the gap everywhere, but I'm not sure the numbers can be trusted.  Enthusiasm for Biden dropped so low after the debate that I think Harris is enjoying a bump in the polls just by not being him.  It remains to be seen how the numbers will adjust when voters become more familiar with her policy positions.  In that respect, I think it could go either way.  

I think we'll have a much better idea of where things stand after the next debate, and moving closer to the election.

I still think the biggest danger for Democrats is the potential enthusiasm gap.  If Trump gets roughly the same amount of support he received in the last election, then Dems will need a massive turnout to win.  Biden's numbers were unprecedented.  This year, with less mail-in balloting, and widespread perception that the economy is bad, can Harris pull a similar result?

We'll see.  Neither outcome would be surprising to me at this point.