"That trade was started by socialist minded people in the US Democrat party forcing banks to lend to those who had no intention of respecting their financial commitments, all in the name of “equal opportunity” and “affirmative action” under Clinton."
So more than a million home buyers took out loans just for a lark, did they?
No mention of the fact that these buyers saw their interest rates rise from 1% to 5% in as many years, in a period when the median wage in the US actually dropped. We won't mention the unconscionable business of trading mortgages, much less bundling mortgages; forget about ratings agencies that give a tripe A rating on bundles, at the request of the very banks doing the trading; don't worry about liars loans or any of the dodgy practices the banks have indulged in since escaping the shackles of intolerable regulation...
When arguing ideology, never let anything so tawdry as facts get in the way of a good story.
How can selling money itself for a profit not be inflationary?
Keep on it, Ken Mckay.

grim,
Another prediction second financial crisis within 18 months. It will originate in the United States Commercial Property sector. The expansion of the Commercial Property sector has been funded on a similar derivatives merry-go-round for the residential property market. Its survival is predicated on the rent returns. Everyone knows when recessions occur corporations rationalise their office accomodation arrangements. Derivative defaults will be in the same order as the first GFC.
Independant of this crisis we still face the Central European financial crash due to lending to Eastern Europe in Swiss Franc/Euros, devaluation of Eastern European currencies will lead to large defaults, if these two crisis occur simultaneously or in quick succession maybe then we might see some serious action to reform the architecture of the international monetary system.

Slasher “Bretton Woods was a barrier to trade was it? why then under the Bretton Woods Regime did the value of world exports increase by 119% from 1950-1960.”

Because the 1950-1960 was a time of economic buoyancy and burgeoning consumer demand, following WWII, further stimulated by parents buying for their precious “baby boomer” children and a pathetic trade growth of a mere 19% (your numbers), over ten years (less than 2 % pa) does indicate the operation of some “barrier” -

when compared to the growth in trade between 1987 and 1997 (Doubled or 100% or 7% pa compounding) per http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anre98_e.pdf

or 2000 and 2007 (for instance) with average annual growth of 6% (versus slashers “Bretton Woods” <2%) per
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2008_e/its08_world_trade_dev_e.htm

these levels of trade growth being the result of the world following the loosening of trade restriction, quotas, tariffs and other barriers to trade, in favour of bi-lateral and multi-lateral free trade agreements.

Can someone pass the dunce cap back to slasher, assuming his hands can find his head to let him put it on.

“Exchange volatility dampers international trade,”

That is an unproven hypothesis in an area where to produce a positive hypothesis is practically impossible, thus I assume it is either make-believe or propaganda from a vested interest document

The truth being, since exporters can “hedge” their foreign exchange risks and exposure, exchange volatility is a minor issue.

“With a guaranteed risk of 1% exchange rate variability under Bretton Woods little need for gambling/insurance is there?”

What slasher fails to understand is the method by which the 1% limit on fluctuations was maintained and the social cost implications of a currency locked in to maintaining an artificially fixed exchange rate, the devastating impact of fluctuations on trade when they were forced by reality into play, including currency speculation on a far wider scale; than when currencies “float” to find their own, natural level.

In fact, slasher does not need a dunce cap.. he needs an “ear for arse” transplant,

- so he can listen more whilst reducing his capacity to output tish.

"fluctuating currency, for the benefit of all"

After years, Col Rouge has finally made a statement I agree with - albeit for very different reasons and even though it wasn't the entire sentence.

I appreciate what the author wants to achieve but a floating currency potentially increases the ability of a national government to advance the public purpose by removing operational constraints that formerly required them to finance their spending.

col, thanks for the links proves my case
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anre98_e.pdf,
chart iv.1
1950-73 bretton woods period
export growth 10%, gdp about 5%
1973-80 export growth under 6%, GDP less than 3%
1980-1990 export growth about 4%, GDP again less than 3%
1990-96 export growth about 6% and GDP less than 3%
You have earned the dunce's cap, hope you don't play soccer you would be the leading own goal scorer.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/learning-from-the-great-depression-20091113-iens.html

Ross Gittins recently wrote this interesting article, about the
benefits of our present economic system, compared to what we
used to have. It includes floating exchange rates and makes
some extremely valid points.