US Dollar hits 3 month high :)

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Karmashock, Feb 8, 2005.

  1. Karmashock The Doomslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    390
    yeah... see those figures MUST be in proportion to GDP or they don't make sense... it would be like comparing how much food you take in now to when you were a baby... it just doesn't relate. You have to continiously factor in the current size of the economy before you even bother.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Karmashock The Doomslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    390
    The fall in the dollar hasn't hurt of that bad, it's increased our exports and our domestic growth has more then made up for that inflation. We just went through a recession... so of course our currency took a hit... that always happens.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    it's increased our exports and our domestic growth has more then made up for that inflation.

    Actually American exports have fallen short of expectations, and the trade deficit has only gotten worse...more bull shit please?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Muhlenberg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    Exactly.

    Rationally, and as a matter of economics, receipts vs outlays must be compared to GDP.

    But there is an important sociological fact involved as well. Americans accept levels of taxation, personal and state debt today which were unthinkable in 1935. The only reason FDR got away with what he did was the Depression. Which, IHMO, is why he prolonged it.

    Coolidge's State of the Union addresses are wonderful reads. No promises of what goverment will give people--simply a run down of how the WWI debt was being paid off, the condition of mines, harbors, farms, the military, foreign relations and so on. CEO/CFO stuff. The reverse of Clinton waving a blue plastic "free health care" card in front of everyone.
     
  8. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Rationally, and as a matter of economics, receipts vs outlays must be compared to GDP.

    Then the US economy is then growing at -5% per annum. The facade of growth, and in the case of you and Karma the facade of intelligence both on dependent on borrowed time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Karmashock The Doomslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    390
    It's an addiction... we'll break from it eventually... we're strong enough.
     
  10. Muhlenberg Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    I'm, like you, am optimistic of course. For two years Democrats have filibustered the appointment of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown to the Federal Bench. They feared she will be appointed to the Supreme Court. With the new Congress, she should be appointed to a Circuit Court soon. A few quotes from Justice Brown:

    "My grandparents' generation thought being on the government dole wa s disgraceful, a blight on the family's honor. Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much 'free' stuff as the political system will permit them to extract."


    "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies.

    "The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

    Brown is more conservative than Thomas or Scalia. To make matters worse for the left, she is black.
     
  11. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Answer my question, how is the US economy in good shape with GDP growth of -5%?
     
  12. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    There's some useful up-to-date statistics on the federal fiscal deficit to be found here.
    It ain't a healthy picture!
     
  13. Karmashock The Doomslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    390
    those numbers are wrong... here you go...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Looks huge doesn't it?































    Well, we've grown quite a bit since then...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So freak out if you want... it's just going to make you look silly.

    I knew his numbers were bad because it showed the US at the same debt level as it was during WWII... which is so completely insane, I don't know where to start... It's just wrong and we'll leave it at that.

    For economic tables that go all the way back to the revolution:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/hist.html

    Love and peace, Karmashock.
     
  14. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    The country is still in deficit...and the trend is going to continue, within the next 10 years if trends continue I would imagine that debt as a ratio to GDP should be approaching 100%. So ignore those red lines at your peril.
     
  15. Karmashock The Doomslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    390
    One of the things this graph makes clear is that at no time will we be any worse then we were in 92... so chill out people.
     
  16. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Actually you will be worse then in 1992 for three reasons:

    1) China is a major trading power, and Wal-Mart is a major player on the American economy, low wages= low prices= higher consumption= higher debt load.
    2) The US economy is not going to have a roaring 90’s anytime soon.
    3) The US budget deficit thanks to the tax cut will grow to preposterous proportions, what you didn’t mention about the 90’s was that Clinton cut defence expenditures and raised taxes which made 1992 a completely different era.

    Learn what you’re talking about fool.

    This grapth tells us about the future not the past:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Levels not seen since WWII, and the US isn't even fighting a world war.
     
  17. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,152
    Your second graph shows a true picture (at least up to the present time), Karmashock. But observe one important thing about it. Although WWII leads to unparalleled deficits, there are massive tax hikes at that time doubling the revenue. Governments seem to be able to make such tax increases in wartime. Government revenue hits about 18% of GNP and stays there. At first, this enables some limited repayment of war debt. But then somehow the Government discovers new and different ways to spend the public's money and taxation is never restored to prewar levels.

    The US is some way from a crisis, but faced with a need to increase taxes and a president proposing further tax cuts . . . the country is faced with an interesting future! Unlike the WWII deficits, ending the war does not remedy the problem. Politically, that makes things more difficult.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2005
  18. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Undecided: Your last graph makes the assumption that all trends will stay the same. In fact, most are self correcting and so the trend will break after reaching a certain point.

    This is like some of the old theories about population increase that said we would have standing room only by the year 2000.
     
  19. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    i dont blaem them for thinking that, i mean, if the poulation doubles over 50 years then of course people would think overcrowding is a problem.

    and how did bush get into office, with a huge national debt, and still be there after requesting another $82b for the war in iraq
     
  20. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Undecided: Your last graph makes the assumption that all trends will stay the same. In fact, most are self correcting and so the trend will break after reaching a certain point.

    Oh I realize that Clockwood, and with Bush pushing his tax cuts at the same time that huge percentages of the population will be aging and retiring it is entirely within the realm possibility that, that graph will indeed represent that future of the US budget situation remember u supported Bush, and u in turn will support the American economic meltdown, enjoy.

    This is like some of the old theories about population increase that said we would have standing room only by the year 2000.

    Sure but unlike population growth u can directly control the size of the revenues and spending of the nation, let’s face some facts surpluses will not come anytime soon, and the US current account isn’t shrinking, minus GDP growth will only get worse further for the US until she will go bankrupt. Argentina syndrome.
     
  21. phoenix2634 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    329
    Bush is only president for four more years. He will not be president after that. Congress also plays a large roll in the budget process. The House of Representatives changes every two years, and a third of the Senate every two years. It is crazy to think that the economic trends will remain the same under future administrations. The point is that your graph doesn't realistically taking into consideration that a future congress may raise taxes. Or that a future administration may push for greater fiscal responsibility. Of course one could make the assumption that tax levels and deficits will remain unchanged.
    The point is, is that it is not realistic to forcast gloom on the US economy because leaders change and economic trends change.
     
  22. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Bush is only president for four more years. He will not be president after that. Congress also plays a large roll in the budget process. The House of Representatives changes every two years, and a third of the Senate every two years.

    And if current trends continue politically it will be uberrepublican, and alas tax cutters. So things may get worse, and the Current Account cannot be radically changed by the congress.
     

Share This Page