Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On May 15, 12:34 pm, maxwel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On May 15, 12:29 pm, maxwel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> > test
> > Good question. Besides all the "kitchen table debating" that we're all
> > doing here--and entertaining all of our personal favorite ideas--my
> > basic recommendation is that you need to follow the CYA strategy.
>
> I am a faithful follower of the CYA strategy. It is the only one you
> can
> truely depend on.

Agreed, but with one big caveat: you can _control_ this strategy more
than others (eg. depend on the govt, depend on cor****ations) but if
you are applying for a job, you CANNOT control the applicant to job
ratio, you can't control how the interviewer decides whether he likes
you enough to offer you the job, and you can't control how much they
offer to pay you (they will just tell you to take it or leave it), and
you can't control when/if they decide to lay you off and hire cheaper
help, or even call you into the office and ask you to take a pay cut
(I've actually known people this has happened to), and then what do
you do?

Or, in other words, in the end, the Robber-barons win. tsk, tsk.
>
>
> > It cuts both ways. If jobs come back to the USA there is a chance that
> > wages will go up, or if prices go up they will have to pay bigger
> > wages to get workers.
>
> What you describe is text book theory, that is the way it should
> work, but that is if everyone competes on a level playing field.
> I am concerned that the many will want to deregulate to the
> point that the US regulations are like Mexico's. in order to help
> the economy. People will justify children working because 3
> incomes is better than 2. The downside is an eroded standard
> of living.

Yeah, I think I follow you. Right now, the cor****ations are _free_ to
do anything they like and you and I are _free_ to starve if the Big
Boys decide that the bottom line and THEIR wallets are most im****tant
and the rest of society can go to hell.

> Europe seems to be doing quite well with a more valuble
> currency and higher living standards.

Well, there are two sides to that story, too. I've been reading where
they are also ex****ting jobs to East Europe, and hiring more and more
temps, too. So, if you have one of the secure, union jobs, you're in
"fat city." If not, then you are groveling.

 I am sure the euro will
> fall because as you say they are being hit by the trade and
> oil as well.

Oh, I would make the bet that the exchange rate traders will buy
futures, etc., in whatever manner exploits the herd instinct. At some
point in the future, all that money will come back out of the Euro and
dump into USD. I'll bet some money that, even though I'd love to see
the USD go farther down (so jobs come back and ex****ts go up more), it
won't last long. The Europeans will get pissed by the end of this
year. Their trade deficit with China is going up faster than ours now.
That ain't gonna last long.

 But when their economy goes down I doubt it
> will bottom as low as the US has gone.

I won't bet on this, but I've looked at enough charts of everything
that everything being measured, sooner or later, goes up, then down,
then up again, and then drifts all over the page space.

> Like you say there is a "chance" and I believe that wages
> will go up but what 1 income bought back 40 years
> ago now takes two. What you will see if less being offered
> for the same price. Some will think the buying power is the
> same or better but they will be paying for lower quality,
> cheap junk like that from China.

Well, there are a lot of things going on, not all good. The cheap
electronics junk is nice but there are a lot of caveats there and I
hate to think that to have all that cheap junk means that the USA has
to give up one percent of its jobs every year. Just think, in ten,
twenty years, that means 10-20% of all jobs, and also mostly the
nicer, higher paying ones, too.

So, how are the people that are laid off going to buy that cheap junk
if they are broke and unemployed?
And, I'm sorry, but re-training is not the answer because we're back
to the applicant-to-job ratio. It does no good to have ten guys
fighting for one job; nine guys are going to go hungry.