Re: 16,84 korun ceskych

aw wrote:
> "kujebak" <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:878acbd9-7008-42f5-b017-cd2161c7e115@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Feb 27, 9:09 am, "aw" <aw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Paul J Kriha" <paul.nospam.kr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> > messagenews:47c512b1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Zdislav V. Kovarik" <kova...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > >news:Pine.WNT.4.58.0802261437450.-356059@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Jack Stone wrote:
> >
> > >> > .........aneb dollar spolehlive pokracuje na sve ceste do prdele
:-)
> >
> > > Jack tam uz nejakou dobu netrpelive ceka, aby ho privital.
> >
> > >> Ze von uz tam byl, za Cartera?
> > >> A nelibilo se mu tam, tak se zase vyhrabal.
> > >> Duh.
> >
> > >> Cheers, Slavek(ZVK)
> >
> > Jakej byl deficit za Cartera? A statni dluh byl min nez polovicni.
> > Takze to vyhrabavani dnes je uz skoro nemozny.
> >
>
> Pomerene malej, v ****ovnani s deficity predeslych
> (republikanskych) administrativ. Presto sel dolar do pr-
> dele koncem 70tych let, a ke sve historicke hodnote
> se vratil az za Reagana. Samozrejme ze hodnota
> americkeho dolaru nema nic spolecneho s tim kdo
> tu je u vesla. Nelze tedy zapotrebi jaksi vyvracet
> tvuj argument. Zcela jsi v tom uspel sam ;-)
>
> Jestlipak vis co jineho meli ctyri roky Carterovi
> adminintrativy spolecneho s dneskem?
>
>  Ze by, jako jediny (US president) dokazal primet Israel k podepsani
> mir. dohody s Egyptem? Ze za neho nedoslo k uplnemu kolapsu "Housing
Trhu"?
>
> Under Reagan, the federal deficit expanded from 2.6% of GNP to 5.3% in
1986
> (before falling somewhat in 1987), adding more than $1 trillion in red
ink
> to our national accounts. Worse, this growth took place not during
wartime
> or depression but in a period of peace and prosperity. That's when the
> national debt is supposed to shrink.
>
> Reagan came to Wa****ngton promising to cut taxes and federal spending.
He
> cut taxes. But spending rose both in absolute terms and as a share of
GNP.
> Was it Congress's fault? Total government outlays between 1982 and 1987
> averaged only $15 billion a year more than what Reagan requested. That
> accounts for only 8% of the ac***ulated deficits.
>
> In the past, the government financed its deficits mostly by selling
bonds to
> American investors. This time it has borrowed from the rest of the
world.
> The result: by the end of 1987 the United States had completed a fast
> transition from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest
debtor,
> owing foreign investors roughly $400 billion. What made the borrowing
> possible was high interest rates, which themselves may have been caused
by
> the big deficit.
>
> Remember Ronald Reagan and Supply Side Economics? In the early 1980s,
Reagan
> promised the nation that if we lowered tax rates on the wealthy, the
economy
> would grow so much the federal budget would be balanced "within three
years,
> maybe even two."
>
> Sober people were skeptical-and rightly so. Reagan's Republican opponent
for
> the 1980 presidential election, George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo
> economics." His own Budget Director, David Stockman, called it a "Trojan
> horse," a scam intended really to funnel more money to the already rich.
> Stockman was quickly dismissed.
>
> The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first full year
> after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy actually shrank 2.2%, the
worst
> performance since the Great Depression. And the effect on the federal
budget
> was catastrophic.
>
> Jimmy Carter's last budget deficit was $77 billion. Reagan's first
deficit
> was $128 billion. His second deficit exploded to $208 billion. By the
time
> the "Reagan Revolution" was over, George H.W. Bush was running an annual
> deficit of $290 billion per year.
>
> Yearly deficits, of course, add up to national debt. When Reagan took
> office, the national debt stood at $994 billion. When Bush left office,
it
> had reached $4.3 trillion. In other words, the national debt had taken
200
> years to reach $1 trillion. Reagan's Supply Side experiment quadrupled
it in
> the next 12 years
>
> Tak a ted mas chanci to vyvratit. :-)))))))))))))

The issue at hand - the issue you raised in your
previous post - is the inverse relation****p between
the size of the federal deficit and the value of  the
dollar. That *is* your claim, is it not? How does
any of the above substantiate your point (if that
is what your point is) when, in fact, it seems to
indicate exactly the opposite - meaning low de-
ficits under Carter leading to the decline in the
value of the dollar, and Reagan's record deficits
bringing it back up?

>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >> ----------------------------------------
> > >> "Domu! Do Prahy! Do Podoli! Do lekarny!"
> > >> (J. da Cimrman)
> >
> > > Na Bjelehrad!!!
> > > (Le Brave Soldat Chveik)
> >
> > > pjk- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -