Re: 16,84 korun ceskych

"kujebak" <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:f42f3fc6-88bd-431b-9037-02cb1825b789@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
>
>>
I thought you understant irony, but..

This is not a typical slowdown caused
solely by slowing consumer spending or business investment. Instead,
it is a slowdown caused by inflated asset prices and a nation gorging on 
debt.
The basic problem faced by the US economy right now is excessive debt
caused by recklessly low interest rates from the Federal Reserve.
Reducing interest rates again with the dollar tanking is like throwing 
gasoline on a roaring fire.
Whatever else is happening now, the dollar is tanking. Gold has soared
from a low of $250 an ounce during the Clinton administration to $950
today.
This reflects, not an actual rise in the price of this commodity but a
loss 
in confidence
in the fiscal responsibility of the Bush administration. And loss in 
confidence of $US.
The only solution to this problem is to slash spending and/or raise taxes 
while cranking
 up interest rates to 20% or more as Carter/Volker did while cleaning up 
Nixon's mess.
Whatever is done, It ain't gonna be pretty - and whoever is president is 
gonna
be blamed for Bush's mess just like Carter was blamed for Nixon's.
The system you (US) now use to create money is a debt system whereby for 
each dollar
in deposits $10 can be lent. This creates powerful leverage of over 90 to
1 
when the
monies are spread through the system. This creates speculation and
inflation 
on economic
 upswings and deflation and bankruptcy due to credit shortages on the 
downswings.
With 10x leverage the loss of 10% of a banks assets effectively finishes
the 
bank
 and bankrupts its investors. The Federal Reserve has played an im****tant 
role in
this credit collapse, through incompetence, idealogical bias, favoritism
and 
politisation.

BTW, ever heard about Glass-Steagall Act of 1933?