Re: 16,84 korun ceskych

On Feb 27, 3:21=A0pm, "aw" <aw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "kujebak" <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:f42f3fc6-88bd-431b-9037-02cb1825b789@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > aw wrote:
> >> "kujebak" <kuje...@[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?
>
> >> =A0Ze 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 =A41 trillion in
re=
d
> >> 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 =A415 billion a year more than what Reagan requested.
Tha=
t
> >> accounts for only 8% of the ac***ulated deficits.
>
> >> In the past, the government financed its deficits mostly by selling
bon=
ds
> >> to
> >> American investors. This time it has borrowed from the rest of the
worl=
d.
> >> 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 =A4400 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
opponen=
t
> >> for
> >> the 1980 presidential election, George H.W. Bush called it "voodoo
> >> economics." His own Budget Director, David Stockman, called it a
"Troja=
n
> >> 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 =A477 billion. Reagan's first
> >> deficit
> >> was =A4128 billion. His second deficit exploded to =A4208 billion. By
t=
he
> >> time
> >> the "Reagan Revolution" was over, George H.W. Bush was running an
annua=
l
> >> deficit of =A4290 billion per year.
>
> >> Yearly deficits, of course, add up to national debt. When Reagan took
> >> office, the national debt stood at =A4994 billion. When Bush left
offic=
e,
> >> it
> >> had reached =A44.3 trillion. In other words, the national debt had
take=
n
> >> 200
> >> years to reach =A41 trillion. Reagan's Supply Side experiment
quadruple=
d 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 =A0the
> > 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 =A4250 an ounce during the Clinton administration to
=A4950 =
today.
> This reflects, not an actual rise in the price of this commodity but a
los=
s
> in confidence
> in the fiscal responsibility of the Bush administration. And loss in
> confidence of =A4US.
> The only solution to this problem is to slash spending and/or raise
taxes
> while cranking
> =A0up 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 =A410 can be lent. This creates powerful leverage of over 90
t=
o 1
> when the
> monies are spread through the system. This creates speculation and
inflati=
on
> on economic
> =A0upswings and deflation and bankruptcy due to credit shortages on the
> downswings.
> With 10x leverage the loss of 10% of a banks assets effectively finishes
t=
he
> bank
> =A0and bankrupts its investors. The Federal Reserve has played an
im****tan=
t
> role in
> this credit collapse, through incompetence, idealogical bias, favoritism
a=
nd
> politisation.
>
> BTW, ever heard about Glass-Steagall Act of 1933?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Answer my question!!!
Is there a relation****p between federal deficit spending
and the value of the dollar? If so, why?
In your own words preferably.