In article
<b5eac57c-723a-4e19-80fa-5ae80f83c6d1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:51 pm, "aw" <aw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "kujebak" <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
> >
news:f4ad7948-6d74-4c80-847b-40d723fc911f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > aw wrote:
> > > "kujebak" <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
>news:aff9f18c-026a-4258-87fa-fe0810a849d3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Feb 27, 3:21 pm, "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?
> >
> > > > >> 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?- 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.
> >
> > > Hey Buddy what is happening to you? Still didn't get that?
> >
> > > Last Time:
> > > With every deficit, state debt became bigger and bigger. Creditors
loose
> > > trust at Nation currency.
> > > What follows? States like US, where is negative rate of saving must
> > > borrow
> > > money abroad. Debt held
> > > by Foreigners present burden on Future US Production and interest
> > > payments
> > > are not necessarily reinvested in US.
> > > When FED
> > > try to save domestic Banks a and other Fin. institution, he lowers
> > > interest
> > > on currency, which brings
> > > Devaluation and then Inflation, Stagflation, Depression, destroyed
middle
> > > Class, atd.
> > > This is one Example.
> > > What is happening in US now is burst bubble of housing market with
> > > excessive
> > > debt
> > > inflated asset prices of houses, CDO etc. and a nation in debt to
it's
> > > ears.
> > > Don't belive what Reagan and now Chenney say "Debt and Deficit
doesn't
> > > matter.!!!!!
> >
> > > That is all, no more necessary to say, for people of logic mind.
> >
> > All I am asking is why the dollar took a plunge
> > during Carter administration at a time when the
> > deficit was at historical low. Doesn't that seem
> > to contradict all that you're saying?
> >
> > Covece, tobe vysvetlovat zaklady ekonomie je stejny, jako vysvetlovat
> > Pepkovi Vyskocovi Paralaxu. Ja ani nevim(a nebudu vyhledavat), jakej
byl za
> > Cartra deficit, ale vim na !00%, ze statni dluh nebyl ani polovicni,
ze ¤
> > byl rezervni
> > menou celyho sveta, ze saving byl tehda kladnyho koeficientu, ze Cina
> > nedrzela ¤1. 3 trilionu
> > Japonci, ze nedrzeli ¤980bil. ze Iraq a Afganistan nepousteli zilou
Americe
> > mesicne v radu ¤10bil.
> > ze US neutraceli za zbrane vic, jak zhruba cely svet, ze Americani
> > nekupovali vsechno udelany v Asii
> > Atd, atd.atd.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Je-li k dispozici jen kladivo, pripada kdeco jako hrebik ;-)
Purely personally, I really do not give a flying **** where the deficit
was in the seventies and whether it was Carter fault or not. The problem
is that after 7 years of Republicans holding the wheel, the deficit
(which did NOT exist in 2000) is back at a record high. The ****ers who
say that "deficit does not matter" should be hung and drawn because it
clearly does. Price of everything is steadily rising, the dollar is
dropping and I am about to pay $350 for a room that merits $70 at best
in London. Why? I am not exactly sure, but there are pretty good
indications that someone ****ed up. And it was not Carter...
It would be refre****ng to get a plain English answer from you, Kujebaku,
instead of the quasi-gibberish you tend to serve up when you don't know
how to defend the Republican economic virtue.
K
|
