Karel Kriz wrote:
> In article
> <b5eac57c-723a-4e19-80fa-5ae80f83c6d1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 7:51=EF=BF=BDpm, "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
d=
o
> > > > > >> > >> > 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
polov=
icni.
> > > > > >> > 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
podep=
sani
> > > > > >> mir. dohody s Egyptem? Ze za neho nedoslo k uplnemu kolapsu
"Ho=
using
> > > > > >> 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
dur=
ing
> > > > > >> wartime
> > > > > >> or depression but in a period of peace and prosperity. That's
w=
hen
> > > > > >> 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
sh=
are
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> GNP.
> > > > > >> Was it Congress's fault? Total government outlays between
1982 =
and
> > > > > >> 1987
> > > > > >> averaged only ?15 billion a year more than what Reagan
requeste=
d.
> > > > > >> That
> > > > > >> accounts for only 8% of the ac***ulated deficits.
> > >
> > > > > >> In the past, the government financed its deficits mostly by
sel=
ling
> > > > > >> 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
lar=
gest
> > > > > >> debtor,
> > > > > >> owing foreign investors roughly ?400 billion. What made the
> > > > > >> borrowing
> > > > > >> possible was high interest rates, which themselves may have
bee=
n
> > > > > >> 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
"voo=
doo
> > > > > >> economics." His own Budget Director, David Stockman, called
it =
a
> > > > > >> "Trojan
> > > > > >> horse," a scam intended really to funnel more money to the
alre=
ady
> > > > > >> rich.
> > > > > >> Stockman was quickly dismissed.
> > >
> > > > > >> The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first
f=
ull
> > > > > >> 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
fi=
rst
> > > > > >> 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
Reaga=
n
> > > > > >> 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
ha=
d
> > > > > >> 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.
Instea=
d,
> > > > > it is a slowdown caused by inflated asset prices and a nation
gorg=
ing
> > > > > on
> > > > > debt.
> > > > > The basic problem faced by the US economy right now is excessive
d=
ebt
> > > > > caused by recklessly low interest rates from the Federal
Reserve.
> > > > > Reducing interest rates again with the dollar tanking is like
thro=
wing
> > > > > gasoline on a roaring fire.
> > > > > Whatever else is happening now, the dollar is tanking. Gold has
so=
ared
> > > > > 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
b=
ut 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
rais=
e
> > > > > taxes
> > > > > while cranking
> > > > > up interest rates to 20% or more as Carter/Volker did while
cleani=
ng up
> > > > > Nixon's mess.
> > > > > Whatever is done, It ain't gonna be pretty - and whoever is
presid=
ent
> > > > > 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
where=
by
> > > > > for
> > > > > each dollar
> > > > > in deposits ?10 can be lent. This creates powerful leverage of
ove=
r 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
t=
he
> > > > > 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
tex=
t -
> > >
> > > > > - 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?
> > >
> > > > =EF=BF=BDLast Time:
> > > > With every deficit, state debt became bigger and bigger. Creditors
l=
oose
> > > > 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
m=
iddle
> > > > 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
b=
yl za
> > > Cartra deficit, ale vim na !00%, ze statni dluh nebyl ani polovicni,
z=
e =EF=BF=BD
> > > byl rezervni
> > > menou celyho sveta, ze saving byl tehda kladnyho koeficientu, ze
Cina
> > > nedrzela =EF=BF=BD1. 3 trilionu
> > > Japonci, ze nedrzeli =EF=BF=BD980bil. ze Iraq a Afganistan
nepousteli =
zilou Americe
> > > mesicne =EF=BF=BDv radu =EF=BF=BD10bil.
> > > 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.
The answer to my question, which was what today's economic
picture had in common with the late seventies, is of course
record high oil prices, and historically unprecedented trade
deficit. Vlcek apparently doesn't know the difference between
this and that deficit. Deficits are all the same to him.
Evilly American, and bad ;-)
>
>
> K
|
