Re: 16,84 korun ceskych

kujebak wrote:
> 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.
> 

I have a distinct feeling that you are trying to argue with a C&P bot.

Good luck
Frank

-- 

<feeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>