"Karel Kriz" <karel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:karel-BCD22B.21254327022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
>
Aren't we lucky? If All ( the Internet inventor ) was at the lead,
after the NY 9/11 we would have 10x bigger deficit and economy will be now
in shamble.
It is so easy to blame someone for something - and it is usual claim by
people without brain.
I hope you have brain - so use it.
|
