In article
<1f48d9c2-61f7-4997-91cb-ec3d851b0485@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Jack Stone <stljacks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 4:21 pm, "Jenicek" <Jeni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Karel Kriz" <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
> > news:karel-BCD22B.21254327022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In
> > article
> > > <b5eac57c-723a-4e19-80fa-5ae80f83c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > kujebak <kuje...@[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]
> > >> > > >m...
> >
> > >> > > > > aw wrote:
> > >> > > > >> "kujebak" <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > >> > > >
>>news:878acbd9-7008-42f5-b017-cd2161c7e115@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > > > >>s.com
> > >> > > > >>...
> > >> > > > >> 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.
>
> Kdyby byly v prdeli ryby tak by nebyly v rybnikach :-)
>
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, well, it doesn't take too much of a brain power to figure out
> that Bush and his policies have ruined the dollar and the (US)
> economy. What's even sadder however is the whole group of contestants
> for the next presidency. If it was up to me, I would vote for Pat
> Buchanan.
Pat? That old Nazi? Nixon's bigoted, pompous speech writer? That Pat? He
could not organize a chili cookoff in a Texas retirement home. Maybe you
mean Ralph Nader? At least he's running again which Pat is not. Did you
see Pat's sister lately? She's a talking head on some talk shows. Looks
and sounds like a madam of a cheap whorehouse, you know, that bourbon
voice and eyes like piss holes in the snow. Pat Buchanan R.I.P., baby!
Here's funny thing. You know, there's this Cunningham fellow from Cinci,
trying to score points by referring to Obama by his second name. These
would be cheap points to score, but being a Southern redneck with
horse**** on his boots, he has no class and doesn't know what subtlety
means. But that is by and by...This conservative radio bull****er can
predict the future. He will actually vote for Barack Hussein Obama
because he regards McCain as a liberal wedge. Yes, I know, McCain
actually referred to himself last week as a "conservative liberal", but
we all know that was just a geriatric brain fart rather then a
"come-to-Jesus-confession".
Cunningham has it all figured out. If Obama gets into La Casa Blanca he
will make such a monumental **** up of things that it will take a
Republican riding on a white horse in ****ning armor to rescue the entire
country from a terrible fate. Why he thinks that Obama is less able to
hold the reins then the current imbecile-in-chief is not clear. But HE
KNOWS this will take place - hallelujah. Who the savior is going to be
is also unclear. There is no one on the Republican horizon who can
satisfy the rank-and-file as well as the radio demagogues. And there it
is...the disconnect between conservatives who know that Ann Coulter is a
joke, that Rush is creepy pill popper and Sean Hannity cries himself to
sleep every night. There is some reason left among the conservative
electorate. They saw through the Giuliani and Romney phony facade, they
saw that being an actor who plays a president is no qualification for
the actual job and that being holier-then-thou is a handy cover for a
small mind tainted by excessive prayer.
It's all very interesting....
K
|
