Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by weswelker#83, May 24, 2008.
US has lost 80% of its worldwide respect too
How do you get "half" and where'd the "80%" thing come from?
Do some historical research. The dollar isn't far from where it was at the end of Clinton's second term...as we were sliding toward a slow down then too.
Ever heard of the business cycle, wes?
i think you can blame clinton, greenspan as much as bush and cheney
Given the choice I'd blame Greenspan first. This whole idea of supressing the business cycle was his, and Clinton took the credit. GWB didn't want to rock the boat, but 9-11 happened and changed the world.
it's not my fault if you can NOT read a graph , if you go back to school , you will understand.
As measured against a basket of other falling currencies, yes it has lost 50%.
Measured against things that matter (such as essential commodities), the USD has lost more than 70% of its value in this short time. See charts here.
I hope that you understand what commodities are ?
Your cute little chart shows the high being under 120, and the current low being about 80.
Subtract 120 from 80 and you get what? 40.
And 50% of 120 is what? 60.
So based on your chart...your headline is wrong.
And you can't base it on a forex chart, wes.
BTW, have you figured out that "rep" means representative yet? There's going to be a quiz later, lying link boy!
No, this was a conscious decision by the Bush administration. I don't know when we last had an administration that favored this approach.
A weak dollar boosts our economy by making our goods cheaper. We are sort of like China in this regard now. The middle class in most European countries, many Asian, and even some other countries are now richer than us when you translate their incomes into American dollars, so they come here and vacation and they buy American goods.
The danger is that this could cause inflation (as foreign goods, like oil, get more expensive). It could also destabilize the world economy as other countries start to find they are unable to compete price-wise with the US and China. To maintain their high standards of living they may be forced to leave the WTO. Under Republican administrations, I think our standard of living declines. Under Bush we've seen inflation and wage stagnation; under Reagan we saw more and more households becoming ones where both parents work. I think they call if family values.
So it doesn't matter to you at all that Bill Clinton and Greenspan were the first to try to pervert the normal business cycle to keep the economy in a permanent state of growth with no corrections, huh? It's always Bush's fault, no matter what happens. Take a look at the historicals in wes' cute little chart, btw.
You seem confused like mccain who admits not understanding economics .
But I imagine you've got a PhD in economics, right?
I've never pretended to know a lot about it. I do know that 80 isn't half of 115 though.
Not sure which chart you guys are talking about but, yeah, 115 to 80 is a 30% drop; not that wes would exaggerate or anything
Wes' futures trading chart in the first post. The line is under 120 at the highest and just below 80 on the other side.
Now i know who you are .....if you see the chart , it goes clearly below 80.
I tought you were smarter than Paul .
well , well , well ,i guess it's the same crowd .
Like you said elsewhere, it's misleading as the dollar went up quite a bit just before that. It was around 98 only a year earlier. So not only is wes just wrong with his math, he's also very misleading.
WAKE UP SHEEEPLE !
Even if it were at 70, which it isn't, that would be a a drop of 45 from 115 which is 39% not 50%. That might be good enough for you.
Yeah, your math is pathetic - there's classes that can improve it though.
I'm objecting to the weak dollar approach. Clinton did the capitalist thing and expand markets and expand into new markets. (He gets a lot of criticism for things like NAFTA in that regard.) The dollar stayed strong, but American companies were able to compete by investing and manufacturing elsewhere. It worked well, except for those in manufacturing. It also created an enormous amount of international political clout for the US, which was very apparent when Clinton was president. Clinton gave us growth without inflation. Sustained growth is very good thing. It's amusing that you have a problem with it. It sounds like you wanted a recession during the Clinton years as a matter of economic prudence.
Don't worry about that though. We'll get it all back, and then some, as soon as Obama wins the election, and we all keep our homes at 60 degrees in the winter, become anorexic, and drive Prius's.
Separate names with a comma.