In plain and simple text, why $ so low.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by tabs

Very well might come about....

To combat inflation the Fed would have to raise interest rates in an environment where the liquidity of Stocks and Bonds are a very serious issue.
The Fed is having difficulty keeping the system liquid by lowering interest rates as it is, because no one knows what portion of the Sub-prime loan packages that they hold will default. Thus they don't know how to put a valuation on them, and nobody wants them at any price. This then effects the Stock Market because no one knows how much exposure they have to the Sub-prime market and the ultimate effect on the economy and corporate earnings.

U all should remember the name Citi-Corp and the name Richard Ruben as the head of Citi.. remember he was Bill Clintons Secratary of the Treasury.


The perfect storm is abrewing on this good ship lollipop. You can only go to zero percent interest rate to keep the system liquid. Meanwhile the $$ is falling in value because of the decling credit worthiness of the USA. Since the value of the $$$ is falling foreign capital is not flowing into the USA which causes the system to become more illiquid and intest rates to be pushed even lower to prop the system up. At some point the music has to stop.

It is possible for the whole system to freeze up and become illiquid. That means Stocks, Bonds, Money Market Accounts, CD's, 401K's, Mutual Funds, Pension Funds all stop having value because you can't trade nor sell them. The $$ will havve by then declined to almsot nothing anyway. Then what happens to your job? Yeah ya gotta love those Pats!

The net effect is that American Financial Institutions are drawing in capital from NATIONS (as opposed to businesses) that are sitting on piles of $$$ that are doing nothing but stuffing mattresses in places like the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Toyko, Taipei and Seoul. They will lend our institutions the money, but the interest they earn on that capital will be going overseas and not staying in the USA. That in effect means that the wealth of the nation is leaving and we are beocming poorer... But Hey what about those Pats!

tabs, Bush presided over this mess, so who in the hell do you want to blame? Slick Willy again?

Clear this up for us: so you think that it's not a bad thing that Team Bush has tripled our national debt to over $9 TRILLLION dollars or that they have done nothing to hinder, much less fix, the fact that around $800 BILLION of our dollars now goes flowing off to foreign nations? Plus, Team Bush has conducted a 7 year war that is expected to reach a total cost of over 12,000 $BILLIONS (just want to see if you really know what those numbers stand for) basically by using his non-existent credit card. The only major war in the history of the world to be financed by credit, by the way.

Ignoring those things above per our economy is a true "good ship lollipop" and pretending that the sub-prime housing mess (that Bush also presided over) is the main reason is equally absurd. This was going to happen regardless, the sub-prime just probably made it an issue a tad quicker.

[jluetjen]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

The only major war in the history of the world to be financed by credit, by the way.

As opposed to...

The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the debt grew, briefly contracted to zero on January 8, 1835 under President Andrew Jackson but then quickly grew into the millions again.

The first dramatic growth spurt of the debt occurred because of the Civil War. The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863 and had reached $2.7 billion following the war. The debt slowly fluctuated for the rest of the century, finally growing steadily in the 1910s and early 1920s to roughly $22 billion as the country paid for involvement in World War I.

The buildup and involvement in World War II brought the debt up another order of magnitude from $51 billion in 1940 to $260 billion following the war. After this period, the debt's growth closely matched the rate of inflation until the 1980s, when it again began to skyrocket. Between 1980 and 1990, the debt more than tripled. By the end of 2005, the gross debt reached $7.9 trillion, about 8.7 times its 1980 level.

(From various Wikipedia subjects)

In 1917 and 1918, the United States government issued Liberty Bonds to raise money for its involvement in World War I. According to the Massachusetts Historical Society, Because the first World War cost the federal government more than 30 billion dollars (by way of comparison, total federal expenditures in 1913 were only $970 million), these programs became vital as a way to raise funds.

(Sigh) Always fast and loose with the facts in order to stretch your point.

Debt is a time-honored method to finance wars. It even predates the US.
- France was deeply in debt after the 7-year war (Described by Winston Churchill as "The first global war"), which contributed to the French Revolution.
- in 1523, in order to raise money, François I established a government bond system in Paris, the "rentes sur l'Hôtel de Ville" to help pay for the wars with Italy. From 1683 through to 1715 the French national debt increased from 16 million livres to 1,1 trillion livres in order to finance the wars of that time (and other things).

Of course, the other popular method of financing wars is to print money. A brief study of economics would reveal that both methods are essentially the same thing, executed differently.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by jluetjen

As opposed to...




(Sigh) Always fast and loose with the facts in order to stretch your point.

Debt is a time-honored method to finance wars. It even predates the US.
- France was deeply in debt after the 7-year war (Described by Winston Churchill as "The first global war"), which contributed to the French Revolution.
- in 1523, in order to raise money, François I established a government bond system in Paris, the "rentes sur l'Hôtel de Ville" to help pay for the wars with Italy. From 1683 through to 1715 the French national debt increased from 16 million livres to 1,1 trillion livres in order to finance the wars of that time (and other things).

Of course, the other popular method of financing wars is to print money. A brief study of economics would reveal that both methods are essentially the same thing, executed differently.

Geezus Jlutjen, U took the very words out of my mouth....

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by jluetjen

Always fast and loose with the facts in order to stretch your point.

I highly doubt he knows enough facts with which to play fast and loose. He's one of the guys here who has a nice narrative in his head and, when necessary, makes up the "facts" to support it.

Oh yea, and Bush lied and people died.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Rearden

I highly doubt he knows enough facts with which to play fast and loose. He's one of the guys here who has a nice narrative in his head and, when necessary, makes up the "facts" to support it.

Oh yea, and Bush lied and people died.

Doesn't everybody just make the facts up out of their heads as they go along? I know reality has never stopped me before. Delusion is so much more satisifying. I highly reccommend it.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by jluetjen

As opposed to...




(Sigh) Always fast and loose with the facts in order to stretch your point.

Debt is a time-honored method to finance wars. It even predates the US.
- France was deeply in debt after the 7-year war (Described by Winston Churchill as "The first global war"), which contributed to the French Revolution.
- in 1523, in order to raise money, François I established a government bond system in Paris, the "rentes sur l'Hôtel de Ville" to help pay for the wars with Italy. From 1683 through to 1715 the French national debt increased from 16 million livres to 1,1 trillion livres in order to finance the wars of that time (and other things).

Of course, the other popular method of financing wars is to print money. A brief study of economics would reveal that both methods are essentially the same thing, executed differently.

$75,463,476.52 in 1791 huh?

Check your damn figures. There probably wasn't that much money in the entire USA at that time.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by jluetjen

As opposed to...




(Sigh) Always fast and loose with the facts in order to stretch your point.

Debt is a time-honored method to finance wars. It even predates the US.
- France was deeply in debt after the 7-year war (Described by Winston Churchill as "The first global war"), which contributed to the French Revolution.
- in 1523, in order to raise money, François I established a government bond system in Paris, the "rentes sur l'Hôtel de Ville" to help pay for the wars with Italy. From 1683 through to 1715 the French national debt increased from 16 million livres to 1,1 trillion livres in order to finance the wars of that time (and other things).

Of course, the other popular method of financing wars is to print money. A brief study of economics would reveal that both methods are essentially the same thing, executed differently.

Also, did you ever hear of the "Revenue Act of 1941?"

Just like the "Revenue Act" of 2003 for the Iraq war huh?

[tabs]

WI, who put the stick up your a$$?

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by tabs

Geezus Jlutjen, U took the very words out of my mouth....

Now that's a comment that bears inspection.

Do tell us any other "very" words that are about to come out your mouth?

Tick, tick, tick, tick..........................................

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by tabs

WI, who put the stick up your a$$?

People who either so damn stupid or so damn biased that they wil not admit the true nature of most of our nation's problems.

I know that's a very deep and complex subject to you but...............................

[island911]

Originally Posted by tabs

WI, who put the stick up your a$$?

Just guessing that it was someone long ago.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by Rearden

I highly doubt he knows enough facts with which to play fast and loose. He's one of the guys here who has a nice narrative in his head and, when necessary, makes up the "facts" to support it.

Oh yea, and Bush lied and people died.

This from the guy who still thinks that the Swift-boat guys questioned Kerry's medals in 1971.

And if you change the word "lied" to "exaggerated" then you would be entirely correct. Or are you one of the dopes who still thinks that Saddam had WMD's and that he was a threat to our nation or that he had something to do with 9/11?

Please advise.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by island911

Just guessing that it was someone long ago.

Read the post above your's and see if it fits and then get back with us.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by island911

Just guessing that it was someone long ago.

Geezus Island..U took the very words outa my mouth.

[tabs]

Me thinks that someone is about to blow a fuze or have a kniption fit here.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by tabs

Geezus Island..U took the very words outa my mouth.

Hey, you are really good at redundant. Did you happen to major in that?

[island911]

Originally Posted by WI wide body

...Or are you one of the dopes who still thinks that Saddam had WMD's ....

He didn't? ...not even the ones that we gave him? What about those he used for genocide of those to his north? ..Or was that all faked, like the moon landing and 9/11?

[Moneyguy1]

Naw, tabs.....You won't.

[WI wide body]

Originally Posted by tabs

Me thinks that someone is about to blow a fuze or have a kniption fit here.

Hey tabs, is a "fuze" anything like a fuse???

Not unless the present competition gets a whole lot tougher. Or do you really think that 3 stupid opinions (including your own) is somehow better than one?

The one thing that might make your opinion carry a tad more weight is if you actually first listed it and then some facts to back it up. So far, no luck I see.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

Naw, tabs.....You won't.

Who let the old kid in the room? Jack Benny has been dead for a long time now.