US $ replaced by the Euro

[techweenie]

As Ronald Reagan once said, 'people don't understand deficits.' And it's proven every day.

The US has thrown away its economic (as well as its moral) world leadership in just 6 years, and apparently, that's just fine with some folks.

Holding notes makes other nations able to influence foreign and economic policy. China has effectively financed the entire Iraq adventure. And China says we can't attack Iran.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by techweenie

As Ronald Reagan once said, 'people don't understand deficits.' And it's proven every day.

The US has thrown away its economic (as well as its moral) world leadership in just 6 years, and apparently, that's just fine with some folks.

Holding notes makes other nations able to influence foreign and economic policy. China has effectively financed the entire Iraq adventure. And China says we can't attack Iran.

Assume I'll gift you the rest, walk me through how China stops us from acting in Iran.

[Joeaksa]

Glad I have a descent portion of my retirement in Euro's...

[ckissick]

Originally Posted by tabs

Good Sound Fiscal Policy.
There is an old saying. Owe a little and the bank owns you, owe the bank alot and you own them.

Donald Trump knew this saying well. When he started getting into financial trouble, he decided he'd better borrow more and more until the banks couldn't afford to let him go belly up. The banks had to help him get out of trouble to save their own skin, and now he's a few billion in the black. The banks are happy, too.

[lendaddy]

OK, I'll start you off.

Iran comes forward with proof of nuclear progress, site is publicly identified by Israel and verified by US.

Bush promises action within 10 days to keep Israel from launching and to give Iran a last chance.

China says..................??????

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I'm seriously investing in Euros. My only regret is I didn't have enough money do this 5 years ago in a meaningful way. . .

The U.S. economy is f*cked long-term. It's completely unsustainable and when the combined weights of lost domestic manufacturing, crushing national debt, the fallout from too many idiots running up the price of housing on credit, the cost of the unnecessary war in I-Wreck and the retirement of the Baby Boomers sapping the SS fund all come home to roost, there's going to be a deflation that'll make 1929 look tame.

Enjoy it while it lasts guys, 'cause it ain't getting any better anytime soon. We can't just "charge card" our way out of these problems.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by techweenie

As Ronald Reagan once said, 'people don't understand deficits.' And it's proven every day.

The US has thrown away its economic (as well as its moral) world leadership in just 6 years, and apparently, that's just fine with some folks.

Holding notes makes other nations able to influence foreign and economic policy. China has effectively financed the entire Iraq adventure. And China says we can't attack Iran.

Let me spell it out for U TECHIE...listen carefully.

China is not a country that confronts directly, they use very subtle means of persuasion..they rather pull the strings from behind the scenes. Chinese policy has been to get very close to the USA as the dominate world power, to infiltrate US financial markets and thusly wield political power to influence US policy. China invented Bureaucracy so they know the most effective means of influencing policy.

[DanielDudley]

Originally Posted by island911

Damn good post! Yet most who read that will gloss it over and go right back to their thinking that debt for a country is just like the payment on their car. ..that money in the bank is always preferred to debt. --people like 'simple.'

I think you are missing the point of this post. Very little that has happened in the US in the last few years is going to serve us in the long run. Effing smart effers have seen to that.

Some are still buying it.

[turbo6bar]

Great excerpts of a speech by Paul Volcker in 2005.

From calculatedrisk blog:

Boomers are spending like there is no tomorrow

Homeownership has become a vehicle for borrowing and leveraging as much as a source of financial security.

I come now to the heart of the problem, as a Nation we are consuming and investing, that is spending, about 6% more than we are producing. What holds it all together? - High consumption - high leverage - government deficits - What holds it all together is a really massive and growing flow of capital from abroad. A flow of capital that today runs to more than $2 Billion per day

I feel the key bit is investing and consuming. If we're investing, I view debt as a necessary evil. If we're consuming, debt may not be so wise.

Also, debt growth, as mentioned above, is around 6% pa. Currently, GDP growth is below the rate of debt growth and below the cost of servicing the debt. If we're borrowing 6% of GDP to expand the economy by 3%, where and how do we regain balance?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by island911

right Shaun, "stability and growth" would have been the key descriptors had Saddam controlled all of the mid-east. --stoopid destabilizing US

Is this what you are trying to say?


+




+




=

[mikester]

Seems appropriate; I read the thread and I really don't see how we got to Saddam....

Deficit is not bad but since 9/11 the value of the $ has not really done what I had hoped. You can certainly see that in the price of oil as snowman has said. We're getting less and less for our dollar and that is clearly bad.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by mikester

We're getting less and less for our dollar and that is clearly bad.

Yes. Especially when you consider that government can (and will) simply react to the same situation by (1) printing more dough (increasing inflationary pressure) and (2) taking more of what you and I make through increased taxation, fees, surcharges, etc.

Hold on to your wallets people. This is going to get rough for a very long time I think. . .

[snowman]

Inflation is running at an all time high, but its not reported. Why? Because new statistics are fake and do not include basic items like food and fuel.

Employment is also at an all time high. Why? I have no clue. One must conclude that as long as employment remains high, everything MUST be ok.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

OK, I'll start you off.

Iran comes forward with proof of nuclear progress, site is publicly identified by Israel and verified by US.

Bush promises action within 10 days to keep Israel from launching and to give Iran a last chance.

China says..................??????

From CNN last night. I would have pasted a Fox story, but Fox isn't covering Gate' visit to China.

Gates to press China on Iran nukes

BEIJING, China (AP) -- Robert Gates, making his first visit to China as U.S. defense secretary, is expected to press the Chinese to do more to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities.

Before he left Saturday for the trip, Gates made it clear that he is pursuing a closer alliance with China, and said he doesn't see the communist giant as a military threat.

But at the same time, senior defense officials said the Pentagon is still frustrated by China's failure to be more open about its military ambitions. And Gates will probably push China to better explain its anti-satellite test early this year.

In January, a Chinese missile shattered a defunct Chinese weather satellite, drawing immediate criticism from the U.S. and other countries, who questioned China's commitment to peaceful development in space. Since then, U.S. officials have struggled to get better answers from the Chinese about it.

Both the U.S. and China are touting the Gates visit as a major event, aimed at improving the two countries' military relationship and building trust between them.

In a series of annual reports, the Pentagon has voiced growing concern about China's increased military might and its reluctance to reveal why its annual defense budget has ballooned in recent years.

China raised its military budget by 17.8 percent to about $45 billion this year, the largest annual increase in more than a decade. But U.S. officials believe the spending is even greater than that, and have repeatedly called for greater transparency by the Chinese.

Derek Mitchell, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it appears Gates is taking a different approach to his China visit than his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, took.

"Rumsfeld had no problem accentuating the differences between the two sides," Mitchell said. "Gates is much more moderate, and he's talking more moderately in public."

Mitchell said that while a less aggressive manner may be helpful, "you certainly need to deal with China from a point of strength."

"You can't just jawbone it and allow the Chinese to say, 'Just be patient, we're working on it,"' he said. "Too much patience with the Chinese will get you nowhere."

Gates is scheduled to meet with a number of top Chinese leaders, including President Hu Jintao.

Senior defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meetings have not yet taken place, said Gates is likely to bring up the Iranian issue.

"We think China could do more on Iran," said one of the officials, adding that the U.S. and China have a common responsibility to do what is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.

The U.S. is looking for China to recognize that weapons it sells to Iran have shown up in other countries -- such as Iraq. "There is clear evidence that the Chinese can't trust Iran to behave responsibly with any weapons that they sell them," said the official. "That, in our view, should lead China to the conclusion that they shouldn't sell any weapons to Iran."

Gates' visit to China kicks off a three-country Asia tour, which will also include stops in South Korea and Japan.

[lendaddy]

Do you think that answers my question? How does the article above in any way imply that their investment in the US has caused them to act against our interests in Iran?

The truth is obviously that they have a vested interest in our well being.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

Do you think that answers my question? How does the article above in any way imply that their investment in the US has caused them to act against our interests in Iran?

The truth is obviously that they have a vested interest in our well being.

It answers your question with the worst possible answer: We don't know what the Chinese will do and we have little to no negotiating power with them.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

Put another way, Walmart has greater negotiating power with China than the U.S. Government does.

Who do you think is responsible for the 5% screening rate (as opposed to 100%) of all containers entering the country?

Hint: Goodnight Johnboy.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

It answers your question with the worst possible answer: We don't know what the Chinese will do and we have little to no negotiating power with them.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

Put another way, Walmart has greater negotiating power with China than the U.S. Government does.

Who do you think is responsible for the 5% screening rate (as opposed to 100%) of all containers entering the country?

And you would expect them to work with us more so if they had no investment in our economy? You have failed to even try and connect those dots.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Uggh! I'm saying they have us over a barrel. That's it. Sure they want to work with us, but by selling arms to Iran, a member of the Axis of Evil, as well as selling us money to pay for the War in Iraq, they will clearly work with us in the way they decide, and have demonstrated as such.

They are the heroin dealer, we are the addict. We are the addict for cheap crap sold in Walmart. We are the addict for money to cover the War so we can all have tax cuts and maintain our economy shoving the debt off to our children/grandchildren.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Uggh! I'm saying they have us over a barrel. That's it. Sure they want to work with us, but by selling arms to Iran, a member of the Axis of Evil, as well as selling us money to pay for the War in Iraq, they will clearly work with us in the way they decide, and have demonstrated as such.

Ughhh???? So are we to assume your philosophy is that they would NOT be selling arms to Iran if they had no investment in the US? You need to tell me what would be different if they had no US investment, just spell it out....why are you avoiding this?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

because you have created a red herring apples and oranges motif that changes with the wind. My analysis deals with the reality of the day.