It's Halftime in Amercia...

[deleted103644]

What point are you trying to make here? Most of the devaluation of the dollar took place under Bush, it's just been fluctuating relative to the canadian dollar under Obama.

And as I said before, a bit of devaluation of the dollar relative to other currencies would actually be a good thing - we're angry at China for not letting their currency become more expensive relative to the dollar (which would make Chinese imports more expensive and American exports more affordable, good for manufacturing here, bad for manufacturing there).

We aren't the Weimar republic - we owe our debt in our own currency, not in gold. If we devalue our currency, our debt goes down, it doesn't remain constant. This isn't a good way to get rid of our debt, but it means we're far more flexible than any of the Euro zone countries.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheBlend]

What point are you trying to make here? Most of the devaluation of the dollar took place under Bush, it's just been fluctuating relative to the canadian dollar under Obama.

See your mistake here? You're not allowed to use the "B" word.

(Imagine the following in a whiny voice) "why can't you just leave Bush alone, and stop living in the past."

Ya see, this is how they get to skip the rest of your post and focus on that phrase only.

 

[deleted103644]

See your mistake here? You're not allowed to use the "B" word.

(Imagine the following in a whiny voice) "why can't you just leave Bush alone, and stop living in the past."

Ya see, this is how they get to skip the rest of your post and focus on that phrase only.

Alright, ignore the B word - most of the devaluation took place between 2000 and 2008, with only fluctuations from 2008 to the present.

 

[pgg]

You know that it would actually be to our benefit for the dollar to be devalued, right? It would both decrease the size of our debt and also make our products more competitive on a global market.

While reducing the buying power of all of us. Especially the poor, who have less discretionary income.

Inflation is a regressive tax. TANSTAAFL.

Devalued currency doesn't MAGICALLY make debt go away. It transfers wealth from EVERYBODY who holds assets or earns an income in that currency, and that transferred wealth reduces the real value of the debt 1:1.

TANSTAAFL.

And again ... the people who can least afford inflation are poor people. Deliberate currency devaluation is a direct assault upon poor people.

I can afford $8 gas. How about you? How about the guys working the assembly line? How about the proverbial single mom who really needs WIC?

Who's hurt by inflation? Poor people.

The notion that a little bit of inflation is "good" is a LIE. Remember, even "modest" 3% inflation halves the value of a dollar every 24 years. That means in the average person's lifetime, the value of a dollar declines by almost 90%. Which is manageable (not good, manageable) so long as wages keep pace with inflation. Which in turn, is only possible if GDP grows at a rate that exceeds inflation.

The days of consistent 3%+ annual GDP growth are over, unless and until an oil replacement is found. I am not optimistic there. You don't have to agree with me or believe me ... but I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

My main disagreement with [Paul] ... is that he is only interested in freedom from the federal government.

That's not an entirely invalid criticism (actually even kind of insightful), but I don't think it's wholly accurate or fair to what he believes.

 

[Apollyon]

TANSTAAFL.

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch", for any that might not have known this somewhat obscure one.

 

[Narcotized]

Grow the **** up, man

Yawn. Now not only can you not read, you have to use profanity to get your non-points across.

 

[Narcotized]

I'm mainly reading economists, particularly Paul Krugman.

Paul Krugman is more about political agenda than economics. Math and money care nothing about politics.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[vector2]

Yawn. Now not only can you not read, you have to use profanity to get your non-points across.

Your taking faux offense, rolleyes every post, and selectively choosing what you want to respond to is super convincing

 

[deleted103644]

While reducing the buying power of all of us. Especially the poor, who have less discretionary income.

It's not so much about rich and poor as it is about creditors and debtors, although for the most part creditors will be rich and debtors will be poor (so the effects of inflation are actually the opposite of what you said - if you're poor and in debt, it will probably help you).

Inflation mainly hurts elderly people with money in the bank or in a mattress, but would actually be helpful to students in debt (or people underwater on mortgages). The latter are more important to the health of our economy, although the former do tend to have more political power.

Be glad we can inflate our currency, the alternatives are really bad (just look at Europe). And for those who think that the Europe story is just about out-of-control debt, how do you explain Spain? Before the downturn, Spain had its debt more under control than Germany did.

Here's an informative post about Europe from Krugman. I know he tends to be inflammatory, but he isn't a political shill - the stuff he writes tends to be (almost) as much of a pain to Democrats as it is to Republicans.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/european-crisis-realities/

 

[BLADEMDA]

Written in 1949. Amazing how truth never changes: http://mises.org/daily/5927/

 

[Narcotized]

Written in 1949. Amazing how truth never changes: http://mises.org/daily/5927/

Mises was a genius. He has no agenda and simply understands the laws of mathematics can not be manipulated by politicians.

From another source I found explaining what I was trying to explain previously:

"The translation of currency practices into equivalent trade policies is straightforward in the long run when all prices are fully flexible. As is well known, currency market intervention has no real effects in that environment due to the long-run neutrality of money – prices in a country that devalues its currency will adjust so that the real effects of the devaluation and implied price changes cancel out, leaving import and export volumes unchanged."

Then there's that guy in the White House who I'm a bit doubtful can add 2 +2:

"President Obama stated in October 2008, for example, that China's current trade surplus is "directly related to its manipulation of its currency's value." He concurrently promised to "beef up US enforcement efforts against unfair trade practices."

I promise to get off of Obama's case as soon as he says something... anything... that isn't a mathematical fallacy. He continually says politically based rhetoric that is simply incorrect, and hasn't shown any degree of numerical intelligence to understand that.

 

[TheBlend]

Mises was a genius. He has no agenda and simply understands the laws of mathematics can not be manipulated by politicians.

From another source I found explaining what I was trying to explain previously:

"The translation of currency practices into equivalent trade policies is straightforward in the long run when all prices are fully flexible. As is well known, currency market intervention has no real effects in that environment due to the long-run neutrality of money – prices in a country that devalues its currency will adjust so that the real effects of the devaluation and implied price changes cancel out, leaving import and export volumes unchanged."Nevertheless, a devaluation in this environment is equivalent to the imposition of a tariff on all imports and a subsidy to all exports.Just as with the devaluation, the tariff-cum-subsidy policy leads to price adjustments that cancel each other out and leave import and export volumes unchanged (an implication of Lerner symmetry)."

Most of us in anesthesia are numbers oriented and get the concept of real versus nominal value and can understand the above. On the other hand, there's that guy in the White House who I'm a bit doubtful can add 2 +2:

"President Obama stated in October 2008, for example, that China’s current trade surplus is “directly related to its manipulation of its currency’s value.” He concurrently promised to “beef up US enforcement efforts against unfair trade practices.” Similar comments were made on various occasions by former EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson."

I promise to get off of Obama's case as soon as he says something... anything... that isn't a mathematical fallacy. He continually says politically based rhetoric that is simply incorrect, and hasn't shown any degree of numerical intelligence to understand that.

Interesting how you didn't cite this "another source", but I found it anyway and added some parts that you edited out.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2934

What you are trying to do again is to distort things.

This article you failed to source is about whether or not China has violated rules of the WTO through currency manipulation. "A number of economic commentators argue that China’s policies amount to market-distorting currency manipulation" ..."we question whether China’s trading partners can readily make a convincing case that China has violated its WTO commitments by intervening in currency markets in a manner that frustrates the intent of GATT."

Then you go on to take Obama's words "directly related" which are shown to be accurate from the opening paragraph of this article ("As a result of this policy, its [China's] foreign exchange reserves grew from $403 billion at the end of 2003 to $1.9 trillion at the end of 2008") and you try to plug into people's minds that Obama used the mathematical phrase:"directly proportional"....which he did not.

You probably could have used some of this article to make some fair points against devaluation, but instead you didn't cite your info and played your typical role of a partisan HACK. Here.....let me put this in your language ""

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Yes, the economy has stabilized not BECAUSE of Obama but rather IN SPITE of him. He is a socialist, wealth redistributer who hates big business and real energy like coal, natural gas etc.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[TheBlend]

Yes, the economy has stabilized not BECAUSE of Obama but rather IN SPITE of him. He is a socialist, wealth redistributer who hates big business and real energy like coal, natural gas etc.

These are the posts that prove you have zero interest in the real world and the truth. Enjoy your bubble.

The conversation ends when questions get answered and points get made strictly through cartoons and links to republican think tanks.

Obama is not a socialist, even the socialist groups in America who want him to be, admit that he's not. (I can smell your conspiracist mind churning away ideas )

The economy was in freefall when Obama took office and we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month, so he ruined America how?....telepathically?

And about the energy...just wow..us oil production is at its highest point in 8 years, and Obama has clearly embraced an "all of the above" but of course the websites you go to won't tell you things like that. Shifting to coal and natural gas will help a little for a while, but the numbers they give about decades and centuries worth of coal and natural gas are pure fantasy.

 

[Narcotized]

Interesting how you didn't cite this "another source", but I found it anyway and added some parts that you edited out.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2934

What you are trying to do again is to distort things.

This article you failed to source is about whether or not China has violated rules of the WTO through currency manipulation. "A number of economic commentators argue that China's policies amount to market-distorting currency manipulation" ..."we question whether China's trading partners can readily make a convincing case that China has violated its WTO commitments by intervening in currency markets in a manner that frustrates the intent of GATT."

Then you go on to take Obama's words "directly related" which are shown to be accurate from the opening paragraph of this article ("As a result of this policy, its [China's] foreign exchange reserves grew from $403 billion at the end of 2003 to $1.9 trillion at the end of 2008") and you try to plug into people's minds that Obama used the mathematical phrase:"directly proportional"....which he did not.

You probably could have used some of this article to make some fair points against devaluation, but instead you didn't cite your info and played your typical role of a partisan HACK. Here.....let me put this in your language ""

Have no idea what point you are trying to make. Bottom line, currency devaluation has no long term effect on imports and exports despite what is often falsely stated, and any immediate effect before prices adjust is not beneficial for the economy; being just the same result as export subsidies or import tariffs.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

The translation of currency practices into equivalent trade policies is straightforward in the long run when all prices are fully flexible. As is well known, currency market intervention has no real effects in that environment due to the long-run neutrality of money – prices in a country that devalues its currency will adjust so that the real effects of the devaluation and implied price changes cancel out, leaving import and export volumes unchanged."Nevertheless, a devaluation in this environment is equivalent to the imposition of a tariff on all imports and a subsidy to all exports.Just as with the devaluation, the tariff-cum-subsidy policy leads to price adjustments that cancel each other out and leave import and export volumes unchanged (an implication of Lerner symmetry)."

Yes, that would be the full quote. It's saying your devaluation being some magic pill to help our economy through exports is complete fallacy. Obama and others like to spread the myth that currency manipulation by China is somehow responsible for our export/import imbalance.

 

[BLADEMDA]

These are the posts that prove you have zero interest in the real world and the truth. Enjoy your bubble.

The conversation ends when questions get answered and points get made strictly through cartoons and links to republican think tanks.

Obama is not a socialist, even the socialist groups in America who want him to be, admit that he's not. (I can smell your conspiracist mind churning away ideas )

The economy was in freefall when Obama took office and we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month, so he ruined America how?....telepathically?

And about the energy...just wow..us oil production is at its highest point in 8 years, and Obama has clearly embraced an "all of the above" but of course the websites you go to won't tell you things like that. Shifting to coal and natural gas will help a little for a while, but the numbers they give about decades and centuries worth of coal and natural gas are pure fantasy.

Liberals only understand cartoons. Advanced Math is way too hard a concept. Now basic math which shows that A) real unemployment is very high B) the economy is barely growing and C) Obama wants to steal more of my hard earned money to waste on Solyndra. Before you bring up Bush I readily admit he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. But, blaming your predecessor is not "change we can believe in" but, rather more of the same old TAX AND SPEND ways. Excuse me, SPEND then TAX ways.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[pgg]

And about the energy...just wow..us oil production is at its highest point in 8 years

Just a quick comment -

I'd be real, real careful and cautious about interpreting the recent increase in US oil production as a sustainable trend. It's not.

US oil discovery and production peaked about 40 years ago, and has been in constant decline since then, despite aggressive and expensive efforts to increase production. High prices have made some techniques economically viable.

There is a SMALL blip in US production due to the Bakken oil formation. Unfortunately the wells being dug there tend to only produce oil at high rates for a short time, then dramatically taper off. Something like 90% of the oil recoverable from one of these wells is recovered in the first year. Overall production is increasing there because they keep digging more wells, but the rate of new well construction is not sustainable. Especially since most of them are being dug in a relatively small area of the formation.

It's good that we're exploiting that domestic source, but the simple incontrovertible fact is that US oil production has been in decline for decades, and the Bakken fields, while welcome, change little.

 

[TheBlend]

I'd be real, real careful and cautious about interpreting the recent increase in US oil production as a sustainable trend. It's not.

I agree, I have seen the bell curves of oil discovery versus production and we are on the downside in both respects. LNG, and Coal are not sustainable for too long whether we choose to or are ultimately forced to shift to them as our primary energy sources.

BUT:
"The current increases in oil production have little to do with Obama or Bush policies, but are simply a response to years of climbing oil prices. But that cuts both ways. This is also the reason I have defended President Obama against criticisms that his decisions have caused gasoline prices to rise. The decisions he makes in this administration may ultimately impact gas prices, but due to the lag time they won’t impact gasoline prices for years. If President Obama is elected to a second term — as I expect that he will be — then he may begin to reap the outcome of his decisions by the middle of his second term. So his decisions today are certainly relevant for the future, and in 4 years he will deserve his share of the credit or blame for the status of the energy markets in the U.S."
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com...olicies-causing-a-rise-in-u-s-oil-production/



So, Obama should not be claiming responsibility for increased production, just as he should not be getting blamed for prices at the pump.

Also,

A confluence of factors is making it very difficult for owners of coal plants — particularly old coal plants — to compete. A combination of high domestic coal prices, low natural gas prices, new air quality regulations, coordinated activist pressure, and cost-competitive renewables are making coal an increasingly bad choice for many power plant operators.

From Clean Technica (share this quote)​

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/05...mpaign=Feed:+IM-cleantechnica+(CleanTechnica)

Coal is on it's way out, there are only so many mountains left to blow the tops off so the value/cost ratio is evening, just as with Oil. The easy to get to stuff has been gotten to, most of the rest will have such a high costs both environmentally and economically that we HAVE to begin a serious shift to renewables. Too bad people think that curly light-bulbs are an attack on their freedom.....

 

[pgg]

I agree, I have seen the bell curves of oil discovery versus production and we are on the downside in both respects. LNG, and Coal are not sustainable for too long whether we choose to or are ultimately forced to shift to them as our primary energy sources.

There's a (big) place for natural gas in coming years. We need to really cut back on exporting wealth to oil-producing countries that hate us. That's one domestic fossil fuel we should exploit the hell out of while aggressively working toward building thorium reactors and renewable power sources.


It also pays to remember that the reason our oil imports are down has as much to do with a terrible economy and reduced demand as it does a small blip in domestic production. It'd be one thing if conservation and efficiency was responsible for the huge decrease in domestic consumption ... but they're not.

It's not that I don't believe Obama deserves credit for economic recovery; it's that I don't believe there's been any economic recovery to speak of. There hasn't been any corresponding "recovery" in energy consumption. It's easy enough to fake GDP numbers, manipulate official inflation and unemployment numbers, but it's harder to fake the number of gallons of gasoline burnt or barrels of oil turned into plastic.

 

[yappy]

Energy needs to stop becoming some sort of politcal tool and real investment is needed in researching new forms, techniques, and methods for producing and harnessing energy.

Yeah, I think we need to keep up in the short term. But I am not encouraged by the GOP's lack of vision when it comes to energy. I think energy should be viewed as our modern day space race.