when and how does the dollar rally? or does it?

That is a good tip. Just might do that. And to the comment about buying Euros - I am not convinced of that currency's long term strength. When ever the big countries (France, Germany) want to break the rules, they do. Holland has taken them to court on this but I really don't see it changing. And when politicians control a currency it only moves one way - down.

 

The Euro is definitely overvalued. This has to do with the fact that it is nearly shouldering all of the Dollar's fall (...since the Asian currencies won't do their part.)

 

Very difficult to bet on Europe for the long term. A lot of moving parts. But then again it's always difficult to bet on the long term of anything, except maybe the United States.

Does this make me a Republican? Only if they could be rid of those neo-con war mongers. More than Bush, who's basically a simple guy who's found himself in the middle of a very complicated situation and is trying to find his way out by making the best use of his common sense (one could argue about how sensible his common sense is of course), this small but dominant fraction of the GOP is responsible for the lowering dollars with their reckless war policies. This war is open-ended and very costly. This alone will continue to put enough downward pressure on the dollar. So it's more accurate to say the dollar is weakening rather than the Euro is strengthening.

 

I blame the neocon philosophers more than Bush. If it weren't Bush, they'd simply make someone else President, someone who either shares their cause or whom they could control or manipulate, as long as they have the media on their side.

Dollar and the neocons. Just another example of economics and politics are intertwined.

 

On the Bush Agenda - An Economic 9/11:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/quo_vadis_playing_for_keeps.php

Movement conservatives are willing to tank the economy while they control the federal government in order to remake it according to their liking.

Destroying the economy in order to remake it is just the kind of gambit that Democrats would believe so unlikely that it is not worth considering. It defies logic and credibility. Just like the possibility that Christian Zionists could take over Congress or that Bush might invade Iraq with no real evidence of a threat.

It’s hard to write such a depressing analysis. It feels overly cynical. But then I remembered Ron Suskind’s profile of George W. Bush in the NYT Sunday Magazine. In it, a senior adviser to Bush told Suskind: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

 

If they want WW3 these would be big steps towards creating the right atmosphere.

I don't think all the american corporations like the idea though.

 

No they don't want WW3 yet. They just want Hillary.

 

Only Republicans think Hillary is going to get the nomination. They're banking on it.

 

JFK was a Democrat. Reagan was a Republican.

It's never about Republican or Democrate. It's always about whom the media backs.

 

The magazine The Economist has also picked her as the most likely candidate.

 

I think it is just another case of politicians on both sides of the aisle surviving. To tackle the tough issues of raising taxes or slashing programs gets them negative credit - the comprimise is to do neither & the dollar takes it on the chin.

 

There's almost no hope for spending cut. It's all political rehtoric. Politicians from both sides of the aisle will continue to spend, that's what they've been elected to do, to bring home more pork for their consituency. That's nothing new.

What's new is, thanks to the neocons theories of world domination, we're now fighting a costly open-ended war of which we're shouldering basically the full burden, unlike in the first Gulf War. This war is the single biggest item that's responsible for the huge deficit we're in now.

 

Dumbing this down a little bit (ok, quite a bit) I was under the impression that the weakening of the dollar was almost in direct corrolation to the development of the EU as the first big, reliable, and serious threat to debt selling.

Bottom line is that competition is bad when you're been basically a monopoly for all these years, and don't get me wrong, other countries/institutions have sold debt, but never with the backing or history of the United States.

That all changed with the EU's development, now Asia and wealthier Middle Eastern countries have different places to look to purchase debt if they'd like. That spells big trouble, because for years we've been paying off debt by selling more of it. Our ability to do that has been compromised now with the development of the EU.

Now other countries are questioning the viability of the United States' debt and whether it could be paid off if those entities we had been selling our debt to instead go to the EU.

The economic disaster spoken of is not that far away and is realistic, but it isn't talked about because there is nothing to talk about. We don't need a general public filled with panic, that does nothing but make the situation worse. It may not come to a head now, or for years, but eventually that debt which is our deficit will become realistic and the dollar may not survive that.

Also, to be partisian on this issue is absolutley innane. Neither Democrats nor Republicans deserve any credit, both deserve nothing but blame for allowing us to reach this situation and basically living in a fantasy world where they believed that debt was issued more in Monopoly dollars then real ones.

How telling is it that the War in Iraq from a financial aspect wasn't even a main debate in the election? This Middle Eastern entanglement will in the end have a price tag which the US will almost single handedly shoulder and it will be insanely large.

 

Actually, I think you will find that right now that effect hasn't been felt. Import duties and the fact that a lot of US products aren't that popular popular over here (e.g. American cars) have caused a very limited effect in the increase of US imports. There is an import increase in US goods that were already popular import goods before the weaker dollar, but non-traditional US import goods have not had a spectacular increase. Also, one of the main reasons that the German and Asian economy had a trade deficit, is, as someone else pointed out, that their products were hugely popular and demanded all over the world, not that their internal market was too weak.

 

I sure miss President Bruce Babbitt.

 

Not a surprise, when the media had its mind all made up early about waging this war. The media did a great job limiting the national debate to how we should fight this war instead of if we should fight this war at all. In fact an opposite angle in the financial aspect was played up. Once we sack Baghdad, the Iraqi oil would pay for everything they said. And now they don't even bother to revisit that fairy tale any more.

 

I don't agree that the decline of the dollar is due to the EU's rise. The decline of the dollar is due to the fact that America does not care that the dollar is declining - and I mean care enough to do something about it. The rise of the Euro just shows that capital has no better option. Everyone can see that European politicians would love to cut the value of the Euro. And the Japanese would do the same with the yen. Hence the rise of gold & the smaller currencies.

Totally agree with you that the cost of Iraq was not given the attention it deserved in the election.

 

The dollar is not going to rally in any significant way in near future. It is still overpriced and its fall has been a long time coming.

 

On the upside, it helps the Central Bank control inflation...

 

So dreamer, what is it that the media ultimately wants? What is their goal? Why did they want a war?

 

I don't blame you for your kneejerk reaction of rolling your eyes at comments against the media. The media has had us house-trained. Anybody that says anything bad about them would be classified as either a conspiracy theorist or an anti-simite.

Don't want to retype everything or hijack this "dollar" thread. Here's a thread I started earlier.
https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=148325

To hijack the most powerful nation on earth, the USA, so they could do anything they want when they want.

The extremely media friendly Clintons is not a bad start. Hillary for 2008, unless the GOP serves them better, then maybe we'll get the extremely media friendly Arnold or Rudy. Either way the media wins. And it will keep on winning until it's checked, like the other three (real) branches of our government.

 

And once they’ve hijacked it , what then? What do they want to do with it? What do they want it to become?

 

Or in the case of Jon Stewart, you become a folk hero and win an Emmy.