• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Person of the year 2009- Ben Bernanke

Jackboot said:
So are you suggesting a weak dollar does not affect both imports, and exports?
Click to expand...

A weak dollar reduces imports and increases exports.

Jackboot said:
Who said anything about imports being "inherently good", this is nonsense,
Click to expand...

You did. I asked what you thought the benefits of a strong dollar were, and you cited buying power for imports. So logically you must think that we're better off importing them than producing them ourselves, everything else being equal. I question this assumption.

Jackboot said:
Another dreamer I see, we will cross that bridge once we burn it!:doh
Click to expand...

Let's suppose that a barrel of oil costs $100, and $100 buys E70. Now let's suppose the dollar declines to $100=E50. Up until the moment the oil-producing nations stop using the dollar, the exchange rate doesn't matter at all; the barrel of oil is still $100. Now, let's suppose the oil-producers start pricing the product in euros when $100=E50. Oil still costs $100. At that point, there would be a problem with letting the dollar fall BELOW $100=E50 (as it would increase the cost of oil). But until they actually sever the link with the dollar, it doesn't really matter in terms of the price of oil.

Jackboot said:
The ponzi scheme is the federal reserve, and their constant booms and busts, do you enjoy being a puppet on a string?
Click to expand...

I really don't think you have the faintest understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is. You're obviously just throwing around words that you think sound smart.

Jackboot said:
Supply and demand, these prices will go up because demand will fall, think....powered milk, just for a second, let that sink in....
Click to expand...

This has absolutely nothing to do with a weak dollar; the relative strength or weakness of the dollar doesn't affect things produced and consumed domestically at all.

P.S. If demand falls, prices would go DOWN. ;)
 
Kandahar said:
A weak dollar reduces imports and increases exports.
Click to expand...
Yes....what exports?



You did. I asked what you thought the benefits of a strong dollar were, and you cited buying power for imports. So logically you must think that we're better off importing them than producing them ourselves, everything else being equal. I question this assumption.
Click to expand...

I never said any such thing, I am simply explaining the way things are, not the way we may wish them to be. As it stands, you can import items, even with the expense of shipping them across the globe, and still make a better profit then you could with something manufactured here.


Let's suppose that a barrel of oil costs $100, and $100 buys E70. Now let's suppose the dollar declines to $100=E50. Up until the moment the oil-producing nations stop using the dollar, the exchange rate doesn't matter at all; the barrel of oil is still $100. Now, let's suppose the oil-producers start pricing the product in euros when $100=E50. Oil still costs $100. At that point, there would be a problem with letting the dollar fall BELOW $100=E50 (as it would increase the cost of oil). But until they actually sever the link with the dollar, it doesn't really matter in terms of the price of oil.
Click to expand...
What was the point of this excercise, using your logic, then a barrel would cost two hundred dollars a barrel, right?




I really don't think you have the faintest understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is. You're obviously just throwing around words that you think sound smart.
Click to expand...
The only difference between Bernie Madoff, and the fed, is that when it came time to collect what was owed, bernie couldn't print it.



This has absolutely nothing to do with a weak dollar; the relative strength or weakness of the dollar doesn't affect things produced and consumed domestically at all.

P.S. If demand falls, prices would go DOWN. ;)
Click to expand...

Not true, not in a fed induced inflationary reality, the whole thing is turned on its head. Everything costs more, shipping, gas, etc, the price goes up, more so when you add in the lack of demand....
 
Jackboot said:
The ponzi scheme is the federal reserve, and their constant booms and busts, do you enjoy being a puppet on a string?
Click to expand...

Really, can you refute the evidence then?

GB219 said:
Recessions were common from 1865 to 1917, with 338 months of contraction and 382 months of expansion (compared to 518 months of expansion and 96 months of contraction from 1945 to 1996)

The longest contraction on record was 65 months, from October 1873 to March 1879.
Click to expand...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/60412-deflation-we-want-3.html#post1058374550

Maybe if you pay attention Jack, you will actually learn something and you can be interesting when you and your conservative buddies get together and rant about Obama. :2wave:
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Really, can you refute the evidence then?




http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/60412-deflation-we-want-3.html#post1058374550

Maybe if you pay attention Jack, you will actually learn something and you can be interesting when you and your conservative buddies get together and rant about Obama. :2wave:
Click to expand...

When did the dollar start to lose value? No one has suggested that recession is not a part of the economic reality we all face, but when the government has a hand in the till, it can, and does happen unexpectedly. Should the government remain in its constitutional place, we would all be better able to predict, and then prepare for obvious slow downs in the economy.

You have said nothing here, but you appear to be proud of yourself, I find this odd, to say the least?:confused:
 
Kandahar said:
Can you point me to the sentence in your incoherent rant about unemployment, "the left," and unions where you explain the benefits of a strong dollar and/or the problems of a weak dollar, so that I can address your point?



And now an incoherent rant about inflation? What are you referring to when you say "this one"? :confused:
Click to expand...

Here is something on why a weak dollar is a problem. Let's remember that a lot of what Americans use are built overseas. So if our currency weakens then the things we buy will cost more, thus inflation. This has not caused a big problem yet because the Chinese currency is tied to the dollar. If we let their currency " float" then stuff from China could rise 20%.

Another problem with the weak dollar is that we are now a debtor nation. So far other countries have continued to buy our debt, if they stop because they do not want to but a depreciating asset then how will the country finance it's debt.

There are other adverse consequences but these are a couple of biggies.
 
Jackboot said:
You have said nothing here, but you appear to be proud of yourself, I find this odd, to say the least?:confused:
Click to expand...

Really? Care to explain:roll:

Jackboot said:
The ponzi scheme is the federal reserve, and their constant booms and busts
Click to expand...

GB219 said:
Recessions were common from 1865 to 1917, with 338 months of contraction and 382 months of expansion (compared to 518 months of expansion and 96 months of contraction from 1945 to 1996)

The longest contraction on record was 65 months, from October 1873 to March 1879.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
apdst said:
Man of The year doesn't have anything to do with doing someting good.
Click to expand...

Tiger Woods got picked for Athlete of the year.

Hes a good golfer too.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Really? Care to explain:roll:





:lamo
Click to expand...

One was natural, the other, created, I don't know what you are failing to grasp about this reality?:confused:

When did the great depression happen, before, or after the fed?

Now, laugh for me some more, this is fun for me........:)
 
Last edited:
Jackboot said:
One was natural, the other, created, I don't know what you are failing to grasp about this reality?:confused:

When did the great depression happen, before, or after the fed?

Now, laugh for me some more, this is fun for me........:)
Click to expand...

Before the creation of the Fed, there were nearly as many months in recession as their were months of expansion/recovery. Nearly a 1:1 ratio. During the Great Depression, the Fed effectively raised interest rates at a peak of 6% in 1933:shock: Bad policy if you ask me.

Following the implementation of Keynesian policy and eventually its neoclassical upgrade, the ratio slipped 5:1 expansion to recession months.

Now, do you have any relevant economic comments, or is it more of the same failure? It would serve you best to admit your error.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Before the creation of the Fed, there were nearly as many months in recession as their were months of expansion/recovery. Nearly a 1:1 ratio. During the Great Depression, the Fed effectively raised interest rates at a peak of 6% in 1933:shock: Bad policy if you ask me.

Following the implementation of Keynesian policy and eventually its neoclassical upgrade, the ratio slipped 5:1 expansion to recession months.

Now, do you have any relevant economic comments, or is it more of the same failure? It would serve you best to admit your error.
Click to expand...

My error, what is "my error" exactly?

Can you explain to us all how a car went from 2,500 dollars in the late 60's, to about 35,000 dollars today? Could this explain your 5 to 1 ratio......well, no, because 2500 times 5 is 12,500, where did the value go, and how are we better off today? Why did a brand new home cost about 12,000 dollars, and today, it may cost up to 200,000 dollars?

Any ideas?
 
apdst said:
Stalin and Hitler were Men of The Year. It has nothing to do with accomplishing anything good.
Click to expand...

Stalin & Hitler were never awarded a Nobel Peace prize either.
 
Jackboot said:
My error, what is "my error" exactly?
Click to expand...

Stating that the Fed creates booms and busts, when booms and busts were far more prevalent prior to the creation of the Fed.

Can you explain to us all how a car went from 2,500 dollars in the late 60's, to about 35,000 dollars today? Could this explain your 5 to 1 ratio......well, no, because 2500 times 5 is 12,500, where did the value go, and how are we better off today? Why did a brand new home cost about 12,000 dollars, and today, it may cost up to 200,000 dollars?

Any ideas?
Click to expand...

It would be an issue if income was held constant. But since this is not the case, your argument has no solid ground to stand on. The average income (factored for inflation) has more than doubled since the 50's. :roll:
 
Zyphlin said:
Ben's got nothing on this man

400_ChesleyBSullenburger_INFphoto.JPG


Robbery​
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the pilot guy who landed the plane in the Hudson. I really hope they gave him a medal for that!

And Bernanke was also a good choice. But this is my person of the year:

AnonymousDemotivator.jpg

Anonymous (group) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :2wave:

Which reminds me, this should be person of the DECADE: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_wales"]Jimmy Wales[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Rachel said:
Yeah, that's the pilot guy who landed the plane in the Hudson. I really hope they gave him a medal for that!

And Bernanke was also a good choice. But this is my person of the year:

AnonymousDemotivator.jpg

Anonymous (group) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :2wave:

Which reminds me, this should be person of the DECADE: Jimmy Wales
Click to expand...

...I think he is more Man of the Hour. In the grand scheme of things Schullenberger was heroic and saved lives, but his sphere of influence was relatively small. Saving 120 lives is not saving the world, democracy or free enterprise. We can also argue the merits of his feat. He merely gets an A+ for flawless execution of a generally practiced procedure. The UA232 pilot from 1990 gets more credit for creative piloting skills, but that is another thread. I don't wish to take away from his feat, it was credit. But, he has received more than his share of credit, and I certainly see no need to overplay this as so many have. He was not Man of the Year.

Bernanke, believe it or not, actually had a discernible impact on civilization. You can argue whether or not Bernanke was a hero (after all, he admittedly was a huge part of the problem), but 2009 was the year that the world stared down Great Depression II - the sequel, and at least lived for another year.
 
Last edited:
OxymoronP said:
With Stalin and Hitler having this honor, Bernake is a perfect pick.

Designing a full system fail to gain more power, pure Hitlerusque.
Click to expand...
You gonna kill you some Naazzziiis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom