The USdollar is tanking...

ludin · Jan 24, 2017

CanadaJohn said:
You should try living in Canada where our dollar is currently valued at about $0.75 to the American green back and has historically fluctuated without government manipulation anywhere from $0.65 to $1.10 in relation to the American dollar.

Most of us here don't pay too much attention to it until such time we choose to travel and then going to the US south in the winter can be either a bargain or damn expensive, depending.

But mostly our government prefers the Canadian dollar to be weak against the American dollar because Canada is a net exporter to the US and so it keeps our products competitive in your market. It does cause inflation, however, when it comes to Canadians purchasing American goods, particularly produce in the winter as an example - try paying $14 for a watermelon sometime!!!

You are right, however, that the US dollar has been weakened lately. The Canadian dollar is up about 3 cents against it the past couple of weeks, but that has also been reflective of the rise in world oil prices, a commodity that does have great impact on the Canadian dollar.

The real problem, however, is the artificial dampening down of the value of the Chinese Yen and how that affects trade.

that is why the yen cannot be traded as a currency pair on the forex market. in fact it is not allowed on there at all due to their manipulative policy.
if they didn't do that and like the dollar china followed market trends their economy would trash.

Kushinator · Jan 24, 2017

ludin said:
that is why the yen cannot be traded as a currency pair on the forex market. in fact it is not allowed on there at all due to their manipulative policy.

The yen is traded in every single major forex market in the world.

if they didn't do that and like the dollar china followed market trends their economy would trash.

You are talking about the renminbi.

Nah... It would put upward pressure on their domestic consumption, which would necessarily erode their trade position. Just like here, the transition to a post-industrial economy will not come without it's costs.

ludin · Jan 24, 2017

Kushinator said:
The yen is traded in every single major forex market in the world.

Like the poster I quoted a simple typo. it is the Chinese yuan that was not traded however I recently found it
that has changed as of oct of just last year.

You are talking about the renminbi.
Nah... It would put upward pressure on their domestic consumption, which would necessarily erode their trade position. Just like here, the transition to a post-industrial economy will not come without it's costs.

it has been pointed out by plenty of experts that the Yuan's value is well below where it should be. that it is only through china's constant manipulation does it
remain as low.

since they have been added though it is going to be interesting if china continues their manipulation practices.
if figure if they try people will dump them big time.

Kushinator · Jan 24, 2017

ludin said:
it is the Chinese yuan that was not traded however I recently found it
that has changed as of oct of just last year.

Recently as in after you made your previous post? :lol:

it has been pointed out by plenty of experts that the Yuan's value is well below where it should be. that it is only through china's constant manipulation does it
remain as low.

Then why have you only paid lip service to any credible analysis?

since they have been added though it is going to be interesting if china continues their manipulation practices.
if figure if they try people will dump them big time.

Ramble ramble China ramble currency manipulation ramble ramble.

SheWolf · Jan 24, 2017

DA60 said:
...it's dropped from almost 104 less than a month ago to back under 100 today.

And with the Trump administration (foolishly) calling for a weaker dollar (at least in the short term)...it is probably going even lower.

Should bode well for my precious metals.

DXY Index Quote - U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) Index Price Today (DXY:NYE) - MarketWatch

And for those of you who think 'a weak dollar is good for trade'.

ONLY if you are a net exporter...which America DEFINITELY is not.

A much weaker dollar means much higher fuel prices...among other things.

We shall see.

Why does Trump want a weaker dollar?

ludin · Jan 24, 2017

Kushinator said:
Recently as in after you made your previous post? :lol:

no as of recently oct 2016 before that it wasn't traded at all per my previous statement.

Then why have you only paid lip service to any credible analysis?

common knowledge doesn't need to cited. that is why it is referred to as common knowledge.

Ramble ramble China ramble currency manipulation ramble ramble.

As usual you have nothing to offer amazing. why do you even bother?

ludin · Jan 24, 2017

SheWolf said:
Why does Trump want a weaker dollar?

it is a balance of good and bad.

A weaker dollar means that our exports become cheaper around the world
on the opposite it makes our imports go up.

if there is corresponding economic activity that comes from that move IE more demand for US exports it isn't such a bad thing.
it leads to more manufacturing and jobs for people.

the downside is if there isn't a demand then well you kinda eat it and have to reserve the policy.

Kushinator · Jan 24, 2017

ludin said:
no as of recently oct 2016 before that it wasn't traded at all per my previous statement.

And yet, you provide us with a post to the contrary:

ludin said:
that is why the yen cannot be traded as a currency pair on the forex market. in fact it is not allowed on there at all due to their manipulative policy.
if they didn't do that and like the dollar china followed market trends their economy would trash.

:lamo

If you were aware of currency developments as recently as Oct 2016... you wouldn't have made such a nonsense post in the first place. Why hasn't the Chinese economy crashed?

common knowledge doesn't need to cited. that is why it is referred to as common knowledge.

Positions regarding relative currency valuation isn't common knowledge. Try again!

As usual you have nothing to offer amazing. why do you even bother?

As usual, i correct the errors in your ridiculous statements.

DaveFagan · Jan 24, 2017

Kushinator said:
:shock:

Hopefully you can understand that the U.S. President doesn't set the relative value of the dollar. If there is one thing you should take from this thread, it would be this fact.

Financial Activities by the Plunge Protection Team and the Exchange Stabilisation Fund are done with the Presidential signature. They exert control of Markets like metals, currency, ag products, etc. Gold and silver are metals. Dollars are currency. The USA wrote 8 trillion dollars of new money, either print or digital, and that should have diluted the value of the dollar, but the dollar went up 30% instead. Gold is manipulated by "Naked short sales" of huge volumes of PAPER. Savvy Nations around the World are buying gold because they know the manipulation cannot go on forever. Maybe, maybe not? The described agencies most definitely control "the relative value of the dollar."

Kushinator · Jan 24, 2017

DaveFagan said:
Financial Activities by the Plunge Protection Team and the Exchange Stabilisation Fund are done with the Presidential signature. They exert control of Markets like metals, currency, ag products, etc. Gold and silver are metals. Dollars are currency. The USA wrote 8 trillion dollars of new money, either print or digital, and that should have diluted the value of the dollar, but the dollar went up 30% instead. Gold is manipulated by "Naked short sales" of huge volumes of PAPER. Savvy Nations around the World are buying gold because they know the manipulation cannot go on forever. Maybe, maybe not? The described agencies most definitely control "the relative value of the dollar."

The conspiracy theory thread is here.

DA60 · Jan 24, 2017

SheWolf said:
Why does Trump want a weaker dollar?

My guess is so he can improve exports (a weaker dollar makes exports cheaper to other countries).

And since he seems VERY determined to increase U.S. manufacturing jobs - the connection seems logical. More U.S. manufacturing that can export more cheaply than before.

I think it is a mistake...but that is me.

Also, in his Senate meeting, Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin talked about a strong dollar not being good for the economy. Considering America is a net importer, that does not make sense to me (a strong dollar means importing things is cheaper so Americans would pay less for them).

USD Dumps After Treasury Sec Nominee Mnuchin Warns Of "Excessively Strong" Dollar | Zero Hedge

SheWolf · Jan 24, 2017

DA60 said:
My guess is so he can improve exports (a weaker dollar makes exports cheaper to other countries).

And since he seems VERY determined to increase U.S. manufacturing jobs - the connection seems logical. More U.S. manufacturing that can export more cheaply than before.

I think it is a mistake...but that is me.

Also, in his Senate meeting, Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin talked about a strong dollar not being good for the economy. Considering America is a net importer, that does not make sense to me (a strong dollar means importing things is cheaper so Americans would pay less for them).

USD Dumps After Treasury Sec Nominee Mnuchin Warns Of "Excessively Strong" Dollar | Zero Hedge

You're right. It's going to get more difficult for us to import if our dollar is weak, and prices will increase for us.

Eric7216 · Jan 24, 2017

Dollar May Reach Parity With Euro by End of Year, Goldman Says
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...continue-on-policy-differentials-goldman-says

DA60 · Jan 24, 2017

Harshaw said:
I thought you were done.

I was...but your post was so incredibly erroneous, I just could not help myself.

These examples work more against you than you seem to realize. The activity seen in them are more than just minor dips, especially against the trends.

They do not work against me in the slightest. All I am trying to prove is that your following statements are almost TOTALLY wrong:

'Meanwhile, a short-term dip is not "tanking." According to your silliness, everything "tanks" multiple times per day.'

'No, "tanking" usually means a significant and sustained drop.'

'Tanking' is a term used often in investment circles and can refer to virtually any length of time...years, months, days, hours or even minutes. And the size of the drop is almost irrelevant. One of my links was a a drop of only 1.6%...the dollar drop is significantly larger than that (almost 4%).

Short term dips ARE tanking...as I showed in my links. And I can provide many more that show it again and again.

If you read economic articles remotely regularly, you would have known this. The fact you did not shows you do not.

However, I have been an investor for over 20 years...and I often read/scan dozens of articles every day.

Now, are you prepared to admit that your above quoted statements were mostly incorrect? Yes or no?

I am guessing you are arrogant and stubborn and your answer is 'no'.

Kushinator · Jan 25, 2017

DA60 said:
I was...but your post was so incredibly erroneous, I just could not help myself.

The irony is so thick in this statement!

They do not work against me in the slightest.

Of course they do! The gold articles during July 2015 referenced a period of time when the spot price and 30 day moving average were well below the 200 day moving average:

Now lets consider the recent U.S. dollar movement:

Both the spot price and 30 day are well above the 200 day moving average. This is a sign of weakness (it was tanking). The recent dollar movement was likely a (Fibonacci) retracement where investors took some profits from the 2016 dollar gains. Lastly, given that the 52 week low for the DXY is 91.92 and the 52 week high is 103.82, the index hovering around 100 is in no way tanking. Words have meaning.

If you read economic articles remotely regularly, you would have known this. The fact you did not shows you do not.

The zerohedge queen isn't fooling anyone. If you understood half of what you've claimed to have read, we wouldn't be going through this exercise.

However, I have been an investor for over 20 years...and I often read/scan dozens of articles every day.

Cool story bro! Did you bother to mention how utterly wrong you have been about everything you've posted here on debatepolitics.com? DA60's opinion carries little weight as a result of your posting history.

I am guessing you are arrogant and stubborn and your answer is 'no'.

Fitting i end the same way i began... the irony is thick!

I'm Supposn · Jan 25, 2017

DA60 said:
... And for those of you who think 'a weak dollar is good for trade'.
ONLY if you are a net exporter...which America DEFINITELY is not.
A much weaker dollar means much higher fuel prices...among other things.

We shall see.

DA60, you’re correct; inflation of the U.S. dollar reduces the purchasing power of all profits and wages, (i.e. all incomes) received in the form of U.S. dollars.

I’m a proponent of USA adopting the unilateral policy described by Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.
Never within any circumstances, (i.e. regardless of the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate), would that trade policy be net detrimental to USA’s economy but it would certainly increase our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Respectfully, Supposn

Ahlevah · Jan 30, 2017

DA60 said:
We shall see.

... how long you can necro this thread. You kept you last one alive for almost three-and-a-half years. :2party: Is it safe to say that since gold is still about 40% below its 2011 peak the gold bull market had a stake put through its heart some time around December, 2015?

DA60 · Jan 30, 2017

Ahlevah said:
... how long you can necro this thread. You kept you last one alive for almost three-and-a-half years. :2party: Is it safe to say that since gold is still about 40% below its 2011 peak the gold bull market had a stake put through its heart some time around December, 2015?

You are comparing a thread that is been going for years with one that has been open for 7 days...okaaaaaay. I must have really struck a nerve with you over this. Noted.

And as for gold...(as I have said many times over the years) I invested in Gold in 2007 when it was about $750/$800. Today it is $1191. Up about 58%. When I liquidated my stocks portfolio - the DOW was around 13,500. Today it is 20,093. Up about 48%. I would say I am doing alright....and that is with gold down recently and the DOW WAY up recently.

And if you think gold has peaked - that is your right.

I think it has not and I have explained time and again why I think it has not. PM fundamentals are inflationary concerns and/or monetary instability. WIth the Fed in inflation worrying mode and Trump talking about massive stimulus and huge deficits...plus add in his ridiculous trade ideas...I think the gold fundamentals are excellent. Of course, they will take time to work through. But I think the long term bull market for gold/silver is as good as ever. And I have long said that it could take many years, perhaps well over a decade for it to rebound.

Of course, I have many other investments. But I would say, considering I am beating the DOW with my gold purchases...I am doing okay. Sure, I wish I had bought precious metals in 2001...but I did not know enough about them then.

It is obvious you not only do not understand precious metals but macroeconomics in general.

Have a nice day.

Lafayette · Jan 30, 2017

DA60 said:
PM fundamentals are inflationary concerns and/or monetary instability.

After a major recession, "inflationary concerns". Where? Zambia?

Monetary instability of what - the dollar or the Euro. Both are trading at almost equal (1 on 1), meaning the dollar is down from equaling 1.35€? If Donald Dork gets what the House Replicants did not want to give Obama - remember all that BS about "austerity budgeting" from them? - then the economy could perk-up a bit. But, not much, because unemployment is already almost rock-bottom.

Unless the Replicants can tease out those who are not reporting themselves as "seeking employment" - and they are about 2 million more than those who did in 2008 when the fit-hit-the-shan - see here (from the BLS).

Note also that the BLS has two such accountings of the E-to-p Ratio - one at 25/54 years of age and another at the 16/54 years of age? The one above is the latter and takes in the entire work-age population ...

ludin · Jan 30, 2017

Lafayette said:
After a major recession, "inflationary concerns". Where? Zambia?

Monetary instability of what - the dollar or the Euro. Both are trading at almost equal (1 on 1), meaning the dollar is down from equaling 1.35€? If Donald Dork gets what the House Replicants did not want to give Obama - remember all that BS about "austerity budgeting" from them? - then the economy could perk-up a bit. But, not much, because unemployment is already almost rock-bottom.

Not really.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02/95-million-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html

there are 95m workers out of the work force. the real unemployment rate is closer to 10%.
even if you discount the retired people. at 10k a day for 365 days that only accounts for 3.6m of the 95m

that is almost 1/3rd of the country not participating in the job market. we are not where near full employment.

Unless the Replicants can tease out those who are not reporting themselves as "seeking employment" - and they are about 2 million more than those who did in 2008 when the fit-hit-the-shan - see here (from the BLS).

Note also that the BLS has two such accountings of the E-to-p Ratio - one at 25/54 years of age and another at the 16/54 years of age? The one above is the latter and takes in the entire work-age population ...

The only way to actually do that is to repeal the nonsense that Obama passed in order to get employers to hire people and to increase hours.

backpacker · Jan 30, 2017

SheWolf said:
You're right. It's going to get more difficult for us to import if our dollar is weak, and prices will increase for us.

Prices will increase anyway. We cannot raise tariffs and expect prices not to go up.

Lafayette · Jan 30, 2017

ludin said:
there are 95m workers out of the work force. the real unemployment rate is closer to 10%.

These numbers are indeed part of the Employment Assessment by the BLS, which is shown as:

The above take in to account some "alternative measures" (there are six in all) of measuring unemployment. The Measure "U5" is a ten percent. But it is not the most common measure because it is the least exact.

All six measures, along with their definition ("Alternative measures of labor under-utilization") are defined. Unemployment is quite different from "under-utilization" - as the definition indicates here:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.

U3 is the most used definition because unemployment is defined as a percentage of those declaring themselves as part of the "civilian labor force" (and unemployed). (In fact, civilian-labor-force is a number that can vary significantly over time.)

At present it is close to 5% and compression any further is not going to be easy. As one can see from the above infographic the U3-rate rarely gets below 5% for any meaningful period of time since 1970 ...

ludin · Jan 30, 2017

Lafayette said:
These numbers are indeed part of the Employment Assessment by the BLS, which is shown as:

The above take in to account some "alternative measures" (there are six in all) of measuring unemployment. The Measure "U5" is a ten percent. But it is not the most common measure because it is the least exact.

All six measures, along with their definition ("Alternative measures of labor under-utilization") are defined. Unemployment is quite different from "under-utilization" - as the definition indicates here:

U3 is the most used definition because unemployment is defined as a percentage of those declaring themselves as part of the "civilian labor force" (and unemployed). (In fact, civilian-labor-force is a number that can vary significantly over time.)

At present it is close to 5% and compression any further is not going to be easy. As one can see from the above infographic the U3-rate rarely gets below 5% for any meaningful period of time since 1970 ...

the U3 is a political number so politicians can make themselves look good.
95m americans -3% for retired people

iguanaman · Jan 30, 2017

CanadaJohn said:
You should try living in Canada where our dollar is currently valued at about $0.75 to the American green back and has historically fluctuated without government manipulation anywhere from $0.65 to $1.10 in relation to the American dollar.

Most of us here don't pay too much attention to it until such time we choose to travel and then going to the US south in the winter can be either a bargain or damn expensive, depending.

But mostly our government prefers the Canadian dollar to be weak against the American dollar because Canada is a net exporter to the US and so it keeps our products competitive in your market. It does cause inflation, however, when it comes to Canadians purchasing American goods, particularly produce in the winter as an example - try paying $14 for a watermelon sometime!!!

You are right, however, that the US dollar has been weakened lately. The Canadian dollar is up about 3 cents against it the past couple of weeks, but that has also been reflective of the rise in world oil prices, a commodity that does have great impact on the Canadian dollar.

The real problem, however, is the artificial dampening down of the value of the Chinese Yen and how that affects trade.

No, the real problem is believing what Trumps says without verifying it to be true. China is supporting its currency not driving it down. Like Trump you are 10 years behind the times.

HONG KONG — In Monday’s presidential debate, Donald Trump repeated one of his frequent criticisms of China: It keeps its currency artificially cheap.

Of all the countries in the world, he said, China is “the best ever” at devaluing its currency, the renminbi. That gives its companies a big — and unfair — advantage when selling its goods abroad, the argument goes.

That’s no longer quite the case. Nowadays, China faces the opposite problem: It is shoring up its currency while the rest of the world is trying to push it down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/business/dealbook/china-trump-yuan-devaluation.html

pinqy · Jan 30, 2017

ludin said:
Not really.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02/95-million-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html

there are 95m workers out of the work force.

Voluntarily or involuntarily? Able to work or unable to work?

the real unemployment rate is closer to 10%.

Define "real" and explain what makes it "real." Is there some Divine Definition of Unemployment?

even if you discount the retired people. at 10k a day for 365 days that only accounts for 3.6m of the 95m

And people tend to stay retired. As of December, there were 53.1 million people age 55 and older who did not want a job in December.

that is almost 1/3rd of the country not participating in the job market. we are not where near full employment.

In December, there were 164.4 million people who at least wanted a job. 151.8 million were working, 7.2 million were trying to work, and 5.4 million said they wanted a job, but weren't actually doing anything about it (3.8 million of those either hadn't looked for work at all during 2016 or couldn't accept a job if offered)
So that seems pretty close to full employment to me. Or are you counting people who you think should be working, even if they have no desire to?

The USdollar is tanking...

ludin

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

ludin

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

SheWolf

ludin

ludin

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

DA60

SheWolf

Eric7216

DA60

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

I'm Supposn

Ahlevah

DA60

Lafayette

ludin

backpacker

Lafayette

ludin

iguanaman

pinqy