• 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!

The fall of the dollar..

What do you think about the economic situation in the US?

  • Its alright, shouldnt be to difficult to fix.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Maximus Zeebra

MoG
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
7,588
Reaction score
468
Location
Western Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The dollar is now at its lowest value since the collapse of the 1971 and the gold standard.
1€ is now worth around 1.35$, 1 British pound is now worth around 2$..

Just from the currency fall alone the European economy has grown from 14.25 trillion to 14.85 trillion. This is the numbers of the end of last year, and real growth is not taken into consideration, which would bring it at around 15 trillion.

The US economy is shrinking with a falling dollar, which is trying to compensate the huge gap between import and export by falling. I wouldnt be surprised to see the REAL value of the dollar at 1.5-1.75 to the Euro and 2.25-2.5 to the pound.
By real value I mean the value where the imports and export is synced at around the same level, and how low the dollar has to fall for this to happen.
Not only will the falling dollar lead to a decline of purchasing power in the US as imports will be far more expensive, but as a result the whole economy might go into recession and outright decline. The federal reserve is trying to keep the US economy attractive by raising interest rates, but having a 10-15% interest rate in the US when the dollar hit the REAL value wouldnt be very healthy for the economy, so it can only go so far, and when it stops it will be felt in the pockets of the people in the US.

Economic conditions and sentiment in the US is very bad, and I think all of you will agree with me when I say this is the fault of the current US administration. They turned a perfectly good cherry red situation after Clinton into economic crisis, that all Americans now will feel the coming decade.
Im not saying this is the fault of Bush alone, but his whole administration is incompetent and should walk out of their offices in shame when Obama takes over. A heck of a large job is left for the next president, lets hope he can handle it..

What he should do:
1. Remove the troops from Iraq, which will slice away 100 billion in spending annually.
2. Reduce military spending to 2000(pre Bush) levels, this will save around 150 billion every year.
3. Use that money to pay down trade debt, which will stabilize the situation slightly.
4. Work his *** of to make trade deficit non existent without crushing the dollar while doing so. This means slicing imports and increasing exports, the difference is around 850 billion annually, so it will take awhile..


Good luck to the next president, and may this current administration walk in shame their whole lives, and may history remember them as the true fools they were.
 
Obviously you have very little understanding of economics. The decline in value of the dollar doesn't automatically translate into a decline in the economy.

Economic conditions and sentiment in the US is very bad, and I think all of you will agree with me when I say this is the fault of the current US administration.

Not really. The president has very little control over the economy in the short term. He can make changes that will have long-term consequences on the overall state of the economy, but he isn't responsible for individual recessions and booms.

Maximus Zeebra said:
What he should do:
1. Remove the troops from Iraq, which will slice away 100 billion in spending annually.

True, but it has nothing at all to do with the value of the dollar.

Maximus Zeebra said:
3. Use that money to pay down trade debt, which will stabilize the situation slightly.

Umm the government can't just choose to "pay down" the trade deficit. The trade deficit is what it is; only private businesses and individuals exporting more and/or importing less would reduce it.

Who exactly would the government write the check to, if they were going to pay down the trade deficit?

Maximus Zeebra said:
4. Work his *** of to make trade deficit non existent without crushing the dollar while doing so. This means slicing imports and increasing exports, the difference is around 850 billion annually, so it will take awhile..

Ya, because the amount of goods/services that people export and import is really something that the president can control. :roll:

The ONLY tool he has at his disposal to deal with the trade balance is the value of the dollar. So this suggestion doesn't make any sense.
 
Our economy is going down the toilet, but there is still a chance that it can be saved.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
3. Use that money to pay down trade debt, which will stabilize the situation slightly.
That will only worsen the situation. I'm assuming you meant the federal debt, because the trade deficit cannot be "paid" in that gait. If the US government reduces spending and actually have a surplus, it will only alleviate the crowding effect, increasing the supply of US dollars in the international market and exacerbating the deprecation of the dollar.
 
That will only worsen the situation. I'm assuming you meant the federal debt, because the trade deficit cannot be "paid" in that gait. If the US government reduces spending and actually have a surplus, it will only alleviate the crowding effect, increasing the supply of US dollars in the international market and exacerbating the deprecation of the dollar.

Yes, sorry, I meant the federal debt.
 
Obviously you have very little understanding of economics. The decline in value of the dollar doesn't automatically translate into a decline in the economy.

Yes it does, in the US it does.. How do you expect to sync export and imports without the falling dollar? The dollar falls, make everything the US imports more expensive and everything from the US cheaper for others. Now, your imports will probably have to meet exports somewhere around 1.3 trillion. This means US imports will have to fall 500 billion. Is that not a decline? Consumers? Consumer prices? Etc etc...


Not really. The president has very little control over the economy in the short term. He can make changes that will have long-term consequences on the overall state of the economy, but he isn't responsible for individual recessions and booms.

Not really, he have good control of the economy.. How come Clinton managed to have a great economy behind him, while Bush have a broken it?
Bush and his administration have choosen to spend 250 billion € annually extra on war since he became president. This money could have been used way better to stimulate US businesses and increase exports.


True, but it has nothing at all to do with the value of the dollar.

Umm the government can't just choose to "pay down" the trade deficit. The trade deficit is what it is; only private businesses and individuals exporting more and/or importing less would reduce it.
Who exactly would the government write the check to, if they were going to pay down the trade deficit?

Yes it does.. Sorry I was meaning the federal debt.
100 billion spent to stimulate US businesses instead of wasted in Iraq could do a lot for the US dollar, exports and imports. 250 billion could do even more.


Ya, because the amount of goods/services that people export and import is really something that the president can control. :roll:

Yes, he can.. Money spent differently could make a huge difference. Just look at Germany for example.. Despite a far higher value of the Euro, German export is exploding, growing fast.


The ONLY tool he has at his disposal to deal with the trade balance is the value of the dollar. So this suggestion doesn't make any sense.

Yes, let the interest rates stand and let the dollar fall quicker.

1.50-1.75 against the € and 2.25-2.5 against the Brit pound is the REAL value of the dollar.. By then the EU economy will be 16-19 trillion $ large, and we will have a higher Per capita GDP..

Just to twist it around a bit..
The US economy is around 10.5 trillion € and will then have fallen to around 8-9 trillion €.

So all in all, the artificial US economy will be valued at its correct value when the dollar hit its REAL value when the export/imports are the same.
 
"The almighty dolla, aint what it used to be. Hobos used to ask you fo a dolla now the motha****as ask ya for three. The almighty dolla, well that's what they used to say. One dolla used to be a whole lot but it's hardly worth **** today."
--Devin the Dude
 
"The almighty dolla, aint what it used to be. Hobos used to ask you fo a dolla now the motha****as ask ya for three. The almighty dolla, well that's what they used to say. One dolla used to be a whole lot but it's hardly worth **** today."
--Devin the Dude

What can you get for 1$ in the US? Just for comparison to Europe and 1€.
What about 10$?
 
Yes it does, in the US it does.. How do you expect to sync export and imports without the falling dollar? The dollar falls, make everything the US imports more expensive and everything from the US cheaper for others.

No kidding. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

Maximus Zeebra said:
Now, your imports will probably have to meet exports somewhere around 1.3 trillion. This means US imports will have to fall 500 billion. Is that not a decline? Consumers? Consumer prices? Etc etc...

No, it's not a decline. It's not that people will go without the products that they would've imported, they'll just buy them somewhere domestically. And the increase in exports will create more domestic jobs, which would be a net plus to the economy to cancel any net minus from the loss of imports.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Not really, he have good control of the economy.. How come Clinton managed to have a great economy behind him, while Bush have a broken it?

Clinton certainly helped it by favoring an explosion of free trade, but in the end it was mostly just luck. Clinton was president when communism had just collapsed and the internet was becoming prominent.

The idea that the President can control the short-term state of the economy is just silly. What exactly do you think he can do?

Maximus Zeebra said:
Bush and his administration have choosen to spend 250 billion € annually extra on war since he became president. This money could have been used way better to stimulate US businesses and increase exports.

1. 250 billion is chump change compared to the size of the US economy. Of course it can be put to better use; that doesn't mean that the amount of money spent has the slightest impact on the US economy.
2. Corporate welfare is a stupid economic policy. Why in the world should the government "stimulate US businesses"?
3. The government can't just write a check to increase exports, as I've already mentioned.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Yes, he can.. Money spent differently could make a huge difference.

Congress controls the budget here, not the President.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Just look at Germany for example.. Despite a far higher value of the Euro, German export is exploding, growing fast.

The value of the euro doesn't matter, it's the change in the value of the euro. Has it appreciated relative to all other currencies?

Maximus Zeebra said:
Yes, let the interest rates stand and let the dollar fall quicker.

1.50-1.75 against the € and 2.25-2.5 against the Brit pound is the REAL value of the dollar.. By then the EU economy will be 16-19 trillion $ large, and we will have a higher Per capita GDP..

Just to twist it around a bit..
The US economy is around 10.5 trillion € and will then have fallen to around 8-9 trillion €.

So all in all, the artificial US economy will be valued at its correct value when the dollar hit its REAL value when the export/imports are the same.

I hereby award you a BS in Statistics. :roll:

If you measure every GDP in the world in terms of your home currency, you'll get a distorted view of the actual purchasing power of various countries. By this logic, if the US dollar depreciated by 10% against the Euro in a single year (not unusual), it would mean that the US economy had shrunk by 10%! Currency exchange rates are very volatile. Developed economies, for the most part, are not.
 
No kidding. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

That which you quoted is a very good thing..

No, it's not a decline. It's not that people will go without the products that they would've imported, they'll just buy them somewhere domestically. And the increase in exports will create more domestic jobs, which would be a net plus to the economy to cancel any net minus from the loss of imports.

This is the bad thing.. Its actually a good thing, but it will feel like a bad thing when US inflation is at an exceptional high level.

Clinton certainly helped it by favoring an explosion of free trade, but in the end it was mostly just luck. Clinton was president when communism had just collapsed and the internet was becoming prominent.

Luck, yeah sure.. Thats why everything started looking good a time after Clinton entered office, and imrpoved as long as he was there..

Then Bush came to office and lowered taxes and introduced economical madness and neglect. Everytihing pointed downwards and the relative US economy has gone backwards during the Bush term. EXCEPT Gdp per capita that has just slowed down, but not decreased.

The idea that the President can control the short-term state of the economy is just silly. What exactly do you think he can do?

I dont know, he can have a responsible fiscal policy, spend things on healthy issues instead of wars for example.. Since 2000, the US have spent about 200 billion a year extra in everage on war and the military. Now this over say 6 years since we exclude 2000, is about 1.2 trillion$ that could have been spent better.. Now that is half a US government spending.. Us government spending for your information is around 2.5 trillion$ annually. The US GDP is over 10 trillion, yes..
Now, dont you think a president have some power over the economy?


1. 250 billion is chump change compared to the size of the US economy. Of course it can be put to better use; that doesn't mean that the amount of money spent has the slightest impact on the US economy.
2. Corporate welfare is a stupid economic policy. Why in the world should the government "stimulate US businesses"?
3. The government can't just write a check to increase exports, as I've already mentioned.

1. No its not, its 1/10th of government budget/spending. Imagine if that money was spent on social issues instead, the US would look completely different today. Imagine if that money was spent to subsidise renewable energy or environmental friendly technology.. Things would be completely different..
2. Not corporate welfare, corporate insentives.. Imagine GM getting paid to switch from fossil to environmental friendly energy in their cars..just one example there of possibly millions. Now, what could 250 billion do in R&D?
3. I never said that.


Congress controls the budget here, not the President.
Fair enough, but the president shouldt have asked congress for so much extra on war and military.

The value of the euro doesn't matter, it's the change in the value of the euro. Has it appreciated relative to all other currencies?

Basically, yes it has.. But mostly it has apreciated against the dollar which is our main export market. Of course the Euro value matters greatly.. Any given thing now bought from the US is about 50% cheaper than it was at the low point of the Euro. Big difference between 1€ being worth 1.35$ and one that is only worth 0.8$ which it was at the lowest point.


I hereby award you a BS in Statistics. :roll:

Lol, perhaps you should try to understand what i am actually saying the instead of giving me that award because of your lack of knowledge.

If you measure every GDP in the world in terms of your home currency, you'll get a distorted view of the actual purchasing power of various countries. By this logic, if the US dollar depreciated by 10% against the Euro in a single year (not unusual), it would mean that the US economy had shrunk by 10%! Currency exchange rates are very volatile. Developed economies, for the most part, are not.

What you have to understand is that the world is now a two(big) currency market, not 1 like it has been since the 1970s. This is a HUGE difference. GDP and numbers have always been compared in USD, they still are. And when the Euro fluctuate against the dollar, this doesnt mean that nothing happens like you wish. It means an appreciation of the whole European economy, and a decline of the US economy. Remember those 850 billion$ annually the US is strugelling with? The relationship between that, the value of the dollar and the value of the Euro and the Euro area difference is all related.
The REAL value of the dollar is shown when the dollar reach that level that will even out imports and export. That is the REAL/Natural value of the dollar against other currencies. The two currency market has brought huge changes to the whole world economy that it makes this MUCH more obvious and visible, before the US could basically maniupate the dollar like they wanted. Now they cannot anymore, and it means the US economy will be valued in REAL terms against other economies when the dollar hits its natural value..

The Euro is at natural value, because Eurozone imports and exports have a difference of about 0 annually. +- a few billions.
The Pound is overvalued the same way the dollar is.

Lets theoretically say that the REAL value of the dollar is 1.65$ = 1€.. The real value again is when Imports and exports in the US have no difference in value, thats when the dollar is "correctly" valued.. Now.. The EU economy was 10.9 trillion € after Romania and Bulgaria joined, which was start of 2007. The dollar VS the €uro at the time was something like 1.25. That means the EU economy was worth 13.625 trillion $, this is because for comparison economists use the dollar(i could also use the € to demonstrate the exact same thing). With a value that is 1.65 dollars for 1 Euro, the EU economy would be valued at 18 trillion $.. So in reality, the dollar was just overvalued the whole time, and the European economy if measured in the REAL dollar value is something like 18 trillion$..
Now, here is the clue why this is so... Im not saying production in the EU all of the sudden raised 5 trillion. I am just saying that the valuation of that production has changed, and thats very important in a market with two large currencies that have to fit imports and exports of the representative countries.

But the Eurozone is not the whole EU economy, it only represent about 90% of it.. But anyways, the numbers are pretty accurate. And the case would be the same, just -10%.

But, I guess, you Americans just want to keep measuring everyting in 2000 value dollars.. :lol:
 
This is the bad thing.. Its actually a good thing, but it will feel like a bad thing when US inflation is at an exceptional high level.

I see no reason to expect inflation will grow to an exceptionally high level as a result of this. Just the usual increase in inflation that accompanies a decrease in unemployment.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Luck, yeah sure.. Thats why everything started looking good a time after Clinton entered office, and imrpoved as long as he was there..

Then Bush came to office and lowered taxes and introduced economical madness and neglect. Everytihing pointed downwards and the relative US economy has gone backwards during the Bush term. EXCEPT Gdp per capita that has just slowed down, but not decreased.

Clinton's policies were better for the economy in the long term, but crediting anything he did with the state of the economy in the 1990s is absolutely absurd. I know that you became an expert on the American political system in your six months living here, but you seem to forget that this isn't a socialist economy and the government has minimal control over the short-term state of the economy.

Maximus Zeebra said:
I dont know, he can have a responsible fiscal policy, spend things on healthy issues instead of wars for example.. Since 2000, the US have spent about 200 billion a year extra in everage on war and the military. Now this over say 6 years since we exclude 2000, is about 1.2 trillion$ that could have been spent better.. Now that is half a US government spending.

Why are you comparing wasteful spending over 6 years to total spending over 1 year? Never mind, I already know the answer. :roll:

Maximus Zeebra said:
Us government spending for your information is around 2.5 trillion$ annually. The US GDP is over 10 trillion, yes..
Now, dont you think a president have some power over the economy?

No. He's not the controller of the federal budget, and even if he was, his impact on the economy would still be very small.

Maximus Zeebra said:
1. No its not, its 1/10th of government budget/spending. Imagine if that money was spent on social issues instead, the US would look completely different today. Imagine if that money was spent to subsidise renewable energy or environmental friendly technology.. Things would be completely different..

Of course those would be better uses of the money. That doesn't change the fact that they would still make absolutely no difference to the short-term state of the economy.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Not corporate welfare, corporate insentives.. Imagine GM getting paid to switch from fossil to environmental friendly energy in their cars..just one example there of possibly millions. Now, what could 250 billion do in R&D?

See previous response.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Basically, yes it has.. But mostly it has apreciated against the dollar which is our main export market. Of course the Euro value matters greatly.. Any given thing now bought from the US is about 50% cheaper than it was at the low point of the Euro. Big difference between 1€ being worth 1.35$ and one that is only worth 0.8$ which it was at the lowest point.

Just keep repeating the numbers that I haven't disputed, rather than explaining why it's a bad thing for the US economy. :roll:

Maximus Zeebra said:
What you have to understand is that the world is now a two(big) currency market, not 1 like it has been since the 1970s.

No, there are MANY currencies. The fact that two of them are bigger than the others doesn't make it a "two currency market." That is just nonsense.

Maximus Zeebra said:
This is a HUGE difference. GDP and numbers have always been compared in USD, they still are. And when the Euro fluctuate against the dollar, this doesnt mean that nothing happens like you wish. It means an appreciation of the whole European economy, and a decline of the US economy.

No it doesn't. There's no reason that depreciation against the euro would destroy the US economy, in fact it would bring in a lot more cash from the EU.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Remember those 850 billion$ annually the US is strugelling with? The relationship between that, the value of the dollar and the value of the Euro and the Euro area difference is all related.
The REAL value of the dollar is shown when the dollar reach that level that will even out imports and export. That is the REAL/Natural value of the dollar against other currencies.

No, the real value of the dollar is whatever the market is willing to pay for it. What you're suggesting doesn't even make sense, because there's no way that every currency in the world could be trading at the exact value where it's imports/exports are balanced.

Maximus Zeebra said:
The two currency market has brought huge changes to the whole world economy that it makes this MUCH more obvious and visible, before the US could basically maniupate the dollar like they wanted. Now they cannot anymore, and it means the US economy will be valued in REAL terms against other economies when the dollar hits its natural value.

:shock:
I don't even know what to say to this. This is far, far removed from anything resembling economics...

Maximus Zeebra said:
The Euro is at natural value, because Eurozone imports and exports have a difference of about 0 annually. +- a few billions.
The Pound is overvalued the same way the dollar is.

If you know the value of various currencies better than the free market does, then I suggest you short-sell pounds and dollars. You'll become rich overnight. :roll:

Maximus Zeebra said:
Lets theoretically say that the REAL value of the dollar is 1.65$ = 1€.. The real value again is when Imports and exports in the US have no difference in value, thats when the dollar is "correctly" valued.. Now.. The EU economy was 10.9 trillion € after Romania and Bulgaria joined, which was start of 2007. The dollar VS the €uro at the time was something like 1.25. That means the EU economy was worth 13.625 trillion $, this is because for comparison economists use the dollar(i could also use the € to demonstrate the exact same thing). With a value that is 1.65 dollars for 1 Euro, the EU economy would be valued at 18 trillion $.. So in reality, the dollar was just overvalued the whole time, and the European economy if measured in the REAL dollar value is something like 18 trillion$..
Now, here is the clue why this is so... Im not saying production in the EU all of the sudden raised 5 trillion. I am just saying that the valuation of that production has changed, and thats very important in a market with two large currencies that have to fit imports and exports of the representative countries.

But the Eurozone is not the whole EU economy, it only represent about 90% of it.. But anyways, the numbers are pretty accurate. And the case would be the same, just -10%.

You're still suggesting that a depreciation of one currency relative to another spells an economic collapse for that currency. Suppose I want to measure the dollar relative to the Mexican peso. It's been appreciating for over a decade. Does that mean that the US economy has grown by double-digit percentages every year? If not, what makes the Euro so special?

Maximus Zeebra said:
But, I guess, you Americans just want to keep measuring everyting in 2000 value dollars.. :lol:

I prefer to let the free market decide the value of currencies, as I am not an authoritarian statist.
 
Hay Maximus the U.S. has alot of sway in OPEC through the Saudi's oil is tied to the $ and nobody is going to put faith in a petro-euro because Europe doesn't have the military to defend it, and anyways the FED. is intentionally undervaluing U.S. currency which the Chinese have adequately proven is a trading and economic benefit.
 
Last edited:
And yet another thread to demonstrate the frailty of the European mind. The whole "look at me...we're trying to emerge from our leaching era" is pathetic and played out. It's like you have so much social and historical disfunction in your midst that you cling to any measure that might mean a silver lining.

The value of Currency will rise and fall and rise and fall in a capitalistic system, especially when it is global encompassing. The sad thing here is how Europeans had to combine their economies into one in order to compete at all. But socialism has always failed in the past and it even took a turn for the worst in some nations. The welfare states of Europe won't last and out of work individuals can't rely on free hand outs forever.

Get over it and stop pretending to care about what America does. This individual need to compete with America for everything (mirroring French diplomacy) is a psychological personal break down.
 
Last edited:
I see no reason to expect inflation will grow to an exceptionally high level as a result of this. Just the usual increase in inflation that accompanies a decrease in unemployment.

Its not certain, but when demand will remain, prices hike and supply dry out, the demand will follow, or the US economy have to compensate somehow.. This would probably be to produce more of that stuff you need back home instead, but that isnt done overnight.. So then your dollar keeps falling, prices for your imports go up, and you have to pay more for the same.. Now, how is that not going to affect inflation?

Clinton's policies were better for the economy in the long term, but crediting anything he did with the state of the economy in the 1990s is absolutely absurd. I know that you became an expert on the American political system in your six months living here, but you seem to forget that this isn't a socialist economy and the government has minimal control over the short-term state of the economy.

You have this wonderful tendency to ignore what I am REALLY saying and misunderstand my messages.. Of course Clinton was single handedly responsible for the US 1990s economic miracle.. No one else was, just and ONLY Clinton did that alone.. He wouldnt even need a US population or companies, he could do all that alone.

Why are you comparing wasteful spending over 6 years to total spending over 1 year? Never mind, I already know the answer. :roll:

Because wasteful spending is wasteful spending, and you have absolutely no understanding of how much have been wasted during the Bush term.. So someone have to tell you..


No. He's not the controller of the federal budget, and even if he was, his impact on the economy would still be very small.

again you try as best you can to misunderstand and you succeed in that..

Of course those would be better uses of the money. That doesn't change the fact that they would still make absolutely no difference to the short-term state of the economy.

Everything matters in the economy, short term and long term..


Just keep repeating the numbers that I haven't disputed, rather than explaining why it's a bad thing for the US economy. :roll:

I didnt say it was a bad thing for the US economy.. I said it was the right thing for the US economy. Maybe you should actually start reading my posts??
:2wave:

No, there are MANY currencies. The fact that two of them are bigger than the others doesn't make it a "two currency market." That is just nonsense.

Of course there are, but there are only two major ones, just 10 years ago there was only 1 major currency.. There are two major ones and five important ones.. The major ones are the dollar and the Euro, the important ones besides those are the Yen, the Pound and the Swizz Franc.
But its still a two currency market, before it was a one currency market.

No it doesn't. There's no reason that depreciation against the euro would destroy the US economy, in fact it would bring in a lot more cash from the EU.

Im not saying the Euro will destroy the US economy.. I am just saying its great for US and that our economy just will be so much more appreciated, and correctly appreciated against the US economy when the US dollar hits its REAL value.

No, the real value of the dollar is whatever the market is willing to pay for it. What you're suggesting doesn't even make sense, because there's no way that every currency in the world could be trading at the exact value where it's imports/exports are balanced.

No its not, the REAL value of the currency is when export and imports are about equal.. What you are talking about is market value..
Dont come here and tell me that the real value of google who have a revenue of 5 billion is 400 billion just because the stock market says so.. Thats the market value, not the real value.. In the end, the market value will ALWAYS become more and more the same as the REAL value.

In the US, the market tends to overvalue things, while in Europe its valued pretty REAL. In China its undervalued just like their currency..

The REAL value of the Chinese ramibi like the dollar is when exports and imports in China is about equal. So currently the Chinese currency is undervalued while the dollar is overvalued. US trade deficit with Europe is about 90 billion€ every year, this means that the US have to adjust the dollar to make that around 0.. And then China have to adjust their currency to reduce European trade deficit(and at the same time US trade deficit)..

So actually the best thing would be if both China and US changed their currencies around the Euro, as this would be the easiest way to reach the REAL value..

Do you btw understand the concept of GDP ppp and GDP? and how this is related to currencies? The Chinese if they revalue their currency to a REAL value their economy is an 8 trillion $ economy and not a 2 trillion dollar economy like it is now.. Are you saying that such a change is irrelevant and that it should always be measured in 2000 value dollars?

The US economy is overvalued, the Chinese one is undervalued..
The US dollar is falling, and revaluing the US economy against mainly the European economy at the same time.. The European economy is appreciated, the US depreciated.. Now the last step is to appreciate the Chinese economy a whole 400% and that is the Chinese currency that needs to do this..

It will all fit in the end man, but you obviously dont understand the concept of REAL value..


If you know the value of various currencies better than the free market does, then I suggest you short-sell pounds and dollars. You'll become rich overnight. :roll:

I just know that if I was American I would surely put some of my savings in other currencies as well, especially the Euro and the Swizz Franc. Setting them in the Chinese currency is a risk, but could potentially double your money twice if the Chinese currency is correctly revalued.


You're still suggesting that a depreciation of one currency relative to another spells an economic collapse for that currency. Suppose I want to measure the dollar relative to the Mexican peso. It's been appreciating for over a decade. Does that mean that the US economy has grown by double-digit percentages every year? If not, what makes the Euro so special?

Every economy in the world is now appreciating in comparison to the US.. Think of it as a slowly bursting dot-com bubble. Its not that the Euro is appreciating the most that is the point. The point here is that the US economy is depreciated.. Its difficult to see the big picture in this, especially for a US patriot, but your economy is undergoing a HUGE decline as we speak.

I prefer to let the free market decide the value of currencies, as I am not an authoritarian statist.

Yeah, I prefer that too, but you know the funny thing, usually the market will always realize the REAL value of things, like they are doing now with the US economy..



Ps. If you have any stocks in google I would suggest slowly selling them off now, before the market realize the real value of it and burst it like the dot-com market.
 
Its not certain, but when demand will remain, prices hike and supply dry out, the demand will follow, or the US economy have to compensate somehow.. This would probably be to produce more of that stuff you need back home instead, but that isnt done overnight.. So then your dollar keeps falling, prices for your imports go up, and you have to pay more for the same.. Now, how is that not going to affect inflation?

This is just the usual inflation that accompanies a decline in unemployment resulting from more exports. Nothing unusual.

Maximus Zeebra said:
You have this wonderful tendency to ignore what I am REALLY saying and misunderstand my messages.. Of course Clinton was single handedly responsible for the US 1990s economic miracle.. No one else was, just and ONLY Clinton did that alone.. He wouldnt even need a US population or companies, he could do all that alone.

Yes, because Clinton was a communist dictator who had total control over the US economy. :roll:

Maximus Zeebra said:
Because wasteful spending is wasteful spending, and you have absolutely no understanding of how much have been wasted during the Bush term.. So someone have to tell you..

1. It is dishonest beyond belief to compare wasteful spending over six years to total spending over one year. At least compare like with like.

2. Please show how changing wasteful spending to useful spending would improve the short-term economy dramatically. And don't just give me a laundry list of what you'd spend the money on, and why it's good. Answer the question.

Maximus Zeebra said:
I didnt say it was a bad thing for the US economy.. I said it was the right thing for the US economy. Maybe you should actually start reading my posts??
:2wave:

Umm no
The entire theme of this thread, just like with every other one of your threads, is how America sucks and is doomed to fail. If you think this is the "right thing for the US economy," what exactly is your point in this thread?

Maximus Zeebra said:
Of course there are, but there are only two major ones, just 10 years ago there was only 1 major currency.. There are two major ones and five important ones.. The major ones are the dollar and the Euro, the important ones besides those are the Yen, the Pound and the Swizz Franc.
But its still a two currency market, before it was a one currency market.

No it's not. That's like saying that the New York Stock Exchange is a two-stock market - Wal-Mart and Exxon - because two of the stocks happen to be larger than any of the others.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Im not saying the Euro will destroy the US economy.. I am just saying its great for US and that our economy just will be so much more appreciated, and correctly appreciated against the US economy when the US dollar hits its REAL value.

Actually that's not what you were saying. But if you want to backtrack in shame because you're losing an argument, that's fine.

Maximus Zeebra said:
No its not, the REAL value of the currency is when export and imports are about equal.. What you are talking about is market value..
Dont come here and tell me that the real value of google who have a revenue of 5 billion is 400 billion just because the stock market says so.. Thats the market value, not the real value.. In the end, the market value will ALWAYS become more and more the same as the REAL value.

Once again, here is the belief that YOU know the value of things better than the market does. Do you have a portfolio where you constantly outperform the market? If not, why not? You seem to know the true value of everything.

Maximus Zeebra said:
In the US, the market tends to overvalue things, while in Europe its valued pretty REAL. In China its undervalued just like their currency.

No, that's just a result of different accounting standards in the US and Europe. US income statements often overstate earnings for their stockholders, and European income statements often understate earnings for their banks and governments. Doesn't mean that one is overvalued or undervalued, as long as the investor/creditor has access to the information that they need.

Maximus Zeebra said:
The REAL value of the Chinese ramibi like the dollar is when exports and imports in China is about equal. So currently the Chinese currency is undervalued while the dollar is overvalued. US trade deficit with Europe is about 90 billion€ every year, this means that the US have to adjust the dollar to make that around 0.. And then China have to adjust their currency to reduce European trade deficit(and at the same time US trade deficit)..

So actually the best thing would be if both China and US changed their currencies around the Euro, as this would be the easiest way to reach the REAL value..

And why is reaching "real value" - as you define it - an inherently good thing?

Maximus Zeebra said:
Do you btw understand the concept of GDP ppp and GDP? and how this is related to currencies?

Yes, but apparently you do not, as you tried to measure the US economy in euros, and then claimed that the US economy was collapsing as a result of a fluctuating exchange rate. :roll:

Maximus Zeebra said:
The Chinese if they revalue their currency to a REAL value their economy is an 8 trillion $ economy and not a 2 trillion dollar economy like it is now.. Are you saying that such a change is irrelevant and that it should always be measured in 2000 value dollars?

Who the **** besides you even MENTIONED 2000 value dollars? Certainly not me.

Maximus Zeebra said:
I just know that if I was American I would surely put some of my savings in other currencies as well, especially the Euro and the Swizz Franc. Setting them in the Chinese currency is a risk, but could potentially double your money twice if the Chinese currency is correctly revalued.

You don't have to be an American to make money off a depreciating dollar. Just sell the dollar short. Put your money where your mouth is.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Every economy in the world is now appreciating in comparison to the US.

Not true. I just gave an example of one that isn't.

According to your logic, if the dollar appreciates against the Mexican peso by 10% and depreciates against the Euro by 10% in a given year, the US economy has both gained and lost 10% of its value. :roll:

Maximus Zeebra said:
Think of it as a slowly bursting dot-com bubble. Its not that the Euro is appreciating the most that is the point. The point here is that the US economy is depreciated.. Its difficult to see the big picture in this, especially for a US patriot, but your economy is undergoing a HUGE decline as we speak.

I think I'd notice if the economy was undergoing a huge decline. But we appreciate your concern. :lol:

Maximus Zeebra said:
Yeah, I prefer that too, but you know the funny thing, usually the market will always realize the REAL value of things, like they are doing now with the US economy..

Then short sell the dollar, you'll become rich.

Maximus Zeebra said:
Ps. If you have any stocks in google I would suggest slowly selling them off now, before the market realize the real value of it and burst it like the dot-com market.

If you had any understanding of economics, you'd realize that free markets (stocks, free exchange currencies, etc) are efficient, and you can't beat the market in the long run. The stockholders have taken into account all public information about the company when determining the price of the stock. So unless you know something that the rest of Google's stockholders don't, your assertion has no basis.

Why do you think that even people who have studied the stock market their entire lives don't consistently outperform the index? Even the few who do are just lucky, as there seems to be no common pattern to their investment strategies.
 
Hay Maximus the U.S. has alot of sway in OPEC through the Saudi's oil is tied to the $ and nobody is going to put faith in a petro-euro because Europe doesn't have the military to defend it, and anyways the FED. is intentionally undervaluing U.S. currency which the Chinese have adequately proven is a trading and economic benefit.

:2funny:


The dollar isnt undervalued, its still way overvalued. You can see that by the differences in exports and imports. China have an undervalued currency, and you can also see that in exports and imports differences.
In dollar terms the Chinese economy is still just 2 trillion, while the real value is about 8 trillion.

Now, this means the Chinese economy is seriously undervalued while the US economy is overvalued. So in reality, when the dollar and the Ramibi hits the right values, it will be like this.

US economy 13.5 trillion $
Chinese economy 8 trillion $
Eurozone economy 16 trillion $
EU economy 19 trillion $

Thats when the euro hits 1.65 against the dollar.. Thats about the time US exports and imports should approximately equal.

Well, the petro age is over.
 
Get over it and stop pretending to care about what America does. This individual need to compete with America for everything (mirroring French diplomacy) is a psychological personal break down.

Yeah, you guys in the US are too ***** to handle any real competition, so you let the value of the dollar fall and make the US economy smaller and smaller compared to the Euro economy.

The US economy is shrinking against almost all economies..
 
:2funny:


The dollar isnt undervalued, its still way overvalued. You can see that by the differences in exports and imports.

Umm you have no idea what you're talking about the U.S. increased the money supply which decreased the value and our interest rates.

China have an undervalued currency, and you can also see that in exports and imports differences.

What effect does the trade deficit have on the value of currency exactly?

In dollar terms the Chinese economy is still just 2 trillion, while the real value is about 8 trillion.

Where are you getting this stuff from?

Now, this means the Chinese economy is seriously undervalued while the US economy is overvalued. So in reality, when the dollar and the Ramibi hits the right values, it will be like this.

US economy 13.5 trillion $
Chinese economy 8 trillion $
Eurozone economy 16 trillion $
EU economy 19 trillion $

Thats when the euro hits 1.65 against the dollar.. Thats about the time US exports and imports should approximately equal.

Well, the petro age is over.

Your grasp of the economy is starteling, tell me have you ever heard of the service industry? The U.S. is a service based economy, and the trade deficit has nothing to do with the value of currency, the U.S. has intentionally decreased the value of its currency by increasing the money supply in order to lower interest rates. Infact as Friedman would have it a large trade deficit is actually a signal that the currency of a nation is strong and desirable infact a trade deficit is a good thing in that it implies that consumers have an opportunity to buy more goods at lower prices that otherwise they would not get to consume, and inversely a trade surplus implies that a country is exporting goods its own citizens did not get while paying higher prices for goods that they actually did receive.
 
Yeah, you guys in the US are too ***** to handle any real competition, so you let the value of the dollar fall and make the US economy smaller and smaller compared to the Euro economy.

The US economy is shrinking against almost all economies..

Brilliant rebuttal, chief. Why do you always repeat the same thing over and over, after I've already demolished your argument? At least if you came up with some new irrational stuff from time to time, I could have a little fun taking them apart. But it gets tedious to try to explain the same things to you over and over again.
 
I have never seen someone get owned in a thread this bad, and still continue on....You are either very stubborn, or you got alot of heart Maximus......
 
I have never seen someone get owned in a thread this bad, and still continue on....You are either very stubborn, or you got alot of heart Maximus......

hate is a powerful emotion.

Love is blind. Hate is deaf and dumb.
 
I have never seen someone get owned in a thread this bad, and still continue on....You are either very stubborn, or you got alot of heart Maximus......

Personally I think he's the Rocky Balboa of anti-Americanism. "It's not how hard you hit, its how hard you can get hit and keep movin' forward and makin stuff up"
 
Umm you have no idea what you're talking about the U.S. increased the money supply which decreased the value and our interest rates.



What effect does the trade deficit have on the value of currency exactly?



Where are you getting this stuff from?



Your grasp of the economy is starteling, tell me have you ever heard of the service industry? The U.S. is a service based economy, and the trade deficit has nothing to do with the value of currency, the U.S. has intentionally decreased the value of its currency by increasing the money supply in order to lower interest rates. Infact as Friedman would have it a large trade deficit is actually a signal that the currency of a nation is strong and desirable infact a trade deficit is a good thing in that it implies that consumers have an opportunity to buy more goods at lower prices that otherwise they would not get to consume, and inversely a trade surplus implies that a country is exporting goods its own citizens did not get while paying higher prices for goods that they actually did receive.

Maybe its time to do some more economic research? Perhaps you should take some kind of course in basic economics.
 
Maybe its time to do some more economic research? Perhaps you should take some kind of course in basic economics.

I've taken Macro and Micro and read alot about the subject so much so that I know the trade deficit has nothing to do with the value of currency and that the value of currency is determined by the amount of money supply and the size of the GDP.
 
Back
Top Bottom