Death of the Dollar 'Exaggerated'

MoneyNews | Wed, Jan. 2, 2008

Reports of the dollar's demise are greatly exaggerated.

The greenback's drop last year - it fell 10 percent against the euro
and 6 percent against the yen - led some to speculate that the
dollar's reign as the world's prime reserve currency is ending.

Just this week, the International Monetary Fund reported that the
portion of official global foreign exchange reserves held in dollars
slipped to 63.8 percent in the third quarter from 66.5 percent in the
same period a year earlier.

Meanwhile the euro's share of reserves gained to 26.4 percent from
24.4 percent in 2006.

Meg Browne, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman,
says much of the increased portion of reserves in euros merely
reflects the European currency's 5 percent gain against the dollar in
the third quarter, as the reserves themselves are measured in dollars.

"We tend to downplay reserve diversification," she says of the
currency desk at Brown Brothers.

It's not as if foreign central banks are cutting their dollar
holdings, she says. Central banks are merely putting some of their
reserves into euros as well.

Some of the money being held in euros, too, is interest earned off
dollar holdings, Browne notes.

"It's not a zero sum game," she says.

The euro already constituted a reserve currency when it was introduced
in 1999, as it replaced individual European currencies that had been
used as reserve currencies. But the common European currency isn't
about to overtake the dollar's dominant role.

When the greenback started dropping in earnest at the outbreak of the
subprime mortgage crisis this summer, talk was rife that Asian and
Mideast central banks would exit the dollar en masse.

But it's not that simple. For Mideast oil producers to start charging
in currencies other than dollars would be self-defeating.

That's because the hundreds of billions of dollars their central banks
already hold would plummet in value. The Chinese central bank would
suffer a similar fate if it suddenly started dumping greenbacks.

"China is trying to establish itself as long-term investor," Browne
says. "So getting out of dollars doesn't make sense. It would just
make things worse."

Foreign investors as a whole indeed lightened up on some U.S.
holdings. They were net sellers of long-term U.S. financial assets in
the third quarter, with monthly sales averaging $11.8 billion.

But major exporters to the U.S., such as China and Mideast oil
nations, have so many dollars running into their coffers that total
central bank holdings of dollars actually increased in the third
quarter -- to $2.45 trillion in September from $2.08 trillion a year
before.

It's just that central banks increased their euro holdings even more.

What's happening is that countries such as China and the Mideast oil
producers are shifting how their dollars are invested, turning away
from Treasuries and grabbing stakes in troubled financial giants, such
as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.

The dollar's share of global reserves may actually increase this year
if the currency itself rebounds.

"Who's to say the dollar will weaken this year?" Browne asks
rhetorically. "We think it will strengthen, as the U.S. will be
rewarded for pro-growth policies."

Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today to
what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most items--or
before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which will
not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
who will restrain it.

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/Paul3.htm

William Flax
 wrote in message
news:65bc9996-7449-4111-b9d9-83c5aad606e7@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Death of the Dollar 'Exaggerated'
>
> MoneyNews | Wed, Jan. 2, 2008
>
> Reports of the dollar's demise are greatly exaggerated.
>
> The greenback's drop last year - it fell 10 percent against the euro
> and 6 percent against the yen - led some to speculate that the
> dollar's reign as the world's prime reserve currency is ending.
>
> Just this week, the International Monetary Fund reported that the
> portion of official global foreign exchange reserves held in dollars
> slipped to 63.8 percent in the third quarter from 66.5 percent in the
> same period a year earlier.
>
> Meanwhile the euro's share of reserves gained to 26.4 percent from
> 24.4 percent in 2006.
>
> Meg Browne, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman,
> says much of the increased portion of reserves in euros merely
> reflects the European currency's 5 percent gain against the dollar in
> the third quarter, as the reserves themselves are measured in dollars.
>
> "We tend to downplay reserve diversification," she says of the
> currency desk at Brown Brothers.
>
> It's not as if foreign central banks are cutting their dollar
> holdings, she says. Central banks are merely putting some of their
> reserves into euros as well.
>
> Some of the money being held in euros, too, is interest earned off
> dollar holdings, Browne notes.
>
> "It's not a zero sum game," she says.
>
> The euro already constituted a reserve currency when it was introduced
> in 1999, as it replaced individual European currencies that had been
> used as reserve currencies. But the common European currency isn't
> about to overtake the dollar's dominant role.
>
> When the greenback started dropping in earnest at the outbreak of the
> subprime mortgage crisis this summer, talk was rife that Asian and
> Mideast central banks would exit the dollar en masse.
>
> But it's not that simple. For Mideast oil producers to start charging
> in currencies other than dollars would be self-defeating.
>
> That's because the hundreds of billions of dollars their central banks
> already hold would plummet in value. The Chinese central bank would
> suffer a similar fate if it suddenly started dumping greenbacks.
>
> "China is trying to establish itself as long-term investor," Browne
> says. "So getting out of dollars doesn't make sense. It would just
> make things worse."
>
> Foreign investors as a whole indeed lightened up on some U.S.
> holdings. They were net sellers of long-term U.S. financial assets in
> the third quarter, with monthly sales averaging $11.8 billion.
>
> But major exporters to the U.S., such as China and Mideast oil
> nations, have so many dollars running into their coffers that total
> central bank holdings of dollars actually increased in the third
> quarter -- to $2.45 trillion in September from $2.08 trillion a year
> before.
>
> It's just that central banks increased their euro holdings even more.
>
> What's happening is that countries such as China and the Mideast oil
> producers are shifting how their dollars are invested, turning away
> from Treasuries and grabbing stakes in troubled financial giants, such
> as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.
>
> The dollar's share of global reserves may actually increase this year
> if the currency itself rebounds.
>
> "Who's to say the dollar will weaken this year?" Browne asks
> rhetorically. "We think it will strengthen, as the U.S. will be
> rewarded for pro-growth policies."

On Jan 5, 2:22 pm, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> Death of the Dollar 'Exaggerated'
>
> MoneyNews | Wed, Jan. 2, 2008
>
> Reports of the dollar's demise are greatly exaggerated.
>
> The greenback's drop last year - it fell 10 percent against the euro
> and 6 percent against the yen - led some to speculate that the
> dollar's reign as the world's prime reserve currency is ending.
>
> Just this week, the International Monetary Fund reported that the
> portion of official global foreign exchange reserves held in dollars
> slipped to 63.8 percent in the third quarter from 66.5 percent in the
> same period a year earlier.
>
> Meanwhile the euro's share of reserves gained to 26.4 percent from
> 24.4 percent in 2006.
>
> Meg Browne, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman,
> says much of the increased portion of reserves in euros merely
> reflects the European currency's 5 percent gain against the dollar in
> the third quarter, as the reserves themselves are measured in dollars.
>
> "We tend to downplay reserve diversification," she says of the
> currency desk at Brown Brothers.
>
> It's not as if foreign central banks are cutting their dollar
> holdings, she says. Central banks are merely putting some of their
> reserves into euros as well.
>
> Some of the money being held in euros, too, is interest earned off
> dollar holdings, Browne notes.
>
> "It's not a zero sum game," she says.
>
> The euro already constituted a reserve currency when it was introduced
> in 1999, as it replaced individual European currencies that had been
> used as reserve currencies. But the common European currency isn't
> about to overtake the dollar's dominant role.
>
> When the greenback started dropping in earnest at the outbreak of the
> subprime mortgage crisis this summer, talk was rife that Asian and
> Mideast central banks would exit the dollar en masse.
>
> But it's not that simple. For Mideast oil producers to start charging
> in currencies other than dollars would be self-defeating.
>
> That's because the hundreds of billions of dollars their central banks
> already hold would plummet in value. The Chinese central bank would
> suffer a similar fate if it suddenly started dumping greenbacks.
>
> "China is trying to establish itself as long-term investor," Browne
> says. "So getting out of dollars doesn't make sense. It would just
> make things worse."
>
> Foreign investors as a whole indeed lightened up on some U.S.
> holdings. They were net sellers of long-term U.S. financial assets in
> the third quarter, with monthly sales averaging $11.8 billion.
>
> But major exporters to the U.S., such as China and Mideast oil
> nations, have so many dollars running into their coffers that total
> central bank holdings of dollars actually increased in the third
> quarter -- to $2.45 trillion in September from $2.08 trillion a year
> before.
>
> It's just that central banks increased their euro holdings even more.
>
> What's happening is that countries such as China and the Mideast oil
> producers are shifting how their dollars are invested, turning away
> from Treasuries and grabbing stakes in troubled financial giants, such
> as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.
>
> The dollar's share of global reserves may actually increase this year
> if the currency itself rebounds.
>
> "Who's to say the dollar will weaken this year?" Browne asks
> rhetorically. "We think it will strengthen, as the U.S. will be
> rewarded for pro-growth policies."

IThe buck is not dead; though (imho) it is unstable & has been
steadily weakening.

The Canadian looney, the Rupee, the Chinese money, and the Euro seem
to be where the U.S. strong dollar was.

The USA also needs to discover & control the patents to somethings of
"more value" than gold, oil, and all the usual commodities.

What would that be?

fuel cell
solar cell
nano-tech stuff
massive & cheap de-salinization
perhaps via biotech, actual cures for cancer, aids, malaria, various
addictions, etal
re-land on moon, and excavate some yellowish cheese for better
cheeeseburgers w/ pepsis
what else ?
schmoo: see "Lil Abner"  or Al Capp

William Flax wrote:
> Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
> currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today to
> what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most items--or
> before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
> cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which will
> not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
> who will restrain it.
> 

That "restraint" directly caused the Great Depression.

<snip>
--
Les Cargill

"Les Cargill"  wrote in message 
news:47801364$0$4979$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> William Flax wrote:
>> Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
>> currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today 
>> to
>> what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most 
>> items--or
>> before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
>> cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which 
>> will
>> not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
>> who will restrain it.
>>
>
> That "restraint" directly caused the Great Depression.
>
Which was what it took to counter indirect causes of the Great Depression. 
It is like blaming symptoms of a withdrawal on the absence of drugs.
e.

Econotron wrote:
> "Les Cargill"  wrote in message 
> news:47801364$0$4979$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> William Flax wrote:
>>> Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
>>> currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today 
>>> to
>>> what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most 
>>> items--or
>>> before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
>>> cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which 
>>> will
>>> not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
>>> who will restrain it.
>>>
>> That "restraint" directly caused the Great Depression.
>>
> Which was what it took to counter indirect causes of the Great Depression. 
> It is like blaming symptoms of a withdrawal on the absence of drugs.
> e. 
> 
> 

What could possibly be served by limiting the money supply? If people
weren't bags of fear, the Fed could increase the money supply to meet
GDP growth and prices need not rise. GDP does actually grow - the
world isn't zero sum. If you think it is, buy gold and despair
when it turn out to be a lousy investment.

http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx

That trendline is *down*.

The more apt analogy is the blame starvation on the absence of
food. Sorry - your thesis here runs quite contrary to direct
examination of the historical record.

--
Les Cargill

On Jan 5, 11:22 am, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> Death of the Dollar 'Exaggerated'
>
> MoneyNews | Wed, Jan. 2, 2008
>
> Reports of the dollar's demise are greatly exaggerated.
>
> The greenback's drop last year - it fell 10 percent against the euro
> and 6 percent against the yen - led some to speculate that the
> dollar's reign as the world's prime reserve currency is ending.
>
> Just this week, the International Monetary Fund reported that the
> portion of official global foreign exchange reserves held in dollars
> slipped to 63.8 percent in the third quarter from 66.5 percent in the
> same period a year earlier.
>
> Meanwhile the euro's share of reserves gained to 26.4 percent from
> 24.4 percent in 2006.
>
> Meg Browne, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman,
> says much of the increased portion of reserves in euros merely
> reflects the European currency's 5 percent gain against the dollar in
> the third quarter, as the reserves themselves are measured in dollars.
>
> "We tend to downplay reserve diversification," she says of the
> currency desk at Brown Brothers.
>
> It's not as if foreign central banks are cutting their dollar
> holdings, she says. Central banks are merely putting some of their
> reserves into euros as well.
>
> Some of the money being held in euros, too, is interest earned off
> dollar holdings, Browne notes.
>
> "It's not a zero sum game," she says.
>
> The euro already constituted a reserve currency when it was introduced
> in 1999, as it replaced individual European currencies that had been
> used as reserve currencies. But the common European currency isn't
> about to overtake the dollar's dominant role.
>
> When the greenback started dropping in earnest at the outbreak of the
> subprime mortgage crisis this summer, talk was rife that Asian and
> Mideast central banks would exit the dollar en masse.
>
> But it's not that simple. For Mideast oil producers to start charging
> in currencies other than dollars would be self-defeating.
>
> That's because the hundreds of billions of dollars their central banks
> already hold would plummet in value. The Chinese central bank would
> suffer a similar fate if it suddenly started dumping greenbacks.
>
> "China is trying to establish itself as long-term investor," Browne
> says. "So getting out of dollars doesn't make sense. It would just
> make things worse."
>
> Foreign investors as a whole indeed lightened up on some U.S.
> holdings. They were net sellers of long-term U.S. financial assets in
> the third quarter, with monthly sales averaging $11.8 billion.
>
> But major exporters to the U.S., such as China and Mideast oil
> nations, have so many dollars running into their coffers that total
> central bank holdings of dollars actually increased in the third
> quarter -- to $2.45 trillion in September from $2.08 trillion a year
> before.
>
> It's just that central banks increased their euro holdings even more.
>
> What's happening is that countries such as China and the Mideast oil
> producers are shifting how their dollars are invested, turning away
> from Treasuries and grabbing stakes in troubled financial giants, such
> as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.
>
> The dollar's share of global reserves may actually increase this year
> if the currency itself rebounds.
>
> "Who's to say the dollar will weaken this year?" Browne asks
> rhetorically. "We think it will strengthen, as the U.S. will be
> rewarded for pro-growth policies."

It seems like the media distortion of global warming issues. Thought
they are important, they are blown all out of proportion.

A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of
global warming , superficial balance--telling "both" sides of the story--
can actually be a form of informational bias. Despite the consistent
assertions of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) that human activities have had a "discernible"
influence on the global climate and that global warming is a serious
problem that must be addressed immediately, "he said/she said"
reporting has allowed a small group of global warming skeptics to have
their views greatly amplified.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

On Jan 5, 9:29 pm, Immortalist  wrote:

> A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of
> global warming , superficial balance--telling "both" sides of the story--
> can actually be a form of informational bias. Despite the consistent
> assertions of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on
> Climate Change (IPCC) that human activities have had a "discernible"
> influence on the global climate and that global warming is a serious
> problem that must be addressed immediately, "he said/she said"
> reporting has allowed a small group of global warming skeptics to have
> their views greatly amplified.

This is total nonsense. There is a clear media bias toward proponents
of AGW. If there has been more coverage of skeptics lately, it is
because finally they are speaking out and because they include many
reputable scientists affiliated with prestigious institutions.

John Tierney wrote on this very subject in the NY Times just this past
week.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/NY_Times:_Global_Warming_/2008/01/01/60981.html

Fred Weiss

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:09:23 -0500, "William Flax"
 wrote:

>Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
>currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today to
>what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most items--or
>before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
>cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which will
>not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
>who will restrain it.

Nonsense.  It's private banks' excessive creation of debt money that
causes inflation, not government spending.

-- Roy L

On Jan 6, 4:21 am, ro...@telus.net wrote:

> Nonsense.  It's private banks' excessive creation of debt money that
> causes inflation, not government spending.

Ummm....and where do they get this money from?

Is this a new theory of economics of your own creation?

First of all, it's not "government spending" per se that causes
inflation. It's spending in excess of revenues with the difference
being made up by the creation of fiat money.

In addition, right now the Fed is creating fiat money to ease the
"credit crunch" and to avoid a financial crisis - a crisis which it
caused by easy credit which encouraged banks to take on excessively
risky debt. In effect, the banks got the "debt money" from the Fed.

Fred Weiss

"William Flax"  wrote in message 
news:P9Sfj.6144$6%.4356@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
> currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today 
> to
> what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most 
> items--or
> before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
> cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which 
> will
> not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
> who will restrain it.
>
> http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/Paul3.htm
>
You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to 
inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store 
your wealth.

On Jan 6, 8:19 am, "Andy F."  wrote:

> You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to
> inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store
> your wealth.

Depends who the "you" is your are referring to.

People on fixed incomes are cheated. Lenders are cheated if their
loans are set at fixed rates which leads them to set higher rates
which hurts borrowers.

ARMs are entirely a creature of an inflationary age. They have no
point otherwise. Now they are blowing up in all of our faces, not just
those who let and signed such loans.

Inflation hurts everyone - even debtors whom it superficially would
seem to benefit. They are hurt in other ways.

This is why central banks are obsessed with inflation - which is
ironic since they are its cause.

Fred Weiss

On Jan 5, 3:58 pm, Robert Cohen  wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2:22 pm, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Death of the Dollar 'Exaggerated'
>
> > MoneyNews | Wed, Jan. 2, 2008
>
> > Reports of the dollar's demise are greatly exaggerated.
>
> > The greenback's drop last year - it fell 10 percent against the euro
> > and 6 percent against the yen - led some to speculate that the
> > dollar's reign as the world's prime reserve currency is ending.
>
> > Just this week, the International Monetary Fund reported that the
> > portion of official global foreign exchange reserves held in dollars
> > slipped to 63.8 percent in the third quarter from 66.5 percent in the
> > same period a year earlier.
>
> > Meanwhile the euro's share of reserves gained to 26.4 percent from
> > 24.4 percent in 2006.
>
> > Meg Browne, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman,
> > says much of the increased portion of reserves in euros merely
> > reflects the European currency's 5 percent gain against the dollar in
> > the third quarter, as the reserves themselves are measured in dollars.
>
> > "We tend to downplay reserve diversification," she says of the
> > currency desk at Brown Brothers.
>
> > It's not as if foreign central banks are cutting their dollar
> > holdings, she says. Central banks are merely putting some of their
> > reserves into euros as well.
>
> > Some of the money being held in euros, too, is interest earned off
> > dollar holdings, Browne notes.
>
> > "It's not a zero sum game," she says.
>
> > The euro already constituted a reserve currency when it was introduced
> > in 1999, as it replaced individual European currencies that had been
> > used as reserve currencies. But the common European currency isn't
> > about to overtake the dollar's dominant role.
>
> > When the greenback started dropping in earnest at the outbreak of the
> > subprime mortgage crisis this summer, talk was rife that Asian and
> > Mideast central banks would exit the dollar en masse.
>
> > But it's not that simple. For Mideast oil producers to start charging
> > in currencies other than dollars would be self-defeating.
>
> > That's because the hundreds of billions of dollars their central banks
> > already hold would plummet in value. The Chinese central bank would
> > suffer a similar fate if it suddenly started dumping greenbacks.
>
> > "China is trying to establish itself as long-term investor," Browne
> > says. "So getting out of dollars doesn't make sense. It would just
> > make things worse."
>
> > Foreign investors as a whole indeed lightened up on some U.S.
> > holdings. They were net sellers of long-term U.S. financial assets in
> > the third quarter, with monthly sales averaging $11.8 billion.
>
> > But major exporters to the U.S., such as China and Mideast oil
> > nations, have so many dollars running into their coffers that total
> > central bank holdings of dollars actually increased in the third
> > quarter -- to $2.45 trillion in September from $2.08 trillion a year
> > before.
>
> > It's just that central banks increased their euro holdings even more.
>
> > What's happening is that countries such as China and the Mideast oil
> > producers are shifting how their dollars are invested, turning away
> > from Treasuries and grabbing stakes in troubled financial giants, such
> > as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.
>
> > The dollar's share of global reserves may actually increase this year
> > if the currency itself rebounds.
>
> > "Who's to say the dollar will weaken this year?" Browne asks
> > rhetorically. "We think it will strengthen, as the U.S. will be
> > rewarded for pro-growth policies."
>
> IThe buck is not dead; though (imho) it is unstable & has been
> steadily weakening.
>
> The Canadian looney, the Rupee, the Chinese money, and the Euro seem
> to be where the U.S. strong dollar was.
>
> The USA also needs to discover & control the patents to somethings of
> "more value" than gold, oil, and all the usual commodities.
>
> What would that be?
>
> fuel cell
> solar cell
> nano-tech stuff
> massive & cheap de-salinization
> perhaps via biotech, actual cures for cancer, aids, malaria, various
> addictions, etal
> re-land on moon, and excavate some yellowish cheese for better
> cheeeseburgers w/ pepsis
> what else ?
> schmoo: see "Lil Abner"  or Al Capp- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

re: soundness of U.S. currency

The essence of the security of the U.S.D. is that it's  issued by the
U.S. government.

I could say "backed" but that would connote the gold and silver of
yesteryear.

What it's about is investor world confidence in the USA.

The daily trading in zillions of units of currencies are (imho) really
not the essential reason the buck feels so shaky.

Granted the Euro at  approximately $1.48, and a the other negative
factors are the very alarming & ugly immediate issues.

The U.S.D. is ultimately about c-o-n-f-i-d-e-n-c-e in the USA

In the midst of the dollar dropping in August, and the simultaneous,
dynamic crooked sub prime mortgage phenomenon, I recall publicity
that some international investors brought-in new deposits to the U.S.
banks and others bought U.S. stock shares.

In other words, the world depends upon the U.S. for its "security."

Otherwise, it would be that collapsing, debt ridden Argentina of a few
years = USA now.

 I subjectively perceive security psychology or confidence has
seemingly declined during Bush II's reign, as the DEBT seems so bloody
overwhelming.

On Jan 5, 11:22 am, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> MoneyNews | Wed, Jan. 2, 2008

> What's happening is that countries such as China and the Mideast oil
> producers are shifting how their dollars are invested, turning away
> from Treasuries and grabbing stakes in troubled financial giants, such
> as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.

I wonder what effects this will have? More foreign investment in US
financial companies will mean foreign nationals will influence
policies more? The foreign investors will want the US financial giants
to make a profit?

On Jan 6, 3:21 am, ro...@telus.net wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:09:23 -0500, "William Flax"
>
>  wrote:
> >Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
> >currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today to
> >what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most items--or
> >before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
> >cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which will
> >not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
> >who will restrain it.
>
> Nonsense.  It's private banks' excessive creation of debt money that
> causes inflation, not government spending.
>
> -- Roy L

 and do not forget wall street, they use debt as money, plus, they
pump up stocks to reap even more out of thin air money, a further
debasing of the currency.

On Jan 6, 7:19 am, Fred Weiss  wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:21 am, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
> > Nonsense.  It's private banks' excessive creation of debt money that
> > causes inflation, not government spending.
>
> Ummm....and where do they get this money from?
>
> Is this a new theory of economics of your own creation?
>
> First of all, it's not "government spending" per se that causes
> inflation. It's spending in excess of revenues with the difference
> being made up by the creation of fiat money.
>
> In addition, right now the Fed is creating fiat money to ease the
> "credit crunch" and to avoid a financial crisis - a crisis which it
> caused by easy credit which encouraged banks to take on excessively
> risky debt. In effect, the banks got the "debt money" from the Fed.
>
> Fred Weiss

 did you notice that the banks and mortgage brokers outside of the
federal reserve system, underwrote maybe trillions of dollars of
worthless mortgages? this was money created out of thin air.
completely unregulated, completely a private sector affair.

On Jan 6, 1:31 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:

>  did you notice that the banks and mortgage brokers outside of the
> federal reserve system,

There are no banks or mortgage brokers outside of the Federal Reserve
system or that are unregulated by Federal and/or state gov'ts.

"The genesis of the present problem goes back to the bursting of the
stock-market bubble (NB: which started under Clinton and was in full
swing when Bush took office and which was then magnified by 9/11) in
the early years of this decade. In an effort to avoid its deflationary
consequences, the bursting of the stock market bubble was followed by
successive Federal Reserve cuts in interest rates, all the way down to
little more than 1 percent by the end of 2003.

These cuts in interest rates were accomplished by means of repeated
injections of new and additional bank reserves. The essential interest
rate in question was the so-called Federal Funds rate. This is the
interest rate that the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve
System charge or pay in the lending and borrowing of the monetary
reserves that they are obliged to hold against their outstanding
checking deposits.

The continuing inflow of new and additional reserves allowed the
banking system to create new and additional checking deposits for the
benefit of borrowers. The new and additional deposits were created to
a multiple of ten or more times the new and additional reserves and
made possible the granting of new and additional loans on a
correspondingly large scale. The sharp decline in interest rates that
took place encouraged the making of mortgage loans in particular."

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2007/08/housing-bubble-and-credit-crunch.html

Fred Weiss

On Jan 6, 9:54 am, Robert Cohen  wrote:

>  I subjectively perceive security psychology or confidence has
> seemingly declined during Bush II's reign, as the DEBT seems so bloody
> overwhelming.

It's unconscionable, I agree. But it is hardly "bloody overwhelming"
and could be reversed fairly easily by cutting bloody gov't spending,
which neither the Democrats or Republicans seem inclined to want to
do.

Fred Weiss

"Lantern"  wrote in message 
news:ac5ccde3-7075-4bea-8625-f34ae9f73b47@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 11:22 am, leonard7...@gmail.com wrote:
> MoneyNews | Wed, Jan. 2, 2008

> What's happening is that countries such as China and the Mideast oil
> producers are shifting how their dollars are invested, turning away
> from Treasuries and grabbing stakes in troubled financial giants, such
> as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.

= I wonder what effects this will have? More foreign investment in US
= financial companies will mean foreign nationals will influence
= policies more? The foreign investors will want the US financial giants
= to make a profit?

I believe that those investments are a part of a broader deal, but am not 
sure about the details.
e.

"Andy F."  wrote in message 
news:5uc2smF1h6bpgU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "William Flax"  wrote in message 
> news:P9Sfj.6144$6%.4356@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
>> currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today 
>> to
>> what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most 
>> items--or
>> before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
>> cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which 
>> will
>> not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
>> who will restrain it.
>>
>> http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/Paul3.htm
>>
> You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to 
> inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store 
> your wealth.
You aren't being cheated because everybody knows that you are being cheated.
e.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:10:50 GMT, "Econotron" 
wrote:

>"Andy F."  wrote in message 
>news:5uc2smF1h6bpgU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "William Flax"  wrote in message 
>> news:P9Sfj.6144$6%.4356@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
>>> currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today 
>>> to
>>> what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most 
>>> items--or
>>> before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
>>> cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which 
>>> will
>>> not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
>>> who will restrain it.
>>>
>>> http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/Paul3.htm
>>>
>> You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to 
>> inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store 
>> your wealth.
>You aren't being cheated because everybody knows that you are being cheated.

One  can only cheat by disobeying some established rule.

On Jan 6, 5:19 am, "Andy F."  wrote:

> You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to
> inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store
> your wealth.

Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim

I don't know how to avoid a rigged game and when it comes to using
the dollar I don't know how to avoid playing while living in the US
with a normal standard of living.

Les Cargill wrote:
> 
> What could possibly be served by limiting the money supply?

I don't know, what? But it happened then and it seems to be happening 
all over again. And before you get your panties in a wade, 'seems'...

I have a feeling you 'think' you know what the precursor to the 
depletion was. And if you don't go back ten years, you don't. The
cause was anything but during the fact.

> If people
> weren't bags of fear, the Fed could increase the money supply to meet
> GDP growth and prices need not rise.

So goes the theory. Should have been a cake walk for post WWI Germany 
then...

> GDP does actually grow - the
> world isn't zero sum. If you think it is, buy gold and despair
> when it turn out to be a lousy investment.

Well, I move all my assets to silver at $4.00 some six years ago.

> http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx
> 
> That trendline is *down*.

I have no idea what your are talking about. Maybe you don't either....

David Johnston wrote:
> 
> One  can only cheat by disobeying some established rule.  

Where do you get such stuff? It is politics, always has been.

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17808622>

On Jan 5, 3:09 pm, "William Flax"  wrote:
> Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
> currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today to
> what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most items--or
> before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. The article is about if the
dollar with stay the international currency standard or will the Euro
take over. At present ever country who pegs exchange rates do so to
the dollar. Oil markets are conducted in dollars. For the US this is
good because it lowers risk in international markets. We know the
Saudi currency will exchange at the same rate 6 months from now for
instance. If they do not peg to the dollar than the exchange rate with
that country fluctuates when to dollar to the currency they peg to
exchange rate fluctuates. The US dollar has been describe as having a
dirty floating exchange rate. That is we do not offically peg but the
government often intervenes in exchange rates. Many argue a floating
system would be better.

Secondly, you are not looking at the whole picture. Although what the
dollar can buy has sharply declined, wages have risen with inflation.
Looking at the numbers of how many man hours it took to buy a car or a
refrigerator in the 1940's as compared to know gives a very different
perspective. Workers have to work much less to obtain better quality
goods now.

> We are being
> cheated out of our accumulated wealth

How? Are you keeping your cash in a mattress? Interest rates are
heavily influenced by inflation. Higher inflation typically leads to
high nominal rates. The adjust of interest protects your wealth from
inflation.

On Jan 6, 7:19 am, Fred Weiss  wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:21 am, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
> > Nonsense.  It's private banks' excessive creation of debt money that
> > causes inflation, not government spending.
>
> Ummm....and where do they get this money from?
>
> Is this a new theory of economics of your own creation?
>
> First of all, it's not "government spending" per se that causes
> inflation. It's spending in excess of revenues with the difference
> being made up by the creation of fiat money.
>

This is completely wrong. The spending in excess of revenues is made
up from the treasury issuing treasury bills (bonds). These bonds only
transfer money in circulation from the public to the government and
back when paid. This is not creation of fiat money. The Fed and Banks
create the money. The banking system is the real creator of money the
Fed influences how much is created. The confusion comes from how the
Fed adds and subtracts money from the money supply. They buy the
government issued bonds from people or sell part of their portfolio to
people. When the Fed buys money that was not in the system is created.
This money finds its way into the banking system when the fractional
reserve creates more money. Government expenditures and taxes have
absolutely no role in creating or destroying money.

Deficits can be inflationary and have a similar effect to increasing
money supplies because they both increase Aggregate Demand but this
does not mean they work the same way.

On Jan 6, 1:24 pm, Fred Weiss  wrote:
> On Jan 6, 1:31 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
>
> >  did you notice that the banks and mortgage brokers outside of the
> > federal reserve system,
>
> There are no banks or mortgage brokers outside of the Federal Reserve
> system or that are unregulated by Federal and/or state gov'ts.
>
> "The genesis of the present problem goes back to the bursting of the
> stock-market bubble (NB: which started under Clinton and was in full
> swing when Bush took office and which was then magnified by 9/11) in
> the early years of this decade. In an effort to avoid its deflationary
> consequences, the bursting of the stock market bubble was followed by
> successive Federal Reserve cuts in interest rates, all the way down to
> little more than 1 percent by the end of 2003.
>

You are completely wrong here. The cuts in interest rates had nothing
to do with the stock markets. They were the result of why the stock
market fell. The falling of stock market prices were a symptom not a
cause. The economy was headed into a recession and investors seeing
profits dwindling left stocks, due to lower expected dividends  for
higher returns. The stock market is a symptom not a cause. The factors
that caused the stock market to crash are the same factors that caused
the Fed to act. To my knowledge, the Fed keeps 0 data on the stock
market and has never used any stock market data to make its
decisions.

> These cuts in interest rates were accomplished by means of repeated
> injections of new and additional bank reserves.

This should read the cuts in interest rates were caused by repeated
injections of new and additional bank reserves. The Fed does not set
the Fed Fund rates or any other interest rate other than the discount
rate. The inject or take money from the money supply to approach the
target they set. The media gets this all wrong. The Fed does not lower
or raise interest rates. They set a target for where the interest rate
should be. Instead of saying the Fed changed the interest rate, the
media should be saying the Fed set a new target. The injections or
contractions of the money supply affects the supply of funds to loan
on the market. The supply of loanable funds coupled with demand for
investment sets the interest rate.


> The continuing inflow of new and additional reserves allowed the
> banking system to create new and additional checking deposits for the
> benefit of borrowers. The new and additional deposits were created to
> a multiple of ten or more times the new and additional reserves and
> made possible the granting of new and additional loans on a
> correspondingly large scale. The sharp decline in interest rates that
> took place encouraged the making of mortgage loans in particular."
>

Right this explains better how the injection of funds changes the
interest rates rather than the Fed setting interesting rates. We have
in addition to this the whole subprime market which were the junk
bonds of this decade. It was the same principle as junk bonds. You put
together a large high risk but potentially high return assets. Most
will not pay but the one or two that pay pay so much the portfolio
makes a profits. So you charge high interest rates to people who
likely can't pay. Most will default but those who do pay more than
make up the loss of the default. Junk bonds all over again. Milken
should be screaming and asking why these people are not going to jail
for doing the same thing he did.

On Jan 6, 10:19 pm, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
> On Jan 6, 5:19 am, "Andy F."  wrote:
>
> > You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to
> > inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store
> > your wealth.
>
> Considerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim
>
> I don't know how to avoid a rigged game and when it comes to using
> the dollar I don't know how to avoid playing while living in the US
> with a normal standard of living.

Maybe you should look at Dave Ramsey's website if you feel this way.
Ramsey does not believe credit is a tool and gives very sensible
strategies for getting out of debt and staying out of debt. Then again
that is not a "normal" American today to live like our grandparents
and say I deserve it and will buy it when I have saved up enough money
to buy it. Instead we mortgage everything to have it today. It is very
possible to own a house and a car and live comfortably debt free but
involves setting goals and having a strategy to do it and sacrificing
in the short term rather than sacrificing in the long term as most
Americans do.

I do not necessiarly agree with Ramsey. I think if used sensible and
properly, credit is a great tool. However, I understand many people do
not have a long term view and look at how much the bills are a month
as opposed to how much something cost and may be very much better off
trying to use credit as little as possible and living debt free. If
you are an investor rather than a debtor that means setting up IRAs
and saving so you can use the proceeds to get what you want in the
future rather than getting what you want today at the expense of ALL
future income, then you can benefit strongly from staying away from
debt and waiting while you sock away all those high credit card bills
in IRAs.

"David Johnston"  wrote in message 
news:4423o39cfocc10druthasuo8e7tigp5352@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:10:50 GMT, "Econotron" 
> wrote:
>
>>"Andy F."  wrote in message
>>news:5uc2smF1h6bpgU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "William Flax"  wrote in message
>>> news:P9Sfj.6144$6%.4356@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
>>>> currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar 
>>>> today
>>>> to
>>>> what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most
>>>> items--or
>>>> before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
>>>> cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which
>>>> will
>>>> not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find 
>>>> leadership
>>>> who will restrain it.
>>>>
>>>> http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/Paul3.htm
>>>>
>>> You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to
>>> inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store
>>> your wealth.
>>You aren't being cheated because everybody knows that you are being 
>>cheated.
>
> One  can only cheat by disobeying some established rule.
>
Figure of speech; you know what I meant...
e.

On Jan 5, 4:09 pm, "William Flax"  wrote:
> Your error is that you compare the Dollar to other inflated
> currencies--though not quite so badly inflated.  Compare the dollar today to
> what it would buy in the 1950s--more than a 90% decline as to most items--or
> before World War I--in the neighborhood of 97% decline.  We are being
> cheated out of our accumulated wealth by overbearing Government, which will
> not restrain itself.  This is why it is important that we find leadership
> who will restrain it.
>
## Idiot top posters get the respect they deserve and
     Flax is no exception. Sign on for courses in Poli-sci
     and economics -- you have a lot to learn

> William Flax

 wrote in message
news:65bc9996-7449-4111-
b9d9-83c5aad606e7@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Death of the Dollar 'Exaggerated'
>
> > MoneyNews | Wed, Jan. 2, 2008
>
> > Reports of the dollar's demise are greatly exaggerated.
>
> > The greenback's drop last year - it fell 10 percent against the euro
> > and 6 percent against the yen - led some to speculate that the
> > dollar's reign as the world's prime reserve currency is ending.
>
> > Just this week, the International Monetary Fund reported that the
> > portion of official global foreign exchange reserves held in dollars
> > slipped to 63.8 percent in the third quarter from 66.5 percent in the
> > same period a year earlier.
>
> > Meanwhile the euro's share of reserves gained to 26.4 percent from
> > 24.4 percent in 2006.
>
> > Meg Browne, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman,
> > says much of the increased portion of reserves in euros merely
> > reflects the European currency's 5 percent gain against the dollar in
> > the third quarter, as the reserves themselves are measured in dollars.
>
> > "We tend to downplay reserve diversification," she says of the
> > currency desk at Brown Brothers.
>
> > It's not as if foreign central banks are cutting their dollar
> > holdings, she says. Central banks are merely putting some of their
> > reserves into euros as well.
>
> > Some of the money being held in euros, too, is interest earned off
> > dollar holdings, Browne notes.
>
> > "It's not a zero sum game," she says.
>
> > The euro already constituted a reserve currency when it was introduced
> > in 1999, as it replaced individual European currencies that had been
> > used as reserve currencies. But the common European currency isn't
> > about to overtake the dollar's dominant role.
>
> > When the greenback started dropping in earnest at the outbreak of the
> > subprime mortgage crisis this summer, talk was rife that Asian and
> > Mideast central banks would exit the dollar en masse.
>
> > But it's not that simple. For Mideast oil producers to start charging
> > in currencies other than dollars would be self-defeating.
>
> > That's because the hundreds of billions of dollars their central banks
> > already hold would plummet in value. The Chinese central bank would
> > suffer a similar fate if it suddenly started dumping greenbacks.
>
> > "China is trying to establish itself as long-term investor," Browne
> > says. "So getting out of dollars doesn't make sense. It would just
> > make things worse."
>
> > Foreign investors as a whole indeed lightened up on some U.S.
> > holdings. They were net sellers of long-term U.S. financial assets in
> > the third quarter, with monthly sales averaging $11.8 billion.
>
> > But major exporters to the U.S., such as China and Mideast oil
> > nations, have so many dollars running into their coffers that total
> > central bank holdings of dollars actually increased in the third
> > quarter -- to $2.45 trillion in September from $2.08 trillion a year
> > before.
>
> > It's just that central banks increased their euro holdings even more.
>
> > What's happening is that countries such as China and the Mideast oil
> > producers are shifting how their dollars are invested, turning away
> > from Treasuries and grabbing stakes in troubled financial giants, such
> > as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.
>
> > The dollar's share of global reserves may actually increase this year
> > if the currency itself rebounds.
>
> > "Who's to say the dollar will weaken this year?" Browne asks
> > rhetorically. "We think it will strengthen, as the U.S. will be
> > rewarded for pro-growth policies."

On Jan 7, 10:33 am, Lysander  wrote:
> On Jan 6, 10:19 pm, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 5:19 am, "Andy F."  wrote:
>
> > > You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to> > > inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store
> > > your wealth.
>
> > Considerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim
>
> > I don't know how to avoid a rigged game and when it comes to using
> > the dollar I don't know how to avoid playing while living in the US
> > with a normal standard of living.
>
> Maybe you should look at Dave Ramsey's website if you feel this way.
> Ramsey does not believe credit is a tool and gives very sensible
> strategies for getting out of debt and staying out of debt.

I've deleted the rest because it's off based.  I wasn't talking about
debt but different forms of assets where dollars are one of the forms.

Money is a standard medium of exchange and a store of value.  When
the store of value can be manipulated the person with the more urgent
need will lose.  Average Americans have a more urgent need than the
rich so it doesn't matter if they hold bonds or stocks or houses or
any investment vehicle if the rich want it they merely have to make
the counter investement and manipulate the market in their favor.
I don't have the ability to move the interest rates or print money
but the Fed does.  I can't predict the risk premium so Black-Sholes
and other mathmatical models of valuation are opaque to me.  It
doesn't
really matter if the value is in dollars or some basket of commodities
since the Hunt brother showed what some really money could do (at
least
for awhile and given that one really is the biggest fish in the pond.)

On Jan 7, 1:25 pm, Lysander  wrote:
> On Jan 6, 1:24 pm, Fred Weiss  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 1:31 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
>
> > >  did you notice that the banks and mortgage brokers outside of the
> > > federal reserve system,
>
> > There are no banks or mortgage brokers outside of the Federal Reserve
> > system or that are unregulated by Federal and/or state gov'ts.
>
> > "The genesis of the present problem goes back to the bursting of the
> > stock-market bubble (NB: which started under Clinton and was in full
> > swing when Bush took office and which was then magnified by 9/11) in
> > the early years of this decade. In an effort to avoid its deflationary
> > consequences, the bursting of the stock market bubble was followed by
> > successive Federal Reserve cuts in interest rates, all the way down to
> > little more than 1 percent by the end of 2003.
>
> You are completely wrong here. The cuts in interest rates had nothing
> to do with the stock markets. They were the result of why the stock
> market fell. The falling of stock market prices were a symptom not a
> cause. The economy was headed into a recession and investors seeing
> profits dwindling left stocks, due to lower expected dividends  for
> higher returns. The stock market is a symptom not a cause. The factors
> that caused the stock market to crash are the same factors that caused
> the Fed to act. To my knowledge, the Fed keeps 0 data on the stock
> market and has never used any stock market data to make its
> decisions.

   That's true, but that's because as E.F. Hutton has always
   told the economic morons.

   "The FED works 100% on your hard spent taxes, not our stock".



>
> > These cuts in interest rates were accomplished by means of repeated
> > injections of new and additional bank reserves.
>
> This should read the cuts in interest rates were caused by repeated
> injections of new and additional bank reserves. The Fed does not set
> the Fed Fund rates or any other interest rate other than the discount
> rate. The inject or take money from the money supply to approach the
> target they set. The media gets this all wrong. The Fed does not lower
> or raise interest rates. They set a target for where the interest rate
> should be. Instead of saying the Fed changed the interest rate, the
> media should be saying the Fed set a new target. The injections or
> contractions of the money supply affects the supply of funds to loan
> on the market. The supply of loanable funds coupled with demand for
> investment sets the interest rate.
>
> > The continuing inflow of new and additional reserves allowed the
> > banking system to create new and additional checking deposits for the
> > benefit of borrowers. The new and additional deposits were created to
> > a multiple of ten or more times the new and additional reserves and
> > made possible the granting of new and additional loans on a
> > correspondingly large scale. The sharp decline in interest rates that
> > took place encouraged the making of mortgage loans in particular."
>
> Right this explains better how the injection of funds changes the
> interest rates rather than the Fed setting interesting rates. We have
> in addition to this the whole subprime market which were the junk
> bonds of this decade. It was the same principle as junk bonds. You put
> together a large high risk but potentially high return assets. Most
> will not pay but the one or two that pay pay so much the portfolio
> makes a profits. So you charge high interest rates to people who
> likely can't pay. Most will default but those who do pay more than
> make up the loss of the default. Junk bonds all over again. Milken
> should be screaming and asking why these people are not going to jail
> for doing the same thing he did.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Fred Weiss"  wrote in message 
news:479c7139-fd05-4765-9026-6e446b127b8d@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 8:19 am, "Andy F."  wrote:
>
>> You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to
>> inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store
>> your wealth.
>
> Depends who the "you" is your are referring to.
>
> People on fixed incomes are cheated. Lenders are cheated if their
> loans are set at fixed rates which leads them to set higher rates
> which hurts borrowers.

What do you mean by 'cheated'? Did anyone promise that inflation was going 
to be zero?

wrote in message 
news:c4ab96a9-a781-475a-871f-233fced55d07@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 6, 5:19 am, "Andy F."  wrote:

>> You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to
>> inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store
>> your wealth.

>Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim

>I don't know how to avoid a rigged game and when it comes to using
>the dollar I don't know how to avoid playing while living in the US
>with a normal standard of living.

It's easy enough to use bank credit instead of money.

On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, "Andy F."  wrote:
> "Fred Weiss"  wrote in message
>
> news:479c7139-fd05-4765-9026-6e446b127b8d@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 6, 8:19 am, "Andy F."  wrote:
>
> >> You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to
> >> inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store
> >> your wealth.
>
> > Depends who the "you" is your are referring to.
>
> > People on fixed incomes are cheated. Lenders are cheated if their
> > loans are set at fixed rates which leads them to set higher rates
> > which hurts borrowers.
>
> What do you mean by 'cheated'? Did anyone promise that inflation was going> to be zero?


This news report means to me that despite the export trade advantage
of the cheap USD,  the USA seems to be f'ed.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/11/news/economy/bc.apfn.economy.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008011109

On Jan 11, 9:26 am, Robert Cohen  wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2:58 pm, "Andy F."  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Fred Weiss"  wrote in message
>
> >news:479c7139-fd05-4765-9026-6e446b127b8d@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jan 6, 8:19 am, "Andy F."  wrote:
>
> > >> You aren't being cheated.Everybody knows that the dollar is subject to
> > >> inflation. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other ways to store
> > >> your wealth.
>
> > > Depends who the "you" is your are referring to.
>
> > > People on fixed incomes are cheated. Lenders are cheated if their
> > > loans are set at fixed rates which leads them to set higher rates
> > > which hurts borrowers.
>
> > What do you mean by 'cheated'? Did anyone promise that inflation was going
> > to be zero?
>
> This news report means to me that despite the export trade advantage
> of the cheap USD,  the USA seems to be f'ed.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/11/news/economy/bc.apfn.economy.ap/index...

hi robert,
 long time no see. whats up in your neck of the woods? i hope that you
are keeping your nose above water. and yes, the free market crank myth
that a severely debased dollar will result in a balance of trade has
been debunked again!