digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Dollar is Dead, Next the Country ... Yes it Can Get Worse alot Worse

news.yahoo.com — The euro, worth 83 cents in the early George W. Bush years, is at $1.45. The British pound is back up over $2, the highest level since the Carter era. The Canadian dollar, which used to be worth 65 cents, is worth more than the U.S. dollar for the first time in half a century. Oil is over $90 a barrel. Gold, was $260/ounce not long ago, now $800

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CyberSally, on 11/12/2007, -10/+246This is going to get worst before it gets better. The only way to increase the dollar's value is to increase interest rates significantly or stop having huge Federal budget deficits - neither of which will happen in the near term.
    • Farmgal123, on 11/09/2007, -4/+37Either the rock or the hard place will choose us - the Fed is trying to fix a problem with the same measures which created the problem in the first place. I just finished reading the book: "The Biggest Lie Ever Believed" - a fun spot-on read addressing these issues.
      • iamsamed, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Out of curiosity: how has the Fed increased our negative trade balance, our nation's debt, war spending, our Government's spending and deficit?
        The Fed's not at fault here: our politician's are.

        P.S. Dugg you for the great reading suggestion - BTW!
      • FutureGuy, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Is it Bush's fault, well see for your self
        http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png
        Can it get any more obvious!!!!
    • dukeeeey, on 11/09/2007, -6/+33interest rates could be raised
      but millions will be unable to pay their mortgages, theres no way out of this nightmare
      • Dextrose, on 11/11/2007, -15/+67Who the ***** cares if the greedy speculators (yes -- even the moms and pops) that gambled on never ending house appreciation -- get burned the ***** up?? I know I sure as hell don't care -- because I actually worked hard, lived within my means, saved up, and put 20% down on a house that I could actually AFFORD. People who belong in apartments -- belong in apartments. A single family house is a privilege -- not a "right". You EARN it. You're not ENTITLED to it. I know a lot of people -- especially those foreclosing now -- are having a hard time swallowing that fact -- but hey, they took the gamble -- and now THEY should pay.
        • dragonalone1, on 11/07/2007, -13/+8you don't gamble, you never have a chance.
        • fishpen0, on 11/11/2007, -20/+35Yes, because the people living in apartments are the ones doing all the real manual labor and work while you jackasses with your houses are more likely working a cushy desk job. Woe is you that you have to sit there and complain that everyone around you can't afford their house. While we living in apartments, have to spend every day worrying that they will find a way to completely eliminate us from the workforce by outsourcing to other countries, or replacing us with machines. And even though we spent four + years in college making sure we got a good job, it didn't happen. In fact, some people did get those good jobs, but still cant afford to buy a house, because they are paying rent that is higher than any mortgage could possibly be. Yet, they cant get a loan because the bank is afraid that they won't be able to pay it back because they are still paying off college loans from like 20 years ago and have kids. ***** YOU.
          • Frequency, on 11/10/2007, -18/+32It's not our fault that society finds you worthless, either go back to college and get a degree in something useful this time or ***** grow up.
          • Mothrog, on 11/08/2007, -9/+14Hey, dumbass, do you realize why you're doing "real" manual labor while we sit doing cushy desk jobs? We got training in a valuable skill, while you did nothing. Tough ***** for you.
          • richid, on 11/10/2007, -1/+18Fishpen, your comment lost it's merit when you said: "they cant get a loan because the bank is afraid that they won't be able to pay it back because they are still paying off college loans from like 20 years ago and have kids." The whole reason we're in this mess right now is because mortgage lenders were approving everyone, giving 6x income multipliers in some instances. So I highly doubt that people were turned down due to student loans.
          • G-RaZoR, on 11/10/2007, -4/+17I agree with Mothrog, We don't sit at a desk staring at the wall until 5pm every day. We do work, very hard. Pushing carts in a grocery store is society's way of saying you suck.
          • misledinamerica, on 11/10/2007, -1/+14We didn't tell you to have kids before you could afford to pay for them.
            Cheer up though. When the dollar is worth 50 cent Canadian lots of those manual labor jobs will be coming back to America... and by 2011 housing will be down about 20% across the country. When you add energy and food to the CPI (to get the true rate of inflation) this makes housing about 50% cheaper than it was in 2005. Hurray for us!
            More jobs and cheaper housing!
          • bugsy187, on 11/08/2007, -2/+10@fishpen

            Maybe stop comforting yourself with capitalist fairy tales. The system is cracking and your number's coming up.
        • phufufoo, on 11/10/2007, -4/+24um fishpen0 you got it all wrong. I don't even know why you're angry. Maybe because you have ridiculous college loans that you stacked up and started a family way too soon? It's not my fault I went to an affordable school on scholarships and lived with my parents driving a beater car so I could save money and buy a house in the future. You shouldn't think that all house owners have "cushy desk jobs" we are regular Joes that have foresight and no illusions of grandeur. Plus Dextrose is arguing on your side if you didn't notice you dumb *****. All the speculators who drove the prices of houses way high looking to make some big money are the reasons why it's so hard for you to buy a house. I know a ton of useless friends who got into the real estate business doing loans and escrow services to get lay off because the market is dead. They made a lot of money while it lasted though, after taking like a 2 month course. So ***** THEM and you too ignorant *****.
        • LnghrnEngineer, on 11/07/2007, -2/+2oppps
        • askegg, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1Are you somehow immune from the economy in which you reside?
      • seks03, on 11/07/2007, -9/+5Yes there is... dont you know, start using the Amero and salute your new leaders http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-157835368 ...

        / sarcasm
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/08/2007, -4/+9Nope. Might as well abolish the Federal Reserve, enact a Federal Central Bank with a solvent strategy for a future with hard resource backed currencies then put on our seat belts. We're in for a Depression.

        God Help Us.Minorities (Barring Asians) Are Up ***** Creek without a Paddle.
        • pawnzRus, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1Nope. Won't work. WTO trumps the Federal Central Bank and resources idea. Google WTO.
        • ryanonfire, on 11/09/2007, -2/+3umm pretty sure the gold exchange was abolished for a reason :P
          • Misesean, on 11/10/2007, -0/+7Yes; so the banks could inflate like mad and create the current situation...
    • rudy23, on 11/08/2007, -9/+44worse not worst
      • nyx210, on 11/08/2007, -11/+9That sentence is grammatically incorrect.
        • DaSuHouSe, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5It's not a sentence..
          • hobonetweaver, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4HORSERADISH IN YOUR EYES! Who gives a *****! Not Pat Buchanan, that's who.
      • novask, on 11/07/2007, -2/+1Yea keep thinking its only going to get "worse". At this rate I might as well head for Mexico.
      • breadfred, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4A worst is a sausage. (well yeah in dutch). So your economy now officially resembles a sausage.
    • maciekk, on 11/10/2007, -2/+44This is right -- need to raise rates, and stop spending borrowed money. It's not "free trade" that's the problem, as Pat Buchanan says. It's the policies of this administration and the Federal Reserve that are to blame.
      • plarp, on 11/12/2007, -2/+73*sigh* when Pat Buchanan is one of the voices of reason.. we know things are up a ***** creek
      • dmitri12s, on 11/07/2007, -8/+2A falling dollar will help out the income inequality in the United States. Not saying a falling dollar is a good thing, just puttin that out there.
        • Photokon, on 11/08/2007, -0/+22lol no it won't. The rich have divested their dollar assets and the poor suck up the sky high inflation.
          • Memitim, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10Exactly. Wealth = options. Without wealth, you have one option: the busted-ass dollar.
        • ryanonfire, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4a falling dollar will increase the cost of imports hello! making it more expensive for these goods (a.k.a everything at Wal-mart) to be bought by poor people
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10I remember mentioning about a year ago about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet divesting themselves of dollars. I put on all the blogs; "Listen people, the smart money is leaving the country -- Democrats buy Gold, Republicans -- buy stock."
        But it is easier said than done to "divest" when you are paying bills. For all my insight, I'll be in the same boat as the idiot Bush supporters. *sigh*
        I suppose we are just going to have to buckle down and start helping each other out.
      • cmburns69, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8You're right in that we need to stop spending borrowed money. But I'm not talking about our government-- I'm talking about the citizens of this country, many of whom are living on borrowed money (because they wanted that new home, or the new TV or computer). "The buck stops here" is a terrible slogan for the president, because it removes all responsibility from each person. Yeah, the government isn't being too wise with it's money either, but we _allow_ it because we do the same with our own finances. The buck stops _everywhere_
    • jackal42, on 11/08/2007, -22/+13no fear Ronnie P will fix it

    • Tyrghast, on 11/08/2007, -27/+17Not voting for Ron Paul is like committing democratic suicide
      • Siraf, on 11/07/2007, -9/+9thank you for your absolutely irrelevant comment.
        • vawksel, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1He's a candidate who vows to remove all of our military policing around the world. It's directly relevant because it would help stabilize the dollar and make it stronger.

          Do you want to pay money to have 65,000 troops in Germany? 50,000 in Japan. 35,000 in Italy. Do you know how much hundreds of thousands of "employees" cost a year to pay salaries?

          Tyghast's comment is relevant.
    • numbered, on 11/11/2007, -6/+32The economic system in your country unfortunately needs a complete overhaul. This federal reserve/deficit spending/debt slavery system is ludicrous and anyone who actually knows how it works knows that it cannot function indefinitely. In fact just to keep it stable you will consistently have to INCREASE the productive output of the industries in your country. The fact is, the overall internal debt in the US has been and will continue to exponentially increase and the only reason it has survived this long is by raping other countries for their resources and the foreign investors that still see the value in your dollar. When the wars stop and the oil stops (or is no longer traded in American currency) the entire system will collapse. Of course, the other solution is the Amero. A temporary fix, but hey why not bring Canada and Mexico down with you? Lord knows I won't stay here to watch it happen.
      • Tetraca, on 11/08/2007, -3/+2For future reference, I think you can just say "Fractional Reserve Banking".
      • Locke2053, on 11/12/2007, -9/+5Wow, you and the rest of this thread are a bunch of mom's-basement-economists who studied at Youtube University. This thread is like listening in on an insane asylum--a bunch of fools, who have no idea what they are talking about, confidently predicting the end of the world. This is almost as bad as the 9/11 conspiracy threads.
        • ccsfh2, on 11/08/2007, -5/+1wow, all the people in this thread are stupid. If you look at a chart of the US dept. it was the highest in the 1940s. Then it went down making the US a creditor. Now it has gone up, it will not go higher than it did in the 40s. Soon the economy will balance out and the dollar will reach its throne once again and the US will become a creditor. You guys act like the US will spontaneously explode because we have 9 trillion dollars in dept, it will go down in years to come!!!!!!!!!!
          • pawnzRus, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6The problem here being that it took WWII to bring the country out of debt, that plus in the 1940's I'm sure people probably couldn't conceive of debt measured in trillions...trillions! Are you saying, "Just wait for WW3 to blow over and everything will be fine?" If you need a good visual aid for how much things have changed from the 1940's till now, see here - http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNation ...
        • pawnzRus, on 11/11/2007, -0/+4Wow, and you've added soo much intellectual integrity to the conversation...
    • LeeSoong, on 11/12/2007, -6/+22The Dollar's Value can be radically increased by seizing control of the Middle East Oil Supply -
      Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and lastly, under the pressure from Washington D.C. OPEC and Saudi Arabia.

      The Iraq/Iran occupation is driven by banks and currency as much as it is driven by 'National Security'.
      http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
      • numbered, on 11/08/2007, -3/+14In fact, it's not driven by national security at all. It has had quite the opposite effect.
      • nycmac247, on 11/08/2007, -1/+9ahhh - we are there to keep the oil taps OFF, not on
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 11/08/2007, -0/+18I think you are beginning to understand the NEW economy. Our major export is military equipment. If the jobs market collapses -- our major employment will be in security and mercenaries.
        Bush, Republicans and Dems have probably known for some time that this was coming -- and the rush to war was played off as a last ditch effort to stave off a massive recession. How's that working for you, genius leaders?
        In other words; "i see what you did there..."
    • artemster, on 11/07/2007, -13/+8Doomsayers enter the mix? People start panicking about the dollar? Sounds like the perfect time to buy!

      Nothing like emotional paranoia driving monetary decisions. I wish all my customers thought like diggers - they would be a lot easier to manipulate.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 11/08/2007, -2/+7Please, tell us something like; "LOL you stupid Liberal Conspiracy theorists."
        We haven't heard that enough, just before proven that the Conspiracy is true.
        • siszam, on 11/08/2007, -5/+7If you look back it's always the Republicans screwing up the economy. Then they never fail to blame it all on the incoming Democrat. It must be nice never taking responsibility for anything. Go on. Tell us how it's the past or future Democratic President who is to blame for all the soldiers Bush has murdered.
          • Misesean, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Republicans, Democrats, what's the difference?
            (Ron Paul excepted)
    • MindStalker, on 11/07/2007, -10/+5You really don't have to raise interest rates. Just stop printing so much money.
      Actually the biggest fix would be a simple law. ALL FDIC banks have to exchange at request and ounce of gold for $850. Banks would be excepted if there is a run on the bank, but on the average day they would have to do it.
      It would instantly freeze inflation as well as it would give banks a financial disensentive to inflate our money. Of course interest rates would automatically go up because banks would not want to give out loans as easily.
      Simple..
      • fishpen0, on 11/08/2007, -0/+11Thats what happened during the depression, thank you for proving that teaching history in school is not completely pointless. Its too bad most people forget about it and allow the system to repeat...
      • Misesean, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2Except for the $850 figure. At that rate, all the gold they could get their hands on would be snapped up in the first 10 minutes.
        • MindStalker, on 11/07/2007, -0/+0I'm saying the banks have to sell gold for $850. Sorry my wording was screwy.
          In other words, if you want money out of your account in form of gold they would have to oblig assuming there isn't a rush going on, and daily limits could be set, etc...

        • Misesean, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1No, I understood what you meant. But if you did that, everybody with an ounce of sense would immediately run to the bank and withdraw all their money in gold; the bank would soon run out of gold (that is, they wouldn't be able to buy it; they already don't have any), and there would still be millions of people lined up trying to get their money out - how can you require the bank to sell gold for $850/oz when they haven't got any gold and can't get it for that price?
    • timlopez, on 11/08/2007, -12/+19... But I have good news. I just saved a ton of money on my Car Insurance by switching to Geico!
      • nicko68, on 11/07/2007, -6/+3I'm sorry, I LOLd when I read that.
      • toetagger, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1...and we'll be like those damn apes in the commercial in no time...
    • onovanday, on 11/07/2007, -0/+6From Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si ...
      The dollar traded near a record low against the euro on speculation financial-company losses from U.S. subprime-mortgage defaults will hurt the economy, prompting the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates again this year.
    • jaymzdean, on 11/08/2007, -3/+14"Is it all Bush's fault? Nope."

      Right. It's also the fault of a Democratic Congress who keeps writing blank checks to the Military Industrial Complex.
      • repete, on 11/07/2007, -4/+4"It's also the fault of a Democratic Congress who keeps writing blank checks to the Military Industrial Complex"

        Right. It's also your fault for letting them do it. Question - In the last year have you spent more time:
        A) Watching television/on the Interwebs
        B) Doing something about the fact that your government is flushing your country down the toilet
      • ssn697, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2This has been YEARS in the making. Blaming the newly in power Democratic Congress shows you have little understanding of the overall issue.
        • jdotter, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3ssn697's got it right. You can blame just about anyone who has held any office in gov't over the last 15 to 20 years. Dem and Rep alike.
      • FutureGuy, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png
    • andrgo, on 11/07/2007, -3/+4Thanks much, Dumbya.
    • heystoopid, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3So you mean to say we are looking down the barrel of a gun with the probability of at least near 30% unemployment rate with inflation and interest rates running at 30% plus at the same time to cover all losses !
      Not a very good prognosis indeed
    • domokunt, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2Let me offer an alternative view: Psycology against the dollar is becoming so negative that soon the only option will be for the dollar to rally. Why? Traders well know that when an asset falls the crowd becomes very bearish on that asset, and vice versa. Hence why people were religiously bullish on real estate in 2005... it was at its peak. Bear this in mind before you bet against the $.
    • fixedcoma, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1face it, We've been duked! There is nothing in the federal reserve and the police want to arrest and ruin peoples loans on houses and cars for having a little dope! Tons of people were trying to flip houses for years and all in all it's finally catching up! Why you think there is so much money that is unaccounted for on this war? So they could suck it all up like a leech and leave us with absolutely nothing ! Look up NAFTA on google, watch "zeitgeist","money masters" and AAron Russo" on you tube and tell me what you think! We've been duked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • whojaybe, on 11/09/2007, -5/+71i saw something like this on the news... like gisele doesn't want to get paid in dollars anymore, ONLY euros... lol if only my paycheck was in euros!
    • rudy23, on 11/08/2007, -2/+39yeah its shocking. i mean giselle actually knowing about currency value and all you know
      • cptshamrock, on 11/07/2007, -1/+6You really think Giselle knows that, and not her handlers/management team?
        • rudy23, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4you really took that seriously?
        • locojones, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Her sister is her manager, so I doubt it takes a financial genius to figure it out.
      • phufufoo, on 11/07/2007, -7/+0meh who cares she will be as poor as she is ugly..... so until then so never has to worry
    • k3ano, on 11/07/2007, -0/+27Do it now, it'd be a good move. When you get your paycheck, transfer it to euros. You'll be getting less euros for your dollars each time, but if you're saving you'll benefit.
    • insanebrain, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4LOL. . .. .. (my paycheck is . .. :)
    • m21fires, on 11/07/2007, -4/+1really like we really care what a two timing Brazilian whore wants to get payed in.....ha ha she will take what we give her!
    • rootfiend, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Soon they will be calling for us to dump the dollar and adopt the Amero.
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98
  • titandegroot, on 11/09/2007, -15/+68Actually the best way to help the dollar is decrease the trade deficit. Naturally people will start to by more US goods because the US good prices will be less.
    • mythicflux, on 11/09/2007, -2/+51Too bad we outsourced most, if not all, of our manufacturing base. Makes it hard to start producing US goods when we simply don't have the infrstructure and suddenly find it's hard to get the money to invest in it.
      • Scumbunny, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4We also have sold off our huge emergency stockpile of raw metals and minerals down to pre-cold war levels in an effort to fund the ever growning deficit and government. http://digg.com/world_news/Why_the_United_States_n ... Imagine what will happen when countries like Russia and China decide to embargo the raw materials we need to make planes or computers?
        • heystoopid, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Those micro electronic chip fabrication factories in the US have been slowly closed and replaced with cheaper overseas premises in the past several decades as well !
        • netant, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Worst of all, we don't have a lot to export, even in services. All those engineers we produce in our colleges are foreign students, who will leave afterwards, because all the manufacturing jobs will be overseas.
    • Azriel7, on 11/08/2007, -3/+22I am trying to think of the last time someone in AMERICA wanted an american product....besides dvd's nothing comes to mind.
      • S70N3R, on 11/07/2007, -2/+14People buy DVDs? Isnt that what the internet is for?
      • LordVance, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3American made Ovation guitars baby! (I do agree with you by the way, the term "American Made" doesn't hold much weight anymore other than from certain specialty producers).
      • LnghrnEngineer, on 11/07/2007, -2/+2I always try to buy American. Sure it costs more but the quality of the item is great. To bad modern American Cars are crappy but they have gotten better.
        • FierceGrape, on 11/08/2007, -2/+4"American" cars are made in Mexico now.
        • reddfox321, on 11/07/2007, -5/+4hate to break it to you FG, but Mexico is in America.
          By "American" you must mean '"USA" cars are made in Mexico now.'
      • MAnt, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4There's only four things the US does better than anyone else: music, movies, microcode (software) and high-speed pizza delivery
        • Sketchcast, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3I wonder how many will get the reference?
          • MAnt, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1I don't know. But when I see the chance to quote Snow Crash in conversation I'm going to take it.
        • Corvidae, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Actually we do pretty damn well with Ambulances too. That's probably tied to the pizza delivery somehow though...
    • dmitri12s, on 11/07/2007, -1/+5Software?
    • loquax, on 11/07/2007, -12/+7AMEN! That is exactly what I say to people who are afraid of free trade and crap themselves every time economic data is selectively (and fraudulently) pulled out of context. The world economy is a system that is self correcting and always in search of an equilibrium. The dollar's decline is not so much linked with free trade as it is with our government's (and our population's) addiction to credit. Additionally, while the value of the dollar may decline, more airplanes, more tanks, more ships, and other "big ticket" items will be made here again. China makes some good stuff, but we still make among the best large machinery in the world, and (most importantly) we have the ability to be entrepreneurial here in ways that the Chinese can only dream of. I can start a company up and make tons of cash without being related to a party-member bureaucrat.
      I'll make this prediction, in two years, American made cars and planes will be outselling Europe and Japan's products by an enormous rate world-wide.
      • numbered, on 11/08/2007, -2/+19I'll take that bet. But not in american dollars :P
      • mcrosby, on 11/08/2007, -5/+24American Cars? Absolutely no way they will outsell European and Japanese cars - the quality of American cars is just too bad.
        • LastVisibleDog, on 11/07/2007, -4/+2American cars already outsell European cars
        • reddfox321, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3European AND Japanese cars
          as in European + Japanese cars together.
      • cmapes2, on 11/08/2007, -3/+6And who will profit from the sale of "big ticket" items? You think the average American will ever see so much of a dollar from the sale of a tank or air-to-ground missile?

        Hell no.

        This will further contribute to the overall polarization of the US economy, which is exactly what has been happening within the last few years.

        Unless you own Lockeed Martin or any other similar company, there is nothing to be re-assured about according to your theory.
      • Corvidae, on 11/08/2007, -2/+8Stop reading Milton Friedman and pick up a history book. It's damaging your free market addled brain.
      • roodammy44, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2American cars don't meet european fuel or emissions standards. I don't think they'll be too many sold here.
    • dragonalone1, on 11/07/2007, -5/+3Canadian lumber is cheaper for sure.
    • sgglynn, on 11/07/2007, -2/+3Maybe the government is refusing to save the dollar to FORCE us to spend more on US goods.
    • roodammy44, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9All the American products I want to buy are made in china and still cost just as much as they did.
      For example, have apple products gone down in price in europe? No!
      The problem with globalisation is that products get charged different amounts in different regions. The only way I can import things is through ebay.
      Please show me how else i can buy these "cheap goods" america produces
      • jdotter, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1You're not going to see a noticeable change in Chinese goods because they want US jobs to continue getting outsourced to them and you to buy these goods from them. They are willing to take the loss, in terms of the US dollar, to stay ahead, in terms of the trade deficit.
  • dupswapdrop, on 11/12/2007, -14/+140Time to flush all politicians and start over with a new group of crooks.
    • rudy23, on 11/08/2007, -1/+34crooks usually work fine for the economy. problem is that the current gang is the type whom crooks call crooks.
      • Leomarth, on 11/07/2007, -4/+6hehe. Crooks work fine for a lot of things - fleecing the peoples pocket, and fleecing the peoples morality.
      • Leomarth, on 11/07/2007, -7/+2hehe. Crooks work fine for a lot of things - fleecing the peoples pocket, and fleecing the peoples morality.
      • mikesbaker, on 11/07/2007, -7/+4cccccccombo breaker
        • Leomarth, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, it was a network issue that caused the double post; not I.
    • desertDenizen, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Related, but scarier... See video "The End of America": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
    • zaphar, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Maybe it would be best not to replace, just remove...
  • jollyholly, on 11/13/2007, -35/+431"Is it all Bush's fault? Nope."

    I disagree. When Clinton was in the White House, we actually had a budget surplus - of $230 billion in 2000. (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/0 ...

    Since 2000, our national debt has increased by 58% - from $5.67 trillion to $9 trillion. And over the past 7 years the Bush administration has been borrowing trillions of extra dollars and spending it on war and empire building. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_ ...

    Since the dollar is a fiat currency (i.e. not based on a gold standard like it used to be years ago), it is only worth what people say it is worth. And since America continues to borrow at record rates - our national debt is the highest it has ever been - our currency is becoming less desirable than it ever has been.
    • RobLiefeld, on 11/07/2007, -81/+6Where's your proof?
      • rudy23, on 11/08/2007, -54/+2its on the internet fool. has to be true.
      • CaymanCarpediem, on 11/09/2007, -2/+63Proof of what? That Clinton had a budget surplus? That national debt has grown crazily under Bush? That the US dollar is a fiat currency? That our debt is at record highs? That our dollar is at record lows? I had no idea there was anyone who didn't already know these things, but let me know which ones you want cited references of and I'll happily help (though Google is your friend).
      • zephc, on 11/08/2007, -6/+25Go back to making crappy, poorly drawn comics, Rob. Economics is not your forte. But then neither is art...
        • speedk0re, on 11/07/2007, -17/+3crappy poorly drawn my ass; i grew up on many of his comics especially in the image days... wtf kind of impact have you had on the general public?
        • cococooky, on 11/07/2007, -10/+4Rob may be naive, but you sir are an *****.
      • DooM, on 11/08/2007, -0/+33He provided links, genius - use the button at the top left side of your 'mouse'.
        • numbered, on 11/08/2007, -2/+7Who are you kidding, his mouse only has 1 button
      • mikesbaker, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4he is a troll relax
      • Nickbc87, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2In the pudding.
      • miketherazor, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1It has been a long time coming. It isn't Bush, it is all of them. Clinton is and was a sell out as well.
      • bemenaker, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1GAO, the US budget is public record. This is known facts. If we werent' invading innocent countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 we wouldn't be borrowing all this money. The war is being paid for with loans, and isn't being factored into the economy numbers. It will crush us.
    • GoneSouth, on 11/12/2007, -10/+176It *is* mostly Bush's fault. This alleged conservative president took the country from a position of budget surplus to running consecutive record deficits in under 8 years. All because red state voters think it is more important to keep gays in Massachusetts from getting married than it is to run a balanced budget. When will American voters wake up and get their priorities straight?
      • eryximachus, on 11/07/2007, -29/+11Umm, the president is not a dictator. He doesn't have any control over the budget. He can do nothing but veto a budget presented by congress. Clinton ran a deficit until the Republicans retook Congress. Republicans were responsible for the budget from 1994 to 2006. The reasons why the deficit increased substantially are primarily 1) the Iraq War and 2) the 2000 collapse of the stock bubble and the resulting economic stagnation since that time.
        • sancho, on 11/08/2007, -2/+14When the office of the President and the Congress are controlled by the same party, stuff like this happens. Bush got free reign to do whatever he wanted. When he wants to do something outside his power, and he has a conservative Congress, he just has to ask them to do it, then he signs off on it.

          Take the early tax cuts as a great example. It was on his platform from the beginning of his campaign. Yet he has no direct control on it--it has to go through Congress. But he made it happen.

          There's no doubt that the Iraq War (which there's good evidence that he manufactured cause for) and the 2000 tech collapse (which not even the wackiest liberal can blame him for) took their toll. Absolutely, most of what we're borrowing is for the war that the majority of the country (even a huge number of Republicans) disagree with. But Bush cannot escape blame. He may not be totally t fault, but he's largely at fault.
          • c5kirk, on 11/08/2007, -1/+20The really sad part is that now the Democrats are in control of Congress and they don't seem to be doing much differently than when the Republicans were in control.
          • Urusai, on 11/07/2007, -4/+6Indeed, all three branches of federal government have been dominated by Republicans throughout 2001-2006. I think anyone who thinks that Republicans can run the country successfully needs to take a long, hard look at the empirical evidence to the contrary. You can't blame Clinton this time.
        • XopherMV, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8The President has vastly more control over the budget than any individual Congressman or Senator. His veto gives him that control. That is the power of having all the power of a single branch of government in the hands of one man.
        • michaelkanobie, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3And he also reserves the right to legally interpret the bill however way he sees fit, and it's completely allowed! Thankfully the senate and the house are working quickly to change this presidential right.
        • jdotter, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3"1) the Iraq War and 2) the 2000 collapse of the stock bubble"
          I think you forgot # 3 - Tax "refunds" from the budget surplus.
      • mchinsky, on 11/07/2007, -3/+1Yea, all bushes fault. Ha. The president has no ability to spend 1 cent. All appropriations are done through congress you rocket scientists. He only approves them or vetos them. This new democratic congress is porking and spending faster than the previous republican congress. Mostly because the 1980's democratic congress would never push for a line item veto to let the president (whoever he/she may be) remove the pork.

        Remember to that clinton had huge tax incomes due to the internet bubble which he didn't nothing about so payback for that came primarily after 2000, on Bush's watch. Also remember that clinton spent virtually nothing on defense or terrorism in his years so again, payback came with 3000 lives and a whole lot of money post 9/11. If Bush didn't spend the money, you same Bush hating libs would be bitching he wasn't doing anything about Homeland security.

        If it rains today, it's Bush's fault. If a hurricane hits, it's bush's fault because of global warming. The only things that are never bush's fault are things that are good for libs...

        Get a life folks. But if you want restrained spending, the last folks to expect it from would be big government liberals. What do you think Hillarycare would cost? Bush wanted to save social security, and instead the libs were proud of killing that so it is just going to be a bigger and bigger big government drain.

        If people would stop relying on the government to make their lives happy, the budget deficit would disapper. The forefathers only envisioned the federal government's purpose as to defend from outside invaders and to deal with interstate commerce. There was no federal income tax until 1913 when democrats started winning elections and started big goverment like "the new deal" that we are still straddled with
    • Klak, on 11/07/2007, -22/+16clinton pushed through NAFTA so its partially his fault. but i think tax cuts(bush) and interest rate cuts(greenspan) are more to blame.
      • mikejbam, on 11/07/2007, -10/+4Historically, the highest tax revenues have come during the periods when tax rates were the lowest. Lower taxes stimulate the economy, which in turn generate higher revenues... It's a pretty simple concept.
        • sancho, on 11/08/2007, -0/+12That works if you don't have money flowing out of the country. If I get a 2000 tax cut and spend that money on products made in China, all I'm doing is helping China's economy and hurting America's.
        • XopherMV, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9Your evidence?

          It is complete nonsense to assume that lowering the tax rate increases tax returns.

          Tax rates were highest in the 40's, 50's and 60's when America was at its economic peak.
        • dmitri12s, on 11/07/2007, -0/+6Where is this historical data? I don't buy it.
        • biotch, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Neither the Reagan cuts nor the Bush cuts support this. It is NOT historical...
          http://www.cbpp.org/3-8-06tax.htm
      • 666dorado, on 11/08/2007, -2/+28HA!! don't blame CLINTON for NAFTA dumbass, BUSH SR. signed the treaty in 1992 with Salinas and Mulroney, i was a photographer THERE ON THAT DAY standing 100 feet from them when it happened. look at any of the photos and you will see live oaks (TEXAS) in the background.
        • netant, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2NAFTA was supported and signed by Clinton. It wouldn't be law without many people, but they include Bill Clinton.
    • OswaldKenobi, on 11/07/2007, -44/+24You are a moronic liberal. Clinton was propped up by a tech bubble and a housing bubble. I am so sick of hearing about how great things were under Clinton. The economy started to slip three months before Bush took office. The market collapsed within weeks of Bush taking office; well before his policies could have any effect on the economy. But it's still his fault. Idiot.

      Bush's reactionary policies did not help the dollar rebound, but this is in no way Bush's fault. You ***** idiots don't know a thing about economics, as is obvious by your stupid statements. The American people bear the sole responsibility for the collapse of the dollar and the failure of the economy to grow. You assholes borrow and borrow, then you blame the government. Want to fix it? Stop borrowing money. Start saving. Stop relying on the government to fix everything.
      • mikejbam, on 11/07/2007, -25/+10Amen.
      • DooM, on 11/08/2007, -7/+20The markets 'collapsed'? Wow, I must've been on a bender at the time because you'd think you'd remember something like a market 'collapse'. The nation did go into a recession shortly after Bush took office that was worsened by 9/11, but the same thing happened shortly after Clinton took over, too - it's all in how you respond to recessions because they are a natural part of the way the economy functions. Bush ***** it up and Clinton presided over some of the highest growth years this country has ever seen... I know which one I'd put money on.
      • dmitri12s, on 11/07/2007, -11/+10I'm a liberal who agrees with you. Clinton was in the right place at the right time for the Internet and tech revolution. He didn't come up with it himself.
      • biotch, on 11/07/2007, -1/+3Well one CAN say the economy is moving very sluggishly under Bush's economic plan. The little movement at all was in part because people were borrowing and spending too much at such a low prime rate. As interest rates climbed, people had to pay back what they borrowed, and the real economy began showing its ugly face. Basically everyone bet on future economic growth. Our economy is still stagnant. THAT can be blamed on Bush.
    • opiniastrous, on 11/12/2007, -11/+34You and your gold standard buddies understand nothing about economics do you?

      Even if the $US was based on a gold standard, the exchange rate would still be as it is. A gold standard is unrelated to exchange rates - exchange rates are the product of supply and demand. If you make more of your currency available for exchange (e.g. when importing goods and services) then the supply is going to increase, and the currency will depreciate. Recently, the US has been spending a lot of money overseas (funding war and buying lots of imports) and that is the reason for the depreciation. Now that the $US is cheaper, chances are foreign money will start moving back into the US because American goods and services will become cheaper (so exports will increase). The recent articles about a likely increase in tourism because of the low $US are an example of that. Those tourists, etc. will need to buy American goods and services with US money, and so the demand for the $US will rise again - helping to equalise exchange rates.

      Again, just as the price of gold changes with supply and demand, the price of a gold-backed currency will change with supply and demand.
      • eryximachus, on 11/08/2007, -5/+13Dude, the supply and demand is for US TREASURIES - which are the basis of value of our currency. People buy US dollars because that is all the US treasury will accept. They don't buy US dollars to buy ***** in this country.

        And for the record - no country in the history of human civilization has ever devalued their currency into prosperity. The dream industry will return is a crazy one, and you can't cite a single example of such a scenario ocurring, ever.
        • opiniastrous, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Yes, they do buy US dollars to buy *****. If I was going to the US, I would buy US dollars to buy US goods.

          Also, I never said that you can devalue a currency into prosperity, and to state that I did is to create a straw man. I was explaining that the rate at which people try to sell the $US, and the rate at which people try to buy the $US, form a relationship that determines the value of the $US on the foreign exchange market. Unless everyone went to the gold standard (they won't because there are other reasons against it), a gold standard would not affect the forex.

          Here's something I just found. Edumacate yourself.

          http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/whynotth ...
        • opiniastrous, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Damn Digg. Stop truncating links! This one works for me...

          http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/whynotth ...
        • opiniastrous, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1Aargh! Somehow I pressed 'submit' and two comments were submitted.
      • dmitri12s, on 11/07/2007, -4/+6"And for the record - no country in the history of human civilization has ever devalued their currency into prosperity."

        China's kept theirs pretty low on purpose and done well so far. Also, I like Ron Pauls message and attitude, but going to a gold standard is economically stupid. It sounds good to Joe Average, thats about it.

        Seriously, what is with all these comments talking about 'ever' or 'in human history'? You people are making crap up.
        • ZWarren69, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2I think you might not be fully informed on his views of integrating gold as a currency, which will withstand all inflation. He does not want to throw out fiat currency. There is an equilibrium.
      • CaymanCarpediem, on 11/07/2007, -3/+3So the US treasury just printing more money as they see fit because it doesn't have to be backed by anything doesn't increase the supply?
        • Ibox, on 11/07/2007, -6/+3Correct
        • opiniastrous, on 11/07/2007, -2/+6They don't just print more money for no reason you idiot. People have known that causes inflation since the Roman Empire, if not before. You're not some freaking band of new-age economic geniuses! Central banks:

          a) print money to replace ageing/damaged notes and coins, and
          b) print money in an attempt to match the level of economic activity. Again, it's about matching supply to demand. Even on a gold standard, you'd have to keep producing gold at a level equivalent to economic growth to ensure zero in/deflation (oh, and we've already mined 75% of the world's gold!!!).
          • CaymanCarpediem, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1"You're not some freaking band of new-age economic geniuses!" Certainly I'm not. I only try to apply very old common sense to it, while the "new-age economic geniuses" have the "new age" ideas like it doesn't matter how much debt we have. I think we actually need to pay it back, while apparently the "new-age" idea is we don't.

            Your points:
            a) doesn't matter, has no effect on the total in circulation
            b) having something to actually back your currency doesn't mean you cannot make more of your currency. It simply means you need to aquire something of intrinsic value first to back it up. This doesn't need to be gold, in fact it can be any combination of things. gold, silver, corn futures, oil, it really doesn't matter (though the more stable the items value the better). You can print any money the economy calls for, but requiring something to back up that new money stabelizes its value and can temper central banks sometimes urge to over-produce.

            Obviously, inflation can be an issue and can be helped by printing more money. However, there are many other issues in play besides inflation and all things considered having something to actually back the currency is a stablizing force in just about of those issues.
        • opiniastrous, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2Oh, and also as a tool to ensure the stable growth of the economy.
      • Genady, on 11/08/2007, -2/+10"The recent articles about a likely increase in tourism because of the low $US are an example of that. Those tourists, etc. will need to buy American goods and services with US money, and so the demand for the $US will rise again - helping to equalise exchange rates."

        Missing one thing here. Foreign tourism to the US is curtailed by the lengthy time it takes to process visas, AND the perception that the US TSA is hostile to foreign tourists. It's a nice idea, but there are significant factors working against a wholesale expansion of tourism.
        • opiniastrous, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I understood that the US has put some fairly big barriers since 9/11, but I was just giving an example of how depreciation affects exports.
      • mtiffany71, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4Ever notice that the Gold Standard folks always start to sound like Golem from the Lord of the Rings if you let them go on long enough? "The Precious, the Precious..."
        Gold, like paper currency – or as the GSG's like to say 'fiat' currency – is only as valuable as the person who has something to trade says it is. It has *no inherent value of its own.* After all, what does a man dying of thirst in the desert ask for?
        • opiniastrous, on 11/07/2007, -1/+3I recently discovered why some of these guys think this stuff. Apparently it's because of that movie 'Zeitgeist', which seems pretty convincing on the surface, but lacks any depth. I've got a copy, and though I haven't watched it yet apparently it claims Jesus didn't exist (not that he was the son of God, but that he simply did not exist), that the Federal Reserve is the big bad wolf and the US should go back to the Gold standard, and mixes a bit of 9/11 conspiracy in as well. At the end it shows a screen with the message "VOTE RON PAUL"
    • chrisinsocalif, on 11/07/2007, -20/+2"When Clinton was in the White House, we actually had a budget surplus"
      Which happens when there is over-taxation.
      • 68024, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4...or in a healthy economy in which people come to your country to borrow money, instead of the other way around.
      • mcrosby, on 11/07/2007, -0/+10Americans don't know the meaning of over-taxation!
        • Misesean, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Sure they do. "Over" means "greater than zero"
    • bluesnowmonkey, on 11/07/2007, -16/+9Clinton's great balanced budget was a lie. There was only ever a PROJECTED surplus while Clinton was in office. As in, somewhere there was a piece of paper that said they would be in the black, but they weren't. Every year, they spent more money than they brought in. Every year, national debt went up.

      It would be like if I declared that I balanced my personal budget, but my credit card debt kept going up. "Oh, I decided to only make the minimum payments."
    • Ibox, on 11/07/2007, -16/+4Clinton is the ***** that signed in NAFTA.
      • reddfox321, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2No. Bush Sr. did.
      • mtiffany71, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Right, but the Senate ratified NAFTA under Clinton. And yet, after NAFTA passed, I never did hear any giant sucking sound come from anything other than from Ross Perot's political movement.
    • 68024, on 11/07/2007, -8/+5Yep... don't forget Pat Buchanan (who wrote the article, for those who didn't RTFA) is also a republican. So it's gotta be Clinton's fault. /sarcasm
      • netant, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2I'd argue Buchanan is an independent. He's not part of the neocon agenda (which by the way, runs both parties). Perhaps he changed his political registration back to Republican, but I don't see why he would.
      • bemenaker, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1PB has been rather fair lately.
      • mtiffany71, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Petitio Principii: find something that isn't Clinton's fault. Only a Democrat could.
    • whatsupimphil, on 11/07/2007, -0/+7To be fair, it's largely congresses fault - as are most problems with our government. And who reelects the same representatives to congress time and time again? We do.
      • skulljar, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2So it's our fault. We get the government we deserve.
        • mtiffany71, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Damn straight. But if you don't like the government you've got, do something to change it: vote, write letters to your elected reps. We've all got those rights, but less than half of us exercise them.
    • misledinamerica, on 11/07/2007, -2/+10Didn't Clinton drain the Social Security fund to balance the budget? I'm not suggesting that he's as irresponsible as Bush, but let's keep this in a little perspective.

      Something folks aren't factoring in is that everybody outside of the US thinks our government is completely crazy. I mean we're getting our asses kicked in a war against a country that had no navy and no air force before we invaded. Their were a bunch of rock throwers. Of course, necessity Is the Mother of Invention and now they are armed to the teeth.

      Now it looks very likely that we're going to pick a fight with 70+ million Iranians that have very strong ties to both Russia and China (the country that is lending us most of the money to fight the first war). What's wrong with this picture?

      So, one can only hope that if a sane person like Ron Paul or ???? (someone else that doesn't want to bomb Iran) gets elected, things will improve dramatically with the price of Oil and the dollar.
      • mtiffany71, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1There is no Social Security 'trust fund.' There is no gigantic piggy bank with our FICA tax monies in it, so there was nothing for Bill Clinton to 'drain.' What is collected in taxes is spent. None of it is saved.
        • netant, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1But money collected as FICA was earmarked for Social Security spending. We have fiscal IOUs to dedicate towards Social Security. WHEN Social Security obligations come due, there will be no money available to pay them, other than what we directly tax from the US populace. Formula for a disaster. Don't pretend Social Security isn't a problem because we don't set aside money towards the "fund".
          • mtiffany71, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1I wasn't 'pretending' that Social Security isn't a problem, I was pointing out that Bill Clinton didn't drain 'The Social Security Trust Fund' to balance the federal budget because there's no such thing as 'The Social Security Trust Fund.' There never has been. The budget got balanced because taxes were raised and spending was reduced such that: 'tax revenue = government spending.'
            You're right about the IOUs but, sorry, no, taxes collected as FICA payroll deductions are not earmarked for anything. Congress gets to decide how much is spent and on what.
            I know that there will be a shortfall in Social Security in a few short years. But, again, not the point I was addressing.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3I'll blame part of it on Bush. The boom was already busting when he took office, though, so you can't blame him entirely. Part of this is inherited. I can, however, blame the extent of the deficit squarely on him and the Republicans. Fiscal conservatism my ass.
      • biotch, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Clinton came in just after a recession from Bush sr.... however he didnt seem to have any problem with presiding over the longest and largest economic expansion in US history.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1And the recession from Bush Sr and Clinton were two very different things with two very different causes. Clinton was simply lucky enough to be around when the internet arrived and revolutionized the business world.
          • biotch, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1Well ... I think its funny how when Clinton was president, everyone was arguing over whos fault the success was. While Bush has been president, everyone is arguing over whos fault the failures are.
            The truth is Clinton's policies provided a climate for technological advancement and investment. Bush has not done that. There is no reason we arent able to have another technological boom right now. Our population on average works more efficiently. However the economic policies today namely the tax cut largely to the rich has not helped with competitive production nor has it seemed to influence investments, or hiring except in a negative way. One can call it luck. But the economic climate for rapid expansion is not there anymore. It was under our previous administration.
    • Mark7r0n, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4You do realize by surplus it means we went less into debt than we planned on right? It was still deficit spending just less of it. He still racked up the national debt just a couple hundred billion less than he said he would, which is sadly not much money with respect to our national debt...
      • biotch, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1no, by surplus it means we had more revenue than what was spent for the year. It lowers the previously accumulated national debt when we have a surplus.... unless we go and spend it, like Bush did.
      • jdotter, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Here's an example:
        I owe my credit card company ~$2,700 currently. I make ~ $2,300 a month net. I have ~ $1,200 a month in bills (rent, car pmt, food, cell phone etc.) That means I have a monthly surplus of ~$1,100, but I still have my debt to deal with. This is the same way the US gov't double talks everything. I'm paying my cc down every month but it's still out there as a debt I owe. The only real debt, non-expense for utilities/services and cost of living, that counts is debt that is due, examples being my minimum car and credit card pmt's, I choose to use my surplus to pay my cc down further/quicker, though I could use it for anything.
    • FutureGuy, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.png
    • askegg, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1"Since the dollar is a fiat currency (i.e. not based on a gold standard like it used to be years ago), it is only worth what people say it is worth"

      Gold is only worth what people say it is worth.
      Checkmate.
  • Error601, on 11/09/2007, -132/+9Please put this stupid ***** under politics. How hard is that?
    • Alegoo92, on 11/07/2007, -4/+14You're a stupid *****, Error601...
    • firefox3000, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Your an idiot, Finance and Politics are almost the same things!
      Business pays tax - tax goes to government - government makes decisions on what to spend tax on.
      Most politics is financial anyway.
      I know nothing about politics but at least I can understand the obvious!
    • Trublmakr, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Keep your head buried in the sand E601,.. Go ahead and dismiss a looming US economic crisis as stupid. While you're at it, ignore global climate change - it's not man-made but a natural cycle. Ignore evolution because it's not compatible with your faith. Most of all, ignore the fact that your attitude is whats most wrong with America.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1So instead of even speaking to the issue, you go anal retentive.
  • pedrovoltaire, on 11/07/2007, -8/+23"In 2006, that U.S. trade deficit hit $764 billion. The current account deficit, which includes the trade deficit, plus the net outflow of interest, dividends, capital gains and foreign aid, hit $857 billion, 6.5 percent of GDP. As some of us have been writing for years, such deficits are unsustainable and must lead to a decline of the dollar."

    Tripe...

    http://www.mises.org/story/2029
    • jeffiek, on 11/07/2007, -5/+7There is much to learn from the article you linked to, but you won't get people to go there by dismissing Buchanan's comment with a disdainful "tripe"

      Supply something meaningful like from the Mises article- "What matters for the process of wealth formation is the flow of real savings. The balance of payments statement doesn't provide such information." Which is something not often mentioned, something that might pique someone's curiosity.

      I disagree somewhat with Shostak's conclusion, I don't believe the trade deficits can go on forever. If, as he implies, they represent nothing more than foreign investment, we still have a problem. Every child knows that the winner in Monopoly is the one that buys the hotels. While the Americans are buying junk, the foreigners are buying "hotels". Not good.

      Worthwhile reading.


    • markp93, on 11/08/2007, -0/+11"such deficits are unsustainable and must lead to a decline of the dollar" ... Isn't that what is happening?
    • Corvidae, on 11/07/2007, -6/+2I'm just curious, while quoting tripe from the mises site. Do you actually realize that Ludwig Von Mises was a fascist? Or has that just been hidden under the guise of a free market thinker?
    • primeq, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Because a particular think-tank (libertarian at that) says it's not a problem, are we to check out brains at the door and take your "tripe" dismissal as fact? I think not. read a little wider and realize that the entire world does not wait with bated breath for what the Von Mises Institute (or you, for that matter) thinks.
    • FutureGuy, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Nice read.
      Now I will go and get me a PS3 /sarcasm
  • chris9902, on 11/14/2007, -3/+306How many people even know their paycheck is worth 30% less than it was a couple of years ago?
    • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -1/+15I know mine did as of earlier this year, when I moved back to the US. I used to get paid in Euros...
    • Drizzit, on 11/08/2007, -2/+13Ever wonder why Asian auto manufacturers are making a killing? Imagine inflation if China suddenly tied their currency to the Euro.

      On the flipside oil is 30% cheaper in those countries since oil is tied to the dollar. It's a wonder Bush is harassing a nation that wants to tie oil to the euro, Iran.

      The problem is the largest voting group in the country are more worried about getting their benefits despite their lack of will to pressure congress to leave SS/MED alone which leaves us with the bill.

      Those of us who are putting into our 401k and roths now wonder if this keeps up will our savings even be enough.
      • zanzzz, on 11/07/2007, -1/+5Oil is not "30% cheaper in those countries". The increase in the price of oil is reflected in dollars. This is in part due to the decreasing relative value of dollars; as the market values dollars cheaper oil is priced higher in dollars to maintain its value in the market. Other currencies see neither an increase or decrease if their value remains stable.
        • netant, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Translation:

          When the US dollar drops 30% in value compared to the national currency, and then the amount of dollars required increases 30%, the foreign currency doesn't suffer. They merely change their currency unit for 30% more dollars, and use those dollars to pay their fuel bill. Its people who are DIRECTLY dependent on the dollar's value who are screwed. That is the United States.
      • xobecide, on 11/07/2007, -3/+4At twenty years old, 5000 to spare up front and 100 to spare a paycheck, I _should_ be well off with a retirement fund. Funny thing is I pay more per check on SS than I do my own investment, and will likely only see my personal investment hit my pocket again at the same value it is now. At least it's better than putting it under a mattress...
      • bufmike, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2have you diversified into and international fund?
    • barthook, on 11/07/2007, -5/+16It is only worth 30% less on the international market. Greed is more to blame than any politician.
      • chris9902, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8And what is made in America nowadays? You import almost everything so it's going to affect you.
      • rotundo, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1It is only 30% less on the international market... but since Americans can't be bothered to do the important but menial jobs that we outsourced overseas, a ton of the products we take for granted are from the international market.
        • SillyDigger, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Millions of Americans have been laid off and had their jobs outsourced, they certainly didn't just quit or as you put it "Americans can't be bothered to do the important but menial jobs"
    • Teku, on 11/08/2007, -3/+7Compared to what? Foreigner currency? do you buy your groceries with the euro?
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2In relation to oil, for one thing. Most Americans (and yes I am an American) aren't encouraged to question anything or to think critically. So they think OPEC is raising the price of oil. Nope. The Amercian dollar is falling in value. The result is that we pay more dollars for oil, so anything that has to be transported goes up in price until the dollar stops falling. Why is the dollar falling? Because the "Federal Reserve" (such a misnomer) just prints more dollars to lend to the government and banks to pay for things that our country cannot afford. But this concept is way above the ability of the average American to comprehend. This is no accident. Dumbed down people are easier to control.

        But don't take my word for any of this. Do you own research and form your own opinions. And if you start to look at the movie The Matrix differently, then you are starting to catch on.
    • tyho, on 11/08/2007, -8/+9I find it humorous that the only conservative articles that make it to the front page are ones liberals, and others, can use as proof that America is doomed.
      Other economic factors in our economy, jobs, growth, etc. are doing exceptionally well. Most economists have stated this dollar devaluation is no crisis.
      • artemster, on 11/07/2007, -3/+5Not being scared is less fun.
      • Memitim, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5I don't believe it to be a crisis but rather a marker of a damaging trend that will have long reaching consequences on the economic stability of the country. This rabid Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal partisan *****, on the other hand, will easily ***** us all.
        • tyho, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2I think we mostly agree. The partisan fighting is tearing us apart. It would be nice if we could wipe out all politicians and start anew, but as that is a dream, I choose what I believe to be the lesser of two evils. Choosing a 3rd party is akin to choosing nothing unfortunately.
      • biotch, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1lol ... jobs and economic growth are NOT doing exceptionally well. First of all we need about 150k jobs per month just to break even with population growth. Bush's job growth is barely above that level. Both the GDP and jobs growth are dwarfed by Americas success in the 90s.
    • waynetheman, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Anyone without a lot of disposable income who still tries to manage their money well has. It gets harder to save each year, and eventually one realizes that all of your expenses are steadily climbing.
      *sigh* Time to find a higher-paying job (again).
      • zspeed78, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1I recommend constantly being on the lookout for a higher-paying job. Why settle?
    • ELCad, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3It's worth 50% less at the gas pumps.
  • tman84, on 11/07/2007, -15/+2original digg straight from his website, not yahoo http://digg.com/politics/PJB_Sinking_Currency_Sink ...
  • Stuart750, on 11/09/2007, -72/+7Buried for lack of a comma, and 'alot' is not a word.... it's 'a lot'...
    • mrjit, on 11/08/2007, -4/+23Oh jesus christ.
      • halavais, on 11/07/2007, -3/+10Oh, Jesus Christ.
        • Corvidae, on 11/07/2007, -1/+7Oh Jesus, Christ.
        • sinalmighty, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1no im pretty sure jesus christ is all lower case... cause it takes skillz to use caps
    • KingAdrock, on 11/07/2007, -2/+1IT'S THE LAW, *****!
    • Jawmht, on 11/08/2007, -0/+12Language is designed to serve humans, not the other way around.
  • heartless_, on 11/08/2007, -30/+13I'm glad that there are so many economists in these comments that can actually explain why the falling dollar is actually very beneficial to the US economy. In simple, layman terms, the dollar goes down and our exports go up. Tourism from Canada to the US is already nearing all time records and is boosting an otherwise sliding tourism industry in the US.

    Exports (such as tourism) are up, imports are down and that is GOOD for the US economy.

    Sure, the mortgage problems are of concern, but more so to the companies that built themselves lending money to people that they knew probably could never pay it back.
    • jcarrion1976, on 11/12/2007, -1/+27What exports? Seriously we already have sent our manufacturing overseas.

      New business is born from the investment of savings. Today we have no savings and those that do have already left the US market for greener pastures.

      The idea that this at all good for the average american is naive.
      • dcbebop, on 11/07/2007, -2/+2When it becomes more expensive to send overseas is when manufacturing comes back to the us. Maybe this will help prompt an economic reset.

        We are in no shortage of qualified, skilled labor compared to third world countries. When the dollar is worth the same as their currency, which country will get the majority of the business? The only problem is that these "America #1" retards will have to accept being the labor bitch of some other richer country.
      • Tippis, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2...added to that is the introduction of tax laws which were meant to make it harder to launder money, but which in actuality just makes it hugely expensive for foreign investors to pour money into US companies, simply because they're foreign.
      • heartless_, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Ignorance is such sweet bliss. Manufacturing does not equal exports. I can't even believe people dugg you for saying that.
    • mrjit, on 11/08/2007, -2/+22Did I not read a digg article a few weeks ago about how US tourism is at an all time low?
      • dcmjzero, on 11/08/2007, -1/+14yes, because of our border policy. people are afraid to come here because they don't want to end up at gitmo or in a syrian prison.
    • anononon, on 11/08/2007, -7/+29The only truly American export these days is war. 100% Made in America. Everything else is made in China.
      • Corvidae, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3And porn, it's actually an amazingly large export. I've been looking for better numbers on it to compare it with weapons and manufactured goods exports. Oddly enough porn isn't a category on most export statistics.
    • CroMag, on 11/07/2007, -7/+3How dare you suggest anything other than "I-told you-so" misery fables on Digg!!!
    • meachen, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1What tourists want to go to America and get mugged/raped/***** up be the 1000 different gangs over there?
  • whatthefu, on 11/12/2007, -12/+61So we're listening to Pat Buchanan now?
    • poppieprong, on 11/08/2007, -7/+6yah, I wish I had been a little more careful about my digging this story. Pat Buchanan is a little ... ... ... unsavory to me.
    • CroMag, on 11/08/2007, -16/+6I always have. He's always been a voice of reason.

      You sound like a *****.
      • rudy23, on 11/07/2007, -7/+4***** is a very reasonable word to use in this contect so I can see how good your reasoning skills are
        • goatspanka, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2Heh, you said *****.
        • CroMag, on 11/07/2007, -2/+1Interesting. I can see how good your spelling skills are.
        • CroMag, on 11/07/2007, -3/+1Interesting. I can see how good your spelling skills are.
    • donte, on 11/07/2007, -1/+13Not saying I'm a Buchanan fan, but even some idiots let nuggets of truth slip out every now and then.
      • Bartboy919, on 11/07/2007, -0/+6Bush had his

        "I have determined that humans and fish can coexist peacefully"

        See? Thats the last truth he ever spoke.
    • rotundo, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9Of course I'll listen to Pat Buchanan -- if he's speaking the truth. Don't judge information by the source.

      That said, I think he is full of ***** in this article when he tries to deflect some of the blame from GW... lots of other leaders have ***** us too over the years with overspending, but GW is the worst offender.

      Anyone remember when Bush sent everyone $640 because they had extra money from the Clinton years? Maybe we should have paid down our ***** national credit card bill with that.
    • Memitim, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4Even FOX News releases a fact every now and again.
    • KizardLing, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6I'm pretty far to the left, but that doesn't mean I dismiss Pat Buchanan out of hand. In the last couple years, I've found myself agreeing with him quite a bit about the antics of this administration and neocons in general.
      • netant, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Sad, isn't it? Being a lefty, and a minority, I wasn't too thrilled with his Amerika Uber Alles speech in 1992. But it freaking sad that I agreed with most of his 2004 platform.
    • ELCad, on 11/08/2007, -2/+3Just because he is an idiot and a bigot does not mean he is always wrong.
    • gotamd, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2Yeah, he screwed up the ending. This isn't about free trade. This is about the price of imperialism and war.
    • JormiBoced, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1I may not agree with some of his views, but I agree with this essay.
    • peranadigital, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Best start listening to someone. There was a decade long recession here in Australia during the 80s and it absolutely sucked balls. This isn't make believe, I went to the US last year, if I'd come this year it would have cost about half of what I spent. Good for me, not so much for America.
  • tucsonsun13, on 11/09/2007, -31/+64Impeach.
    • Kimberlyyan, on 11/07/2007, -2/+3Lame duck. Waste of more money.
      • withincontext, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4I think accountability is worth the cost. I respect that not everyone feels this way.
      • netant, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2The impeachment is not to remove him from power.

        Its to make a statement as to what behavior the voting public will not tolerate from its elected officials.
    • sanotaan, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1i'll impeach whatever president let the education system fail tusconsun13 so much that he equates correlation with causation.
  • Wargalas, on 11/12/2007, -28/+74While Bush does indeed deserve a lot of the blame, Democrats and many of you here aren't helping matters. Case in point? Universal health care. All of you want it, but none of you are willing to cut the budget elsewhere to help pay for it. And we're talking about billions of dollars a year. Stop with the "nanny state" programs, kick people in the ass who need it, and run the government like a ruthless business and you won't hear about this kind of fiscal disaster again. A balanced budget is in the interests of all Americans, regardless of political point of view.
    • stylerm, on 11/09/2007, -13/+34Democrats put in a tobacco tax to pay for it. Bush said that the tobacco tax was unnecessary as one of his arguments when he vetoed it.

      Sorry, you failed.
      • stevenb, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4So wait, only people who smoke get to foot the bill for this universal health care?

        errr
      • robojerk, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2The Democrats should havetried to tax something everyone uses to pay for Universal Health Care. Sin taxes are not smart.
      • stylerm, on 11/07/2007, -3/+4I think they should have taxed tabacco, alcohol, and pre-processed foods. Make the people who use the most healthcare pay for it.

        Tax&spend > spend&spend.
        • BoneheadFarker, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1And while they're at it, they should legalize and tax weed too. Not only to generate more money and save a metric ***** in police spending, but also because you're gonna need to be high as a kite to even look at all that debt...
      • brad3378, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2Nobody smokes enough cigarettes to support the health care expenses for themselves - let alone for others that don't smoke. Face it. If you're going to pay for your own health care anyway - why pay through taxes? Why get the government involved even more? After you get the government involved - what types of treatments should they cover? Should they pay for boob jobs? Should they pay for Cat Scans on scraped knees? You're asking for another $500 hammer scandal if you get the government involved.
        • workharderscum, on 11/07/2007, -0/+5The only difference between government and private business:

          The government will spend $500 on a hammer
          Private business will spend 50 cents on a hammer, and give the $499.50 to their CEO as a bonus
        • Trublmakr, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1@ Brad: Because unlike the Health insurance companies Stateside, the Canadian government is interested in providing Health care not profiting from it. Why are our drugs cheaper? Because of the governments purchasing power. I agree with you that it's essentially a wash for the average person,.. but the key difference is that in Canada nobody is refused care - and nobody goes bankrupt for having received it.
      • Wargalas, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1And what happens when people stop smoking enough to pay for health care? Health care costs are always going to go up, but smoking is something that ebbs and flows. So how do you plan on paying for it when there's a shortage of funds? Nice long term thinking you got there.....and now who fails?
    • Pixelpaws, on 11/09/2007, -7/+50Also, universal healthcare costs are estimated at $100 billion a year, while the Iraq war costs $200 billion a year. So we could end the war, enact universal healthcare, and still come out ahead.
      • budda44, on 11/07/2007, -17/+6The problem with your argument hinges with the fact that the war in Iraq will end at some point, thereby ending the $200 billion in expenses. However, once Nationalized Health Care is enacted, we will face your $100 million figure every year until it is repealed. Additionally, this number will inevitably rise every year as all federal budgets do.....

        Sorry, YOU failed.
      • halavais, on 11/07/2007, -3/+12Why are Japanese auto makers putting plants in Canada instead of the US? Because it is cheaper to pay the higher Canadian taxes than it is to pay for health insurance for their American workers. Money spent on health care does not go "down the drain" any more than money spent on the highway system does. It provides the infrastructure a modern economy needs to build from.

        The war in Iraq is unlikely to end any time soon, but hopefully US involvement in it will.
        • brad3378, on 11/07/2007, -2/+2Why do I see so many Canadians from Windsor, Ontario at the hospitals in the Detroit area?
          • pawnzRus, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Why can't I buy my prescriptions from Canada, Aye?
      • Wargalas, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Except we're borrowing money hand over fist to pay for the war in Iraq.
    • wickedfetch, on 11/09/2007, -5/+26And yet the Canadians manage to have massive surpluses all while providing universal health care....
      • OHiggins, on 11/09/2007, -13/+4It's not universal health care, it's Socialized Healthcare. There is a difference.
        • Trublmakr, on 11/07/2007, -1/+3Socialized IS universal buddy. We Canadians support our health care system through our taxes - which is socialism in the same sense a fire department is socialism. But consider what Americans pay collectively into health insurance premiums. I suspect that if all US health insurance revenue was put into the system (profits included) you guys would be way ahead.
      • djbon2112, on 11/09/2007, -10/+6Yea, try living up here and paying the taxes.
        • Mardala, on 11/09/2007, -1/+15I lived in Canada for a number of years. I paid $54 a month for BC Medical and my employer paid extended health. It was simple and cost me $54 a month. Now living back in the US. granted I have a good job and my insurance is covered, the co-pays are high. I have asthma like many people do. In Canada I paid $12 CA each for the inhalers and got a prescription that gave me up to 12 a year. Back in the US I got a prescription for 4, my insurance would not cover more than 1 at a time. So for 4, inhalers including my co-pay, my out of pocket expenses were $245 US. I recently switched jobs and I had the option to by into a 3 month coverage with my existing health care to cover the months I didn't have coverage before my new employer would start insurance (they have a 90 day policy) you know what the bill would have been had I opted in? Just shy of $500 a month US. That does not include vision or dental. That was extra. So people have to realise that Americans are paying exponentially higher medical coverage than countries with socialised options. Statistics show that because of high bills not being paid that gets put onto the general public, and also we are getting raped by pharm companies, our medical coverage is much higher per person than anywhere else. What people in Canada don't realise is the high cost of the CO-PAY. My doctor visit (even though I have insurance) was $20. Every visit. What my insurance was billed? Around $200. Now I would rather pay $54 a month and go see my doctor anytime I felt like it than get raped by a failing system. Not only that, when I was in Canada I could go to any doctor. In the US you have to do your research and find one that will take your coverage. You have a dozen options of coverage to choose from, not all are available to you from your employer and you can't go to any doctor.
          And living in California, your taxes in Canada aren't much higher than what I get now.
          • djbon2112, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I was an idiot, our tax rate is very good honestly.
      • canadaboy, on 11/09/2007, -2/+8I don't care what you want to call it.
        We still have it, and we have a surplus.
        You could to if you weren't so stuck over what you call it.
    • Qposter, on 11/07/2007, -12/+1Please move to canada wiked...
      • CrackWilding, on 11/07/2007, -1/+6Yeah, Real Americans like their country the way it is: broke and inefficient.
    • buddyw, on 11/07/2007, -9/+6Just don't expect to get that knee worked on anytime soon...

      Has anyone actually talked to a Canadian or Brit who has tried to use the socialized system? You should - it sucks - it's sub-standard care.

      Why don't you see what the Brits have to say about 'Sicko':
      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist ...
      • arethuza, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4Well, I've honestly never had any complaints about the UK NHS - pretty much everything my family or I have had done has been first rate. I used to pay for private health insurance but it was pointless - we have a new hospital a few miles away, an excellent kids hospital that is closer and a great set of doctors in the local healthcare practice. If I really needed something and there was a waiting list (which there hasn't been for anything I've needed, or anyone I know) then I would pay for private treatment. But the plain service offered by the NHS here is pretty good - it may not be the same throughout the UK but here abouts I've been very pleased with it.
      • CrackWilding, on 11/07/2007, -3/+6I'll take sub-standard over none.
      • MrSane, on 11/07/2007, -0/+6Give me a break.

        I am Canadian and I use the system much more than average due to health problems since I was a child. Let me summarize them: 1) Hospitalized for over 2 full years of my life when I was an infant; 2) Since then hospitalized on average 2 times a year for 1 week at a time until around 16; 3) averaged around $200 per month in medication (outside of hospital visits); 4) In adulthood I have undergone treatment several times.

        After all this, am I bankrupt? Did my family ever need to refinance their home? No. Or alternatively, Did I ever wait in an exceptionally long queue to get treatment? No. Additionally my prescription drugs are refunded almost fully.

        Social medicine saved my live, and frankly saved my family. My family was well off, however they would never have been able to afford treatment in the US -- they would have gone bankrupt in the process; and I am well off today, but there is no way I could live in the US and pay my medical treatment.

        I have many other similar family stories such as my 33 year old uncle who was living in Tampa Bay, Florida who had to move back to Canada from the US when he was diagnosed with cancer -- he had a plan but could not afford treatment. He is 17 years free from cancer today.
      • nicko68, on 11/07/2007, -0/+5That's a crock. My wife needed an MRI, got it in less than a week. We don't have waiting times of a year or whatever lies are spread to make our system sound like crap.

        And, honestly, taxes are that bad. And if you're smart and invest in your RSP, you get big tax breaks anyway.
      • zenlike, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Note to the reader: The Times is brought to you by the same folks who bring you Fox News (Fair & Balanced).
    • MrSane, on 11/07/2007, -0/+0sorry wrong spot.
    • Toallpointswest, on 11/09/2007, -1/+1We're kicking our people in the ass enough. With soaring bankruptcies, rising healthcare costs, fuel costs - consumer spending is down, savings are down, new middle class jobs AREN'T being created, and now we see the dollar is plummeting.

      While you're idling whining about "nanny states" you fail to realize that the people of this nation are fighting an uphill battle with no relief in sight. It's time the government started working for the people and not against them.
  • chaos7, on 11/12/2007, -23/+134bush is a really bad president