Bush is also responsible for this...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
This is more to the point

hmmm

We have not approached the pain threshold yet'' for European policy makers, said Marc Chandler, chief currency strategist for HSBC Bank USA in New York. The dollar is likely to reach $1.20 per euro in the coming days, Chandler said.

The dollar traded at 117.19 yen, up from 116.88 yesterday. The U.S. currency has fallen against the euro for seven weeks. Its decline accelerated last week after Treasury Secretary John Snow suggested U.S. officials are receptive to the economic benefits of a weaker dollar.

A weaker dollar may boost the U.S. economy by making U.S. products cheaper overseas, provided that it does not also prompt foreign investors to pull money from U.S. markets, analysts said.

 

Trezza

Senior member
Sep 18, 2002
522
0
0
I love how the dip in the economy is due to Bush and not the aftermath of 911 and the subsequent plumeting of Airline stocks. Don't forget Enron and all them too.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Trezza
I love how the dip in the economy is due to Bush and not the aftermath of 911 and the subsequent plumeting of Airline stocks. Don't forget Enron and all them too.

Bush is no more to blame for the economy then you are.... and I'm certain you're at fault.

;)
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
OK, from the bottom up.

In the most dramatic slide in the dollar, between 1985 and 1987, the greenback fell 54 per cent against the deutschmark. HSBC is now forecasting that the euro will rise to $1.35 by the end of next year.
Yep, I remember the time very well. Those were the days! I paid less than $60 per month rent for a German studio. My 1985 VW Jetta with U.S. specs cost less than $8,000 delivered to me in Germany. The primary reason for the "sudden" devaluation was because the Fed and Western European banks collaborated on stopping the U.S. dollar which, in Feb of 1985, was at record high levels. In otherwords, they were killing us. Ronnie and company had domestic interest rates so high that foreign investors had little choice but to put their money in U.S. currency.

The dollar v Euro is 1.19 today.. if it goes to 1.25 foreign investors in US market stock will almost be forced to abandon... especially the portfolios with built in move activators.
What the Sterling and Yen do is not important (as much) regarding this issue and the holders of US issues and moving commodities (oil) denominated in dollars... The EEO wants oil to move to the EURO and Snow seems not a bit worried at the moment. Should he be? Is something more important afoot?
Well HJD1, I remember very well how all the international financial talking heads in '92-'93 were predicting the demise of the U.S. currency. Yep, the almighty German D-Mark was to be the currency of choice. It was so strong that some other European currencies were falling from the currency mechanism they had in place at the time. Yeah, I know, it should be different this time around with the Euro and all. Problem is, that it ain't.

Let the Europeans pay less for oil! Jeez, that is the least we could do. The doomsday experts were predicting the same thing a decade ago and it didn't happen. Everybody is in such a panic that their long-term recollections fail. There is no panic. I don't see the dollar disappearing anywhere because the European mechanism, as we currently know it, without Russia, does not have the combined GDP to sustain it. Their service industies suck. Their capital goods industries stink. Their equities markets are a joke and their socialist labor is expensive. They can't maintain it. Now if the Russians climb on board with them, I'll immediately rephrase this little rant. Even with Russia in its current condition on board, they don't match up. Russia first needs to get corruption under control. Then they need a capitalist kick in the ass.

The dollar devalued against the D-Mark, Swiss Franc, Dutch Guilder and Scandinavian currency in nearly precisely the same manner a decade ago. One reason was that the reunification engine cranked up in Germany. They had some serious (as in the context of the early 90s) inflationary problems due to reunification, housing shortages and refugees. Therefore, they raised interest rates. Everybody and their brother (i.e the Americans, Brits and Japanese) had a fit at the time. The U.S. economy was just emerging from the recession and was on shaky ground. Interest rates were still low. Since the Germans paid more and the old red bear was no longer a threat, all the currency trader mobs were purchasing D-Marks, Swiss Francs, etc by the truckload.

Meanwhile, our multinational corporations were just loving every second of it. And, mark my words, they are gonna love it all over again - to a little lesser degree. Yes sir, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Proctor and Gamble, Colgate Palmolive (to a much lesser extent because of smaller European exposure than PG), Boeing, Disney, Microsoft, Intel, Pepsi, General Motors, Ford, Altria (Phillip Morris) Dow Chemical, General Electric etc. just ate it up. Why? Simple. They had a bigger return from international operations and sales because of the currency disparity. PG is actually larger than Unilever NV in Europe. European businessmen will tell you that Proctor and Gamble gets what it wants in Europe. If they want to sell Airbus planes against Boeing, then they must subsidize that program even more than they are now. At any rate, in my opinion, this devaluation could not have come at a better time for U.S. industry.

Well now the equation becomes somewhat more muddled. The Germans, who are the real economic powerhouse of Europe as we currently know it, are no longer fighting inflation. But with a stronger dollar, they find themselves faced with other problems. Exports, and their own interests in the U.S. and Great Britain. Not only has the dollar fallen against the Euro, but comparatively speaking, the British Pound Sterling has as well. From a simplistic view, our goods become more attractive to the continent. Additionally, since our currency is worth less, Daimler-Chrysler, BMW and VW, for example, experience less returns from their operations in the US and UK. They can't keep it up. They don't have the GDP to keep it up. They can't afford to keep it up. Either the banks intervene with currency sales or they lower rates. This currency devaluation isn't some government magic or skullduggery. It is simply a case of supply and demand economics. Fewer Euros and more dollars are out there on the market.

I think we are once again at the beginning of a turnaround, so to speak. This time it will be different as I really don't see a reincarnation of the IT sector. Other industries should gain enough momentum to get things rolling again. Will things be as peachy as 1994-2000? No, probably about half, which is better than we have now.

Enough of my ranting. Time to crash out.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Burnedout,

In the posts above are links that indicate concern regarding the issue I raised. Since my clocks probably works as yours does we can simply wait and see. I'd not be too comfortable unless I shorted $. Yup! The talking heads and other Ph.D.'s economists all seem to be all over the place on the issue at the moment and Sec Snow is not worried at all. Ok! that provides comfort... I'm guessing is all. Guessing that Doom And Gloom will occur because I've not seen real challenge to the $ from the united snake sans sterling until now. Some oilers are talking about move to Euro from $. Maybe they will... it is possible, notwithstanding the confidence of the talking feet... the ones that move when the flood appears...
I say for sure if the dollar goes to 1.35, as predicted by some reasonable economists the value of the export will be exceeded by the rush to the broker to sell anything denominated in $ by foreign investors.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,875
282
126
No matter whom is president, these claims of creating jobs is really hogwash. I just cant see creating underpaid jobs, temp jobs, part time jobs in place of the former career jobs as job creation. Its just another form of welfare, hosted by businesses bent on breaking the back of big labor. Give eveyone a part time job, with no health insurance, no retirement, no job security, low wages, and no benefits and stand up and shout the great favor you have done by creating millions of jobs that barely provide survival. Force our youths to have both spouses work to barely scrape by so they can neglect their children. Whoopie!!

America needs more than that to prosper. What good is low unemployment if the working class is UNDER employed?
 

DZip

Senior member
Apr 11, 2000
375
0
0
Originally posted by: glugglug
The S&P 500 is about 40% lower now than it was when Bush took office. It had more than tripled during the Clinton administration, although most of that is the internet bubble hoopla.

Sure its up now... relative to where it was during the war... because Bush gets on TV less.
Bush is the only president to be banned from public speaking when the stock market is open because of his negative impact. I know people who made good money selling stock before each Bush speech and buying it back a day or 2 later before that ban.

News flash: the internet bubble hasn't burst yet. When it does be ready for a shock.

Who banned him? Show us the link.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: HJD1
Burnedout,

In the posts above are links that indicate concern regarding the issue I raised. Since my clocks probably works as yours does we can simply wait and see. I'd not be too comfortable unless I shorted $. Yup! The talking heads and other Ph.D.'s economists all seem to be all over the place on the issue at the moment and Sec Snow is not worried at all. Ok! that provides comfort... I'm guessing is all. Guessing that Doom And Gloom will occur because I've not seen real challenge to the $ from the united snake sans sterling until now. Some oilers are talking about move to Euro from $. Maybe they will... it is possible, notwithstanding the confidence of the talking feet... the ones that move when the flood appears...
I say for sure if the dollar goes to 1.35, as predicted by some reasonable economists the value of the export will be exceeded by the rush to the broker to sell anything denominated in $ by foreign investors.
You could be right, HJD1. I may be wrong and history might not repeat itself. All we can do is try an educated guess.

However, based on the current continental European economic structure, the GDP of the EU15, without the UK, is less than 2/3 that of the USA. This is my reasoning. It should be a nice run-up for them. There will certainly be money made on the way up and back down for the Euro speculators. I just don't see it holding very long though.

Anyway, if we both knew for sure what was going to happen, we wouldn't be announcing it here. ;)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: HJD1
Burnedout,

In the posts above are links that indicate concern regarding the issue I raised. Since my clocks probably works as yours does we can simply wait and see. I'd not be too comfortable unless I shorted $. Yup! The talking heads and other Ph.D.'s economists all seem to be all over the place on the issue at the moment and Sec Snow is not worried at all. Ok! that provides comfort... I'm guessing is all. Guessing that Doom And Gloom will occur because I've not seen real challenge to the $ from the united snake sans sterling until now. Some oilers are talking about move to Euro from $. Maybe they will... it is possible, notwithstanding the confidence of the talking feet... the ones that move when the flood appears...
I say for sure if the dollar goes to 1.35, as predicted by some reasonable economists the value of the export will be exceeded by the rush to the broker to sell anything denominated in $ by foreign investors.
You could be right, HJD1. I may be wrong and history might not repeat itself. All we can do is try an educated guess.

However, based on the current continental European economic structure, the GDP of the EU15, without the UK, is less than 2/3 that of the USA. This is my reasoning. It should be a nice run-up for them. There will certainly be money made on the way up and back down for the Euro speculators. I just don't see it holding very long though.

Anyway, if we both knew for sure what was going to happen, we wouldn't be announcing it here. ;)

Your reasoning is sound. I accept it as quite reasonable, in fact. I am on the doom and gloom kick at the moment. The 'far side' with not much at stake in terms of investment so I've no action to take predicated on my hunch. But, to the extent any mid eat government wishes to oust Mr. Bush for a more tolerant President (no comment either way here on Bush) they have the most effective tools. It could still be the Economy that does Bush in.
 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
The stock market continues to recover after it was in the toilet earlier in Bush's presidency hurray for Bush
The stock market decline had nothing what-so-ever to do with the president. It was morons like yourself that invested money in the dotcom idiocy. Why would anybody invest anything in a company with a P/E ratio of 200+?
Greenspan came out whith his famous "irrational exuberance" statement when who (Billy Jeff Clinton) was president?
 

Vickas

Member
Jul 18, 2001
150
0
0
Originally posted by: DZip
Here is one more thread for you to blame on Bush.

I started a new job last Thursday after being out of work for 51 weeks due to corporate irresponsibility.
I refinanced my mortgage to 5.25% last week.
Stock market continues to climb increasing the value of my portfolio.

Wait a miniute... these are good things, how can it be Bush's fault?

So the good of the few outweighs the good of the many, eh?

I guess it doesn't matter what else Bush is doing in the world that might be morally and ethically wrong, or even illegal, as long as your portfolio continues to increase in value...

All hail: DZip's Portfolio!
 

Gage8

Senior member
Feb 11, 2003
632
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: DZip
Here is one more thread for you to blame on Bush.

I started a new job last Thursday after being out of work for 51 weeks due to corporate irresponsibility.
I refinanced my mortgage to 5.25% last week.
Stock market continues to clime increasing the value of my portfolio.

Wait a miniute... these are good things, how can it be Bush's fault?

Anything good is attributable to the Clinton dynasty...you must have forgotten this..

good = Clinton, bad = Bush

Now you're starting to think like a conservative, except reverse Bush with Clinton and you've got it! :D

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: HJD1
I hope it is not an ARM.
If the dollar continues to lose against all currencies the market will reflect this as foreign holders bail.
this will cause the economy to recess... don't put away your suit.
these are bad things... but, are Clinton's fault... and Taft and Wilson too
That 5.25% ain't no ARM... that's fixed, probably 30 year (which have the highest rates). 4.875% is PAR for an FNMA/FHLMC-conforming 30 year fixed in my office today. You oughta check the markets out there... these are the lowest in history.
However...
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
What I think is that presidents get too much credit and blame for financial doings. In the original post, DZip got a job after being unemployed for almost a year. Now unless he chose to be that way, he was adversely affected by economics. He then chooses to tie Bush into all of this. Well, great then Bush got him a job after tossing him into the unemployment line for a year. I would not be so pleased with someone who forced me out of work, then decided a year later to change that. Bush has to take both credit and blame if we are going to play that game. More likely, it is the timing of things market wise, and management decisions which forced him out, assuming no wrong doing on his part. DZip needs to take more credit for his fortunes, rather than implying some largess on the part of any administration.
Bingo!
Bush is no more to blame nor to take credit for the economy. Certainly no more so than Clinton can take any real credit for the good economy during his admistration.
Oh, and low interest rates are always symptomatic of a poor economy, particularly one in a depression. When the economy actually improves someday, rates will be up.