NationStates Jolt Archive

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/06/markets/bondcenter/bonds/index.htm

Today the US dollar has gained against both the Yen and the Euro.

This financial report brought to you by Crelm Toothpaste - with the secret ingredient, Fraudulin...

It's short covers. Just like recent oil spikes. Means nothing.

take it over a week or so before you go crazy

It's short covers. Just like recent oil spikes. Means nothing.

I agree. I doubt that this growth in the US dollar`s value will continue for long.

There will probably be a recession and a stock market crash before the end of Bush`s 2nd term.

I agree. I doubt that this growth in the US dollar`s value will continue for long.

There will probably be a recession and a stock market crash before the end of Bush`s 2nd term.

I wouldn't go that far the other way either. Too much of the rest of the world (well the important people from the rest of the world) are invested here to allow that. Plus it seems as if foreign interests are using the weak dolar to start buying up US assets.

(As the US bought EU assets in the late 90s for the same reasons).

This Truth and Knowledge Broadcast brought to you by Karl Rove...the economy is growing...all is well...you are getting sleepy...

Seriously, though, a one-day market fluctuation is usually no big deal. If the dollar is really going up, it would have to keep going up for quite a while. If the dollar crashes, well, that can either happen over an equally long period of time or in one mass sell-off.

While it is true that other nations would take an economic hit by divesting from America, they are getting so agitated with us that it just might be a worthwhile gamble for them. If a bunch of nations pulled out of America all at once, and called in the massive debt owed them all at once, that would put America in the Second Great Depression easily. They would be hurt too, but probably not as much, because they're cutting trade deals with each other.

If we continue with our current antagonistic foreign policy, we just might piss off a few nations enough for them to try this gamble. Reckless is the Bush.

I agree. I doubt that this growth in the US dollar`s value will continue for long.

There will probably be a recession and a stock market crash before the end of Bush`s 2nd term.

All economists agree the dollar is overvalued. The privatization of social security will cost in the ball park of $2,000,000,000,000.00. That is a lot of zeros considering it will be paid for probably entirely by new borrowing. Europeans will be using the dollar as toliet paper when bush is done but they won't be happy about it.

I don't think there is likely to be a recession though, all that spending should pump so much money into the system Bush will end up looking like he is doing a good job with the economy. The debt is like that cliff that wiley coyote would run off of. He would be fine running on thin air for quite a while, until inevitably then he would look down and go splat. I think we will be in the running on air phase for quite a while.

In October 2000, the New Zealand dollar could purchase 40 US cents,

Today (07/12/04), The kiwi dollar can purchase 72 US cents. This is an 8 year high.

All economists agree the dollar is overvalued. The privatization of social security will cost in the ball park of $2,000,000,000,000.00. That is a lot of zeros considering it will be paid for probably entirely by new borrowing. Europeans will be using the dollar as toliet paper when bush is done but they won't be happy about it.

I don't think there is likely to be a recession though, all that spending should pump so much money into the system Bush will end up looking like he is doing a good job with the economy. The debt is like that cliff that wiley coyote would run off of. He would be fine running on thin air for quite a while, until inevitably then he would look down and go splat. I think we will be in the running on air phase for quite a while.

Until we get around to paying the interest on that debt. :rolleyes:

Currently, one sixth of the federal budget goes to pay interest. If America hadn't been run by borrow-and-spend Republicans for most of the last half century (worst budget-busters were Reagan and the Bushes by far), we might actually be able to afford the war and maybe, just maybe, be able to do nice little things like funding research into alternative energies. (Which needs to be done eventually, it's just the earlier we get around to it, the less painful the transition from oil to something else will be).

As for social security, it was basically meant to keep the retired, who had been productive members of society for the last forty-five years, from living out on the street in Depression-era conditions. I'm going to come out as an evil, librul, commie pinko for saying this, but it needs to be means-tested.

Now, back to that debt, that has a lot to do with the dollar's weakness, because if we piss off foreign nations with a lot of Treasuries enough to call them in, we're pretty much screwed. Nice source of stability, eh? Especially when our foreign policy is based on pre-emptive invasions...foreigners don't have to be nice enough to lend us money for our infantile cowboy wars, ya know. :rolleyes:

Until we get around to paying the interest on that debt. :rolleyes:

Currently, one sixth of the federal budget goes to pay interest. If America hadn't been run by borrow-and-spend Republicans for most of the last half century (worst budget-busters were Reagan and the Bushes by far), we might actually be able to afford the war and maybe, just maybe, be able to do nice little things like funding research into alternative energies. (Which needs to be done eventually, it's just the earlier we get around to it, the less painful the transition from oil to something else will be).

As for social security, it was basically meant to keep the retired, who had been productive members of society for the last forty-five years, from living out on the street in Depression-era conditions. I'm going to come out as an evil, librul, commie pinko for saying this, but it needs to be means-tested.


I'm curious, why do you think that the US should fund research into alternative energy? Why not let someone else do it?

I'm curious, why do you think that the US should fund research into alternative energy? Why not let someone else do it?

Either way, we're gonna have to pay for it. If some other nation fronts the initial research costs, they're sure as hell not gonna give it to us for free.

Edit: If we follow our traditional role as innovators, we stand to make money off of this technology. Unfortunately, we're losing the initiative in this area too.

Either way, we're gonna have to pay for it. If some other nation fronts the initial research costs, they're sure as hell not gonna give it to us for free.

Edit: If we follow our traditional role as innovators, we stand to make money off of this technology. Unfortunately, we're losing the initiative in this area too.


Nah, you just steal it. That's what everyone does these days. No patent is that well drawn.

I'm curious, why do you think that the US should fund research into alternative energy? Why not let someone else do it?
Because the US is the most dependant on oil.

Nah, you just steal it. That's what everyone does these days. No patent is that well drawn.

Well, some of us still believe in "Thou shalt not steal..."

Psylos, good point, btw, you might want to check this little gem (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html) out. Straight from the pen of George W. Bush...no American entity can be sued over "Iraqi petroleum products." :rolleyes:

Well, some of us still believe in "Thou shalt not steal..."

Psylos, good point, btw, you might want to check this little gem (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html) out. Straight from the pen of George W. Bush...no American entity can be sued over "Iraqi petroleum products." :rolleyes:

What if I slip on a puddle of Iraqi oil and hurt my back?

What if I slip on a puddle of Iraqi oil and hurt my back?

Well, you could still sue the person who dropped it there.

Well, you could still sue the person who dropped it there.

Unless that 'person' happens to be the Halliburton Corporation, or, for that matter, an American citizen.

Unless that 'person' happens to be the Halliburton Corporation, or, for that matter, an American citizen.

It doesn't actually say that. You could still sue haliburton, you just couldn't satisfy the judgment from iraq oil products. The rest of haliburtons assets are still fair game.

It doesn't actually say that. You could still sue haliburton, you just couldn't satisfy the judgment from iraq oil products. The rest of haliburtons assets are still fair game.

Let's play The Corporate Shell Game, Enron Style! :D

Halliburton creates a subsidiary to handle *solely* Iraqi petroleum products. Now, when that person slips on the Iraqi petroleum product, he's going to assume Halliburton is responsible (I'm using the general, gender-"neutral" he here).

So he sues Halliburton. Halliburton says, "That wasn't us! It was Iraqi Oil Mafia Inc!" (when Iraqi Oil Mafia is really the Halliburton shell) Now, bearing in mind that the Republicans basically control the judiciary in this country, with a few localized exceptions, the court will probably rule that the guy sued the wrong defendant, and that the shell company should be sued instead.

But the shell company only deals in Iraqi petroleum products, as that's what they were created for. So that's where their assets are. But guess what? They can't be sued because EO 13303 gave them blanket immunity from these sorts of things.

Clever, ain't it? Corporate lawyers can always find loopholes, especially when the government is run by Republicans. :rolleyes:

Now, back to that debt, that has a lot to do with the dollar's weakness, because if we piss off foreign nations with a lot of Treasuries enough to call them in, we're pretty much screwed. Nice source of stability, eh? Especially when our foreign policy is based on pre-emptive invasions...foreigners don't have to be nice enough to lend us money for our infantile cowboy wars, ya know. :rolleyes:

Argg...you can't call them in early; it doesn't work that way.

1.00 NZD New Zealand Dollars = 0.723838 USD United States Dollars

NZ$1 is US$0.72

about 3 years ago, NZ$1 = US$0.46


our exporters are quite fucked off atm...

Let's play The Corporate Shell Game, Enron Style! :D

Halliburton creates a subsidiary to handle *solely* Iraqi petroleum products. Now, when that person slips on the Iraqi petroleum product, he's going to assume Halliburton is responsible (I'm using the general, gender-"neutral" he here).

So he sues Halliburton. Halliburton says, "That wasn't us! It was Iraqi Oil Mafia Inc!" (when Iraqi Oil Mafia is really the Halliburton shell) Now, bearing in mind that the Republicans basically control the judiciary in this country, with a few localized exceptions, the court will probably rule that the guy sued the wrong defendant, and that the shell company should be sued instead.

But the shell company only deals in Iraqi petroleum products, as that's what they were created for. So that's where their assets are. But guess what? They can't be sued because EO 13303 gave them blanket immunity from these sorts of things.

Clever, ain't it? Corporate lawyers can always find loopholes, especially when the government is run by Republicans. :rolleyes:


Well, to create the shell in the first place it would have to be capitalized in some respect. If it wasn't and was created solely for the intention of behaving in reckless and wilful fashion with the intent of escaping legal liability, then I'm fairly sure that a court would allow the corporate veil to be peirced. (Although this has never happened yet to a publically held company that I know of, but mostly because of other technical reasons, not because that can't happen).

Secondly, how can all there assets be in oil? Like as not, whatever state they are operating in will require them to either carry liability insurance (if not already covered under a blanket policy from haliburton), or show proof of self-insurance, which will not be satisfied by claiming that there are enough in judgment proof assets.

Thirdly, the republicans do not control the judiciary, I have no idea where you get that idea from. Most lawyers, judges and legal comentators are left leaners, with a few regional exceptions.

1.00 NZD New Zealand Dollars = 0.723838 USD United States Dollars

NZ$1 is US$0.72

about 3 years ago, NZ$1 = US$0.46


our exporters are quite fucked off atm...


Don't you basically just export food though?

Argg...you can't call them in early; it doesn't work that way.
True but you can refuse to loan more and unless the Bush administration could reduce the deficit to zero overnight they would be in deep trouble. Effectively they would become bankrupt - insufficent funds to meet their expenditure commitments.

Also I think that this would not worry the rest of the world as much since a contracted US economy would open up markets for other nations - most manufacturing industries are over producing at the moment - China is about to emerge as a huge market - that would pick up the slack from a drop in US demand for goods. The biggest factor in this lack of fear would have to be the end of the strong dollar without the end of the world as we know it.

Don't you basically just export food though?

yeah food+wool basically. None of our strawberry exporters could take advantage of the US thanksgiving this year like they usually do. The seasons work out perfectly for it, but it was too expensive.

Well, to create the shell in the first place it would have to be capitalized in some respect. If it wasn't and was created solely for the intention of behaving in reckless and wilful fashion with the intent of escaping legal liability, then I'm fairly sure that a court would allow the corporate veil to be peirced. (Although this has never happened yet to a publically held company that I know of, but mostly because of other technical reasons, not because that can't happen).

Secondly, how can all there assets be in oil? Like as not, whatever state they are operating in will require them to either carry liability insurance (if not already covered under a blanket policy from haliburton), or show proof of self-insurance, which will not be satisfied by claiming that there are enough in judgment proof assets.

Thirdly, the republicans do not control the judiciary, I have no idea where you get that idea from. Most lawyers, judges and legal comentators are left leaners, with a few regional exceptions.

Well, for one, the SCOTUS leans (slightly) Republican. Ultimately, that might be the only court that matters.

Furthermore, do you think a Republican-controlled Senate is going to confirm a Democrat for a federal judge vacancy? I sure as hell don't.

Regarding the liability insurance, what's the minimum requirement? Probably not near enough. I think a court will never call the Corporate Shell Game because of those "technical reasons" that you allude to, btw.

I'm not a lawyer, just a cynical citizen. :D

True but you can refuse to loan more and unless the Bush administration could reduce the deficit to zero overnight they would be in deep trouble. Effectively they would become bankrupt - insufficent funds to meet their expenditure commitments.


Sure, if everyone decided they didn't want to hold on to a risk-free asset with a relatively high rate. But that's not going to happen - treasuries play too much of an important instrument for investors.

Well, for one, the SCOTUS leans (slightly) Republican. Ultimately, that might be the only court that matters.

Furthermore, do you think a Republican-controlled Senate is going to confirm a Democrat for a federal judge vacancy? I sure as hell don't.

Regarding the liability insurance, what's the minimum requirement? Probably not near enough. I think a court will never call the Corporate Shell Game because of those "technical reasons" that you allude to, btw.

I'm not a lawyer, just a cynical citizen. :D

Well, whatever the limit is for liability insurance, it would cover a slip and fall.
I admit if the subsidary really screwed the pooch, a la mass tort, then people would be SOL, but that would be the case anyway, regardless of the EO.

The technical reasons for properly establishing a shell basically revolve around finance. If you don't do it properly you would loose value in the parent stock for failing to properly shield from liability. Plus it would be a sign of bad management.

This would never reach the supreme court. (Most likely would remain in a state court, and even if it was moved on jurisdictional grounds it would still be under state law.)

yeah food+wool basically. None of our strawberry exporters could take advantage of the US thanksgiving this year like they usually do. The seasons work out perfectly for it, but it was too expensive.


But doesn't the strong Euro help though?

Well, whatever the limit is for liability insurance, it would cover a slip and fall.
I admit if the subsidary really screwed the pooch, a la mass tort, then people would be SOL, but that would be the case anyway, regardless of the EO.

The technical reasons for properly establishing a shell basically revolve around finance. If you don't do it properly you would loose value in the parent stock for failing to properly shield from liability. Plus it would be a sign of bad management.

This would never reach the supreme court. (Most likely would remain in a state court, and even if it was moved on jurisdictional grounds it would still be under state law.)

What about a major oil spill, that, say, contaminates Basra's water supply and renders it not potable for a month?

I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about that than someone slipping and falling on an oil patch; I just went along with the example. But, in any event, Halliburton et. al would not be held accountable. Even if the courts are reasonably independent, Bush would simply call a special middle-of-the-night session of Congress to pass "emergency" liability reform legislation. Hell, that's how the Republicans passed their Medicare "reform" boondoggle.

What about a major oil spill, that, say, contaminates Basra's water supply and renders it not potable for a month?

I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about that than someone slipping and falling on an oil patch; I just went along with the example. But, in any event, Halliburton et. al would not be held accountable. Even if the courts are reasonably independent, Bush would simply call a special middle-of-the-night session of Congress to pass "emergency" liability reform legislation. Hell, that's how the Republicans passed their Medicare "reform" boondoggle.

Well that would fall under the Iraqi's purview. Bush's EO, can really only cover actions in US courts. Same with congress. A big oil spill would be up to the Iraqi government. (You can argue its a puppet, but there it is).

Well that would fall under the Iraqi's purview. Bush's EO, can really only cover actions in US courts. Same with congress. A big oil spill would be up to the Iraqi government. (You can argue its a puppet, but there it is).

It's a puppet :D

Sure, if everyone decided they didn't want to hold on to a risk-free asset with a relatively high rate. But that's not going to happen - treasuries play too much of an important instrument for investors.
The problem arises if any one decides to sell their dollar reserve for a stronger currency.. It could start a run on the dollar which will lead to a devaluation and the potential that these loans become to expensive to make for the creitors.

I value human life at roughly $1.46 depending on weight!

America still owes the UN several billon dollars in dues so I wouldnt hold your breath for the economy.

America still owes the UN several billon dollars in dues so I wouldnt hold your breath for the economy.
Yeah but that is because they choose to withold it - it gives them control over the UN bureaucracy as they rely on the US as the biggest donor.

heh it just sunk to a new low against the Euro..

This means nothing except that a few traders are maximizing their gains. Overall, the dollar is falling, and should stay down for another year or so. My question, however, is when the Euro will stabilize. A 58% gain against the dollar in four years is not good for them.

Dollar gaining strength? How can that possibly happen. It'll go back down with another few days.

This means nothing except that a few traders are maximizing their gains. Overall, the dollar is falling, and should stay down for another year or so. My question, however, is when the Euro will stabilize. A 58% gain against the dollar in four years is not good for them.But it is not only the euro. All major currencies have gained about the same against the dollar.

Exactly, it is a problem for the dollar and not neccessarily for other currencies

But doesn't the strong Euro help though?

how would that help NZ?

they dont use the euro, and a strong euro does not replace the whole of the USA in terms of proffit.

europe has plenty of food and wool surplus that we dont need to import all that much.

how would that help NZ?

they dont use the euro, and a strong euro does not replace the whole of the USA in terms of proffit.

europe has plenty of food and wool surplus that we dont need to import all that much.


Seasonal difference for fresh produce. I can't imagine that europe grows many fresh strawberries in November etc.

Also europe already imports NZ and Aus lamb and wool because it is cheaper than the domestically produced stuff, so a rise in the value of the Euro relative to the NZ dollar would boost profits. I was curious to know if it had made up the gap caused by the falling US dollar to any extent.

Seasonal difference for fresh produce. I can't imagine that europe grows many fresh strawberries in November etc.

Also europe already imports NZ and Aus lamb and wool because it is cheaper than the domestically produced stuff, so a rise in the value of the Euro relative to the NZ dollar would boost profits. I was curious to know if it had made up the gap caused by the falling US dollar to any extent.

Yes, europe imports NZ/AUS lamb and wool, but in the UK, it is difficult to go to a shop and find anything marked as comming from NZ/AUS, its all home grown. I dont know about wool, as i dont buy it, but i owuld imagine its a simmilar story there.

I would imagine that there is a far larger import into america for NZ wool+lamb than europe, as europe already has many areas where sheep grazing is common, esp in wales/scottland.

again, i can only speak for the UK, but i hardly ever see NZ porducts here, and we have the strongest currency in the world at this time...

Yes, europe imports NZ/AUS lamb and wool, but in the UK, it is difficult to go to a shop and find anything marked as comming from NZ/AUS, its all home grown. I dont know about wool, as i dont buy it, but i owuld imagine its a simmilar story there.

I would imagine that there is a far larger import into america for NZ wool+lamb than europe, as europe already has many areas where sheep grazing is common, esp in wales/scottland.

again, i can only speak for the UK, but i hardly ever see NZ porducts here, and we have the strongest currency in the world at this time...

Well people in the US don't really use much lamb - it's not very popular here - and we have much the same deal in that it's mostly domestic. I d/k about wool.

I wonder where all that lamb goes. :confused:

I wonder where all that lamb goes. :confused:

i have no idea :D

perhaps its a conspiricy by NZ, they smuggle out WMD in crates of lamb or something :P

i have no idea :D

perhaps its a conspiricy by NZ, they smuggle out WMD in crates of lamb or something :P


We trade a fair bit to the middle east for oil :D

We trade a fair bit to the middle east for oil :D

there you go... the sneaky people :rolleyes: