"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

another couple hundred million from the meltdown. The head of Goldman
Sachs bought a bunch of shares in GS when he found out about the
AIG bailout. A lot of insider trading? Kashkari was named to
lead the Bush $700 billion bailout (that did not seem to help
much). Another GS exec. GS is one of the architects of the
meltdown and Derivitives. Paulson came from GS. So we have put
the people who made a fortune off the bubble in charge of fixing
the popping of the bubble. They should have been banned from the
Securities industry, not rewarded.

Ok, let's assume that all you've said is factually accurate. You
can't seriously think that causes a world-wide financial meltdown
is the right course of action. That's what was about to happen. As
much as I was distrustful of Paulson (in a large measure of the
Bush company he was keeping), he, Geitner, Bernanke, and Summers
acted to restore confidence. As someone said in a previous thread,
in essence the financial system is a confidence game. I'm not
disputing that, but it is also the grease that keeps things moving.
You can't have a complex and robust financial system without having
confidence in it. The debt is large and growing larger. No doubt.
But you can't cut off your nose to spite your face. Debt can be
paid back, reduced, mitigated, but people's lives and their
survival (which is ultimately what was at stake) can't be put back
together so easily.

You're right. Some of the people who caused the crisis or allowed
it to happen are around. In some respects they're the ones who have
to fix it. I'm certainly not qualified, and I doubt you are (or
anyone else in this forum). They're making their best efforts for
the most part to fix things. We need to get things stablized and we
need business to start hiring. That's the bottom line.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He has not inspired confidence in the dollar. And that is what you
say is required. Just look at Gold, oil and all other dollar
denominated commodities. They have soared in price. A direct
result of the overspending without real merit.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...?Symbol=/EURUS chart
of the euro vs. $.

The relative price of the dollar isn't the issue.

Sometimes a weak dollar is good, for example for tourism or for
selling goods in foreign markets. Sometimes a weak dollar is bad, for
example foreign investment in the US. If it were get really out of
wack down, then there might be a problem with our largest foreign
creditors, since they might decide to pull their funds. (This is
unlikely if we're working on the problem, since they would take a
huge loss if they removed their funds precipitously).

Sometimes a strong dollar is good, for example for our tourism abroad
or for buying imported items. Sometimes a strong dollar is bad, for
example foreigners travelling here are discouraged.

It's always a double-edged sword with respect to the strength of the
dollar.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Is not the strenth of the dollar presently but why is the dollar
falling and dollar denominated commodities rising.

Actually, it really doesn't matter why it falls (or strengthens) unless
either condition is a symptom of an underlying condition that is not
reversable. There's no reason why the underlying conditions that are
causing the fall is unfixable, and again, spending had to be increased
to stave off an even worse short term problem..

Here are a couple of links...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14901181
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/07/5-r...n-be-good.html

--
Nom=de=Plume


The 2nd link, says it is good for those betting on the dollar falling.
Makes our trade deficit even worse. Takes more dollars to buy the same
Chinese stuff.

Yes, as I said, it has good and bad side-effects. If you want to argue
that a continually shrinking dollar is a bad thing in the long run,
that's certainly a reasonable argument. A continually expanding dollar
would also be a bad thing.

We certainly have a growing deficit, and that's certainly a problem that
needs to be addressed, but it can't be the entire focus when 'fixing' the
economy, esp. in the short-term. It's a long-term problem.

--
Nom=de=Plume


With the state and federal spending habits, Overspending is a long term
thing.

Certainly true. Of course, there's overspending and there's overspending. I
over spend during the holidaze, mostly on my niece and nephew, but then go
back on a money diet the rest of year, mostly.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
another couple hundred million from the meltdown. The head of Goldman
Sachs bought a bunch of shares in GS when he found out about the
AIG bailout. A lot of insider trading? Kashkari was named to
lead the Bush $700 billion bailout (that did not seem to help
much). Another GS exec. GS is one of the architects of the
meltdown and Derivitives. Paulson came from GS. So we have put
the people who made a fortune off the bubble in charge of fixing
the popping of the bubble. They should have been banned from the
Securities industry, not rewarded.
Ok, let's assume that all you've said is factually accurate. You
can't seriously think that causes a world-wide financial meltdown
is the right course of action. That's what was about to happen. As
much as I was distrustful of Paulson (in a large measure of the
Bush company he was keeping), he, Geitner, Bernanke, and Summers
acted to restore confidence. As someone said in a previous thread,
in essence the financial system is a confidence game. I'm not
disputing that, but it is also the grease that keeps things moving.
You can't have a complex and robust financial system without having
confidence in it. The debt is large and growing larger. No doubt.
But you can't cut off your nose to spite your face. Debt can be
paid back, reduced, mitigated, but people's lives and their
survival (which is ultimately what was at stake) can't be put back
together so easily.

You're right. Some of the people who caused the crisis or allowed
it to happen are around. In some respects they're the ones who have
to fix it. I'm certainly not qualified, and I doubt you are (or
anyone else in this forum). They're making their best efforts for
the most part to fix things. We need to get things stablized and we
need business to start hiring. That's the bottom line.

--
Nom=de=Plume

He has not inspired confidence in the dollar. And that is what you
say is required. Just look at Gold, oil and all other dollar
denominated commodities. They have soared in price. A direct
result of the overspending without real merit.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...?Symbol=/EURUS chart
of the euro vs. $.
The relative price of the dollar isn't the issue.

Sometimes a weak dollar is good, for example for tourism or for
selling goods in foreign markets. Sometimes a weak dollar is bad, for
example foreign investment in the US. If it were get really out of
wack down, then there might be a problem with our largest foreign
creditors, since they might decide to pull their funds. (This is
unlikely if we're working on the problem, since they would take a
huge loss if they removed their funds precipitously).

Sometimes a strong dollar is good, for example for our tourism abroad
or for buying imported items. Sometimes a strong dollar is bad, for
example foreigners travelling here are discouraged.

It's always a double-edged sword with respect to the strength of the
dollar.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Is not the strenth of the dollar presently but why is the dollar
falling and dollar denominated commodities rising.
Actually, it really doesn't matter why it falls (or strengthens) unless
either condition is a symptom of an underlying condition that is not
reversable. There's no reason why the underlying conditions that are
causing the fall is unfixable, and again, spending had to be increased
to stave off an even worse short term problem..

Here are a couple of links...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=14901181
http://www.etftrends.com/2009/07/5-r...n-be-good.html

--
Nom=de=Plume

The 2nd link, says it is good for those betting on the dollar falling.
Makes our trade deficit even worse. Takes more dollars to buy the same
Chinese stuff.
Yes, as I said, it has good and bad side-effects. If you want to argue
that a continually shrinking dollar is a bad thing in the long run,
that's certainly a reasonable argument. A continually expanding dollar
would also be a bad thing.

We certainly have a growing deficit, and that's certainly a problem that
needs to be addressed, but it can't be the entire focus when 'fixing' the
economy, esp. in the short-term. It's a long-term problem.

--
Nom=de=Plume

With the state and federal spending habits, Overspending is a long term
thing.

Certainly true. Of course, there's overspending and there's overspending. I
over spend during the holidaze, mostly on my niece and nephew, but then go
back on a money diet the rest of year, mostly.

Do you have any kids of your own?