"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