Budget Deficit in Free-Fall

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 24 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]380368[/snapback]</div>

Yes, these days there are more than you can shake a stick at. You can pick your play. The purest are effectively invested in short (e.g., money market) instruments in a country of choice, wtihout currency hedging. Others combine more financial risk (e.g., longer debt or mix of debt and stock), and may hedge the currency risk to some degree. And all of course take their fees. Some offer a currency basket, so you don't even have to pick a country, which is probably better if all you have is a bad feeling vis-a-vis the management of the dollar. Remember, all the other currencies are paper too, and we don't have a lock on bad fiscal policy.

I went the mutual fund route, but you have to read the details to know whether or not they have hedged off the currency fluctuation risk.

But basically, if you find the right fund, you own a share of a money market accoiunt in (e.g, ) Canadian dollars. Nice stable country with a democratic government, educated population, national health, and large oil reserves. What else could you want? And you bear the risk or benefit of fluction of the value of the dollar against the foreign currency.

I believe Mr. Cheney got a bit of critisism a couple of months back when it was discovered that his single largest financial asset was invested in --- Euro bonds. I mean, when the VP of the US shorts the dollar, it's time to move out.

For the even-more-paranoid, there are several Canadian banks that offer savings accounts in Euros, Yen, and a few other major currencies. I didn't go that far, but I have a friend who opened an account when he was in Vancouver a few years back, and has not regretted it. Access your money through an ATM.

Finally, my friend with the actual Canadian account told me recently of new stock-like instruments. If you know what Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are, these are the currecncy-speculation version of ETFs. Which is both convenient and can have tax advantages vis-a-vis mutual funds that are forces to take capital gains and losses periodically. But I have not had the time to follow up.

Anyway, yes, you have your option of at least: literal Canadian bank account, mutual fund with mininal investment risk, with more investment risk, and these new ETF-like securities that trade on the stock exchange. Twenty years ago as a small trader you were kind of locked into the dollar, but not any more.

Oh, and I guess it goes without saying that the last thing I would do would be actually to speculate on the foreign exchange (FOREX) markets like the infomercial guys want you to. I've tried trading options on securities that I thought I understood and lost a bundle. Lesson learned. No way I'd trade currency futures.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 24 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]380368[/snapback]</div>

My last post was a big vague. I don't (yet) own any foreign exchange ETFs, but if I had to do it from scratch, well, they seem to be the most transparent way to own a foreign money market account with no currency hedging. At least you know what you own. And you decide when to take the capital gains (though apparently the interest income, if any, is passed through like a dividend? I have yet to research this fully. And you have to have faith in the soundness of the ETF creator. I googled "foreign currency ETF gold" and got a bunch of sites, the first few of which had a fair bit of explanation. Buy and sell like a stock, that's all there is to it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jan 24 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]380270[/snapback]</div>

Yes, the usual republican approach to the country's finances: Cut taxes to the wealthy, run up the country's credit card and give the money to the aforementioned rich by starting a war so that the rich buggers in military contracting and energy get even richer while leaving the middle class holding the bag for when the credit card's bill comes due. Disgusted after being screwed for eight years the sheeple voters vote the democrats back in to power. The democrats then work on paying down the country's debt while the republicans blame them for the problems that ensue. Then, the republicans con their way back in to power by making the sheeple think that all the misery is the fault of the democrats. The republicans run up the country's credit card and the process starts all over again. It would be nice to have all of that money but I'd miss having a soul and a conscience.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 25 2007, 08:16 AM) [snapback]380550[/snapback]</div>

I'm sorry... but i don't understand that last line... i swear the words are english words, but they jsut don't go together very well....

That being said, CBO projections are just that: projections. stop holding them up as the end all of holies. They don't include spending for the war. they don't include potential tax changes. All it is is a few peoples best guess as to what will happen, financially, when you ignore some of the biggest unknowns.

It's pretty much worthless to compare 2006 actual spending to these 2007 projected spending. take the 2006 actual and remove costs of the war, and costs (or benefits) of tax changes and other changes that happened during the year and you'll be closer to comparing apples to apples.

So please, stop touting the CBO projections. no one here but you believes they tell us anything good (or bad). they pretty much only matter to a few deluded individuals who see it as an excuse to spend more money.

Additionally, pretty much every other economic measure you've touted in this thread has been shot down (and shot down very well, thanks chogan and others).

So at this point you have three choices: you can take the high road and admit you were wrong and gain our respect for it. you can take the middle road and just quietly let this thread fade from thought and our opinions wouldn't change. or you can take the low road and keep insisting that you're right, and our opinions will be formed by your insistence to support and unsustainable position. Your choice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 25 2007, 09:44 AM) [snapback]380559[/snapback]</div>

:lol: I have dr neocon on ignore so the only time I see his incoherent tirades is if someone responds to him. According to guys like that: disagree with me = wrong. :lol: The last sentence appears to be an indication of a rightard brain short circuiting. Must suck to be one of those guys these days. Danger, danger Wil Robinson, the democrats are coming to get you! AIEEEE!

 

the low road, so be it.

As it's been said (but those posts were rather long, i doubt you fully read them) the economy really isn't doing great... the stock markets increases, for one, aren't that great, inflation is rising, etc.

I fully give Bush credit for this economy - one where the country started sliding further into debt, one where the stock market increases at about the same speed at a T-bill, and one where foreign currencies are gaining value every day against the dollar. In Bush's economy, we hail the "low" unemployment rates, while conveniently forgetting that they were lower at several points during Clinton.

Please, tell me how this economy that Bush created has helped me. Does the unemployment rate effect me? not really. does the stock market help me? marginally, but i make more money on other speculation than i do in the US stock market. Do the "wages are up" you claimed help me? No, i was actually told a few weeks ago that the company re-evaluated the industry wages and determined that I (along with almost everyone i work with) are being compensated about the industry average... so for the foreseeable future I'll be getting pitifully small yearly raises that won't even keep up with inflation.

So please tell me - how has this economy helped me?

Let me add to that my experiences during Clinton's years - gas prices were below a buck per gallon. the stock market was doing very well. unemployment was actually lower than it is now. wages were increasing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 25 2007, 10:25 AM) [snapback]380602[/snapback]</div>

Amazing how twisted minds work. A republican like Berman can call someone he views as a DEMOCRAT un-DEMOCRATIC.

simply amazing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jan 24 2007, 05:37 PM) [snapback]380314[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for your intelligent, well-thought out facts here. Notice how the doc will not attempt to controvert anything you've said here--because he can't controvert fact.

Saying something is "great" is entirely subjective, and an opinion, not a fact.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan, 08:42 AM) [snapback]380604[/snapback]</div>

And the country had the largest budget surplus in history. God, I miss Clinton.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jan 25 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]380700[/snapback]</div>

oddly enough, so do I... When you get right down to it, you have to ask yourself: do you want someone in office who has morals, or someone who knows how to actually run a country?

 

One can fairly say that Jimmy Carter was perhaps the most moralistic Prez we've had. He was not great at running the country, though...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 25 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]380715[/snapback]</div>

Carter really was an awful president. Arguably, he was a big reason why Regan rose to power. Even though he was ahead of his time with his ideas to conserve energy, to give one example, he left a really bad taste in the collective mouth of the middle class. I voted for Ford in 1976 but way too many Americans wanted Carter for some strange reason having to do with something called Watergate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 25 2007, 02:48 PM) [snapback]380726[/snapback]</div>

Seeing the American hostages released by Iran within an hour of Reagan's swearing in ,was a pivotal moment in the development of my distrust of the Republican party.
After 2 helicopters on a rescue mission inexplicably crashed in the Iranian desert, the country felt Carter was truely ineffective.
Years later I was astonished to learn that the wife of the commander of the aircraft carrier that deployed those helicopters was killed by a car bomb in San Diego.
How weird is that?How many people were killed by car bombs in the USA in the 1980s?
The hostage crisis was the main reason Reagan was elected .
Reagan then goes on to sell arms to Iran illegally.
Today hes the hero of the Republican party.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jan 25 2007, 03:27 PM) [snapback]380749[/snapback]</div>

I'm sure that it was just a coincidence that the two events were only an our apart Kind of shows you how gullible the American people are though, doesn't it? Only six short years after Nixon got chased out of the white house and they're already voting in a guy who was worse than Nixon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 24 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]380266[/snapback]</div>

OK, if you're going to spew 'facts', at least make sure they're correct... otherwise, you look like an idiot.

There are a lot of things wrong with your statement. Because I'm probably supposed to be working now, I'm just going to concentrate on the following. I'll leave the rest to the others reading this forum.

Unemployment is not at an all-time lows. In fact, as of the end of 2000, the averaged yearly unemployment was at 3.96%. At the end of 2005, it was at 5.07% (currently, it is around 4.5%, but I wasn't able to find a 2006 average... somewhere between 4.5% and 5.07%, I'd imagine). I grant that 5.07% is less than anytime in the Reagan/Bush years of 1981 to 1992, but still higher than Clinton (who inherited an unemployment rate of 7.4% and left with a rate of 3.9%). In fact, during the Clinton administration, unemployment consistently dropped year after year.

The Bureau of Labor and Statistics releases a number showing what they call 'discouraged' workers. These are workers who would take jobs if they thought they were available, but have frankly give up looking. In December of 2005, there were 451,000 discouraged workers. Before the 2000 presidential election (October 2000), there were 232,000. Under Bush's watch, that number has been as high as 534,000. These are people that don't show up on the unemployment numbers, because their benefits have run out, and they've just given up.

So, let's look at the unemployment rate for just before the 2000 election (again, October 2000) – 3.9%. That equates to 5,534,000 people collecting unemployment benefits nationwide, and another 232,000 out of work but not collecting benefits. That totals a joblessness number of 5,766,000. Compare that to December of 2005, when 7,331,000 people were collecting unemployment benefits, and another 451,000 were out of work without benefits. That's 7,782,000 people without jobs compared to 5,766,000. That's 2,160,000 more people unemployed.

Are wages really up? Nope. In fact, earning power in 1982 dollars (that adjusts for inflation) is actually down since 2000. Median usual weekly earnings, as tracked by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics is down. Where one was earning an average of $323 per week in 2000, that number is down to a little over $319 per week. Compound that with things like higher health insurance premiums (and reduced employer contributions), and you can see that most Americans are in worse shape than they were at the end of the Clinton years.

Now, jobs have been created, but many of them are in lower paying service industries. In fact, according to 2005 summary wage data (I can't find 2006 yet), overall real wages have declined for the 10th and 50th (median) percentile of earners (by 1.9% and 1.3% respectively), but gone up .6% for the top 95th percentile. This would seem to indicate that, adjusted for inflation, most Americans make less, but the CEO's large bonuses are evening out the data somewhat.

And this morning, the labor department released statistics showing that unemployment claims last week shot up faster than at any time in the past 16 months (levels not seen since the massive post-Katrina joblessness numbers).

Unemployment? Not at all time lows. Wages? Not up... in fact, they're down for most workers. Apology and retraction from our supposedly learned Dr. Berman? I'm betting not.

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Jan 25 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]380858[/snapback]</div>

With the respect he shows opposing views, there's a reason they call him Doberman around here.

Although I'm not going to call him that anymore, since the breed is fairly intelligent and can learn easily, something our yappy little poodle Dr. Berman has never shown.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 25 2007, 07:27 PM) [snapback]380878[/snapback]</div>

:lol: yeah, don't insult those dogs like that. Of course, you'd get the same result arguing with an actual doberman. Or a wall. Or a rock. Or a bag of hammers....