Full Story

I think this is one of the things that this administration (and the previous one as well) has not handled well - the overall weakness of the US Dollar.

The one thing that has kept our economy and way of life from really going in the crapper is that the Dollar is, for the most part, the world's currency. It is the currency for buying oil. That is why gas and oil is actually cheaper in the US than the rest of the world. All other countries have to "buy" dollars so they can buy oil.

If the Dollar is not the currency of exchange for oil, oil prices will skyrocket in the US. When oil prices shoot up, the cost of everything - food, clothing, everything - goes up exponentially. This inflation would call for the increase of interest rates. That would explode the US Debt as it is currently financed with a series of low interest loans. We all know how much interest we are paying alone on the debt and it is crushing. What would it do if the interest rate goes up to 8, 10, 12, 14%.

I am not arguing against the "one global currency" because of the "one world government" fears. I am against this on a pure economical basis.

It bothers me that there is not more coverage of this issue. There have been meetings by members of China, Russia, and some OPEC nations - without US participation - for discussing the path to move away from the US Dollar as the currency for oil.

For President Obama to say "there is no threat to the reserve status of the Dollar" is very shortsighted, and dangerous. This is not to blame Obama fully as to the current status of the Dollar, it has been weakening for years, but his administration is currently the "captain of the ship" so they need to do what must be done to keep the Dollar as the world's chief currency.

What in the world is Geithner/the Administration thinking?

I missed Geithner's remarks and really, really hope that this is some kind of delaying tactic because until we get our economic house in order the fact that we are the global reserve currency is pretty much the only thing providing stability to the dollar and, by extension, treasuries.

I dont think this will get passed in our lifetime but it is something that will become in the future.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

Honestly, I don't see how the administration could avoid the discussion. This isn't something that we can stop, so all we can do is to try to shove our way into the conversation and to take whatever actions we can to mitigate the ramifications.

It is something that we can stop by having the dollar be stronger. That is done, in part, by reducing the debt - drastically.

"What must be done" to keep the dollar from sinking is for the American people to stop acting like you can become top dog and then simply sit on your hands and expect to retain the same economic status. If you factor in the kind of attitude our workforce has these days, people in this country are working 5 or 6-hour days. Other countries, especially in East Asia, are working 11-12 hour shifts with their kids in school year-round 6 days per week. The stupidity of not decreasing our national debt aside, it's a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the real root of the problem. Not saying it won't help, but I'd much rather the administration focus its efforts on trying to get people in this country to wake up and take their jobs seriously over considering the national debt(given a choice between the two).

The 300-pound guy with mustard on his shirt sitting in front of his TV for 5 hours per day complaining that he can't make a decent living is becoming less of a butt of jokes and more of a national crisis. We always have an easier time pointing elsewhere to find blame, especially the government.

*nods* I can't quite understand how economists didn't raise all hell when the first real outsourcing and the abandonment of major industry to China really got rolling. How could you not see the future ramifications?

You can't base an entire damn economy on service industry and real estate.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

Before making broad generalizations about the work habits of people, I would take a quick look at the ILO statistics. There are a few Asian nations who do work more hours that we do on average, however by and large Americans still work more than most industrialized nations.

Laziness isn't to blame, a lack of productivity is. The fact that some European nations actually manage to work significantly less than the United States and still maintain higher production indicates that we probably aren't doing everything that we should be as a nation. That will more than likely fall on the government setting different work standards or businesses increasing the efficiency of operations and/or improving the work environment than it will fall on the American worker. 'Just work harder' isn't a solution, it's an excuse.

You make just as many generalizations by suggesting that we can actually rely on data that tells us absolutely nothing about American work ethic while supposedly *on the job*. Just because someone hits the clock button doesn't mean they're actually doing anything substantial. If you're going to suggest that falls into the broad realm of "productivity", then yea, I'll agree. As far as efficiency though, they're two separate things. You can't look at average work hour statistics if the work culture here consists of standing around water coolers.

Productivity in terms of people doing the right things with their time is a major factor, but the concept of "working smart, working less" is the biggest "excuse" of them all for people to be lazy. Being just a little ahead of the American population on average more than likely still puts you BEHIND where Asian and European workers are. That's a pretty poor standard to look at. If someone has more that they can do to improve their situation, their company's, and the world in general why would one want to sit on their ass and call it off for the next day just because you think you're "ahead"... ESPECIALLY in the case where you've only worked for a few hours and call it because you made enough money for the day?

No, working smarter is not the answer alone. Working smarter AND harder is the answer. I put an emphasis on "harder" because the average person is too stupid to learn how to be more productive hour for hour and pound for pound to make it worthwhile in the long run. Being efficient is one thing. Putting that efficiency to good use is another entirely. People who have the smarts and the talent of true efficiency who also happen to be lazy people probably do the greatest disservice to mankind out of anyone.

The catch here is the way we typically reduce our debt is by printing more money. That effectively lessens the percent of the overall economy that the debt represents. Printing money also devalues the dollar though, which has all the ill effects you already correctly listed. This dilema is a key factor of the precious metal and commodity markets going crazy lately.

That is why we have to change the way we typically reduce the debt.

I have changed my thinking about many things, one of those is I think we should drastically cut our outside of the US military bases and standing. There are over 100 US Military facilities in Germany alone.

Cutting the number of bases in half may not provide an immediate budget gain, but should help in YOY reductions.

I think that each item in the federal budget should be classified from 1-5, with 1 being critical to the country that it be funded to 5 being it would be nice. With the debt crisis that we are in now we should just be funding the 1's and possibly some 2's. I would also have legislation stating that any expenditure of Congress requires a single purpose vote. As in no tacking on totally unrelated pet project to larger bills. (No adding an amendment to a bill getting a research lab for field mice in New Jersey added to a popular bill as an extreme example) I do not think that we can tax ourselves out of this debt. Maybe getting rid of some loopholes, but I don't think that raising taxes will help when the economy is suffering.

I like the idea of classifying budget items like you express. I do, however, recognize the incredible difficulty of doing so, as one person's 5 will be another person's 1. Agreeing on those classifications will be next to impossible I think.

it would be difficult. If it were easy it would have been implemented already. Politicians won't do anything that is difficult.

It's more simple than that...politicians who would do it would not get elected. People don't vote based on what someone will do, they vote on what they will not do. I will not cut X program, I will not raise X taxes etc. If someone is going to do 100 things good you agree with and cut 1 program that you use, you will generally not vote for them and instead vote for someone who promises things that cannot be true when given any reasonable thought about it.

"You" is being used as the general public here, not anyone specific.

You are correct.

It will take a totally new style politician to stand up and say "My friends, we are in a heap of trouble. Congress must look at everything that it is spending and re-asses what needs to be spent, what should be spent, and what should not be spent. In times of prosperity it is easy to fund a wide range of projects, initiatives, and other items.

Now, we must bring our books in order. There will be painful cuts - benefits, over-reaching programs, excesses, military spending and including other so called entitlements. There would be a greater problem if the United States does not get our debt under control than if we cut X project or Y program.

If we do not start this process now, there may not be the money to fund all of the good that the government needs to do, in the very near future."

Then have the balls to do it.

This sounds good to me honestly. Personally i would love to see a global currency period not just a reserve currency.

It is the value of goods and services that should float on gobal markets not the value of money. It makes no sence to derive the value of stuff based upon the currency. Currency is not real and has no intrinsic value. Currency should derive its value from the cost of stuff and not vice versa.

The current system worked in yester-year when most countries basically produced most of their goods within their own borders with money backed by precious metals, but that world is long gone in the rear view mirror. Companies and markets are now global and do not care where a item is produced or sold only that a profit can be derived from the transfer.

That for listening i just felt the need to rant a bit today.

As for prices rising, all I can say is its about time. Prices for nearly everything need to rise dramatically. Current global markets are based upon explotation as there is no reason why a one person picking fruit should get $7.00 a day versus another getting $7.00 an hour for what is essentially the same job. Of course this is going to cause chaos both economically and politically on a global scale and i believe a lot of the unrest currently in the world is partially derived from this explotiation as the workers get squat and the people in charge keep the profits.

Without drastic measures the global economy is going to wreck as there is too much inequality worldwide. With the current state of global politics I do not see much of a chance to avert this crash but I am an optimist so I always hold out hope that eventually people will realize we are Earthlings first and American, German, Panamanian, Libyian or whaterver second and that no country is worth more than crap if the world is in the toilet.

Bah, the "That for listening..." line should have been at the end and should have read "Thanks for listening i just felt the need to rant a bit today"

I pretty much agree with everything Cenanorn said. I especially identify with the "we are earthlings first, American second" mentality.

Good points and I would vote for that politician, but I am skeptical to think many others would. He (or she) would probably be so unsuccessful with that approach that they would never even make it to the national stage.

As for the inflation being a good thing by Cenanorn, the idea you want to achieve is noble, but inflation does not accomplish that. Slow gradual inflation is healthy, but anything beyond that does more harm than good in every case it's ever reared it's ugly head throughout historty, all the way back to the Roman empire. It's a treatment that may kill the disease, but most likely the patient too.

I definately agree here. I just don't see a process we can use to avoid this outcome. If we keep buying their stuff but they do not earn enough to by our stuff it will be a long slow death spiral as money is slowly siphoned out of our economy. In just the last 5 years we have pumped over 3 trillion dollars out of our economy into someone elses.

This same problem can be seen on much smaller scale even down to the community level. A town a few miles away used to have a few small factories that produced goods that were distributed across the state and country thus the area pulled in money and had a good local economy. The factories eventually found they could not compete and thus closed down. Now there is nothing to balance out the money that leaves the local economy from buying products made elsewhere and sold buy companies not localy owned. Eventually the town has withered away since the only way the local economy has to bring in money is via retiriees, tourism, and government assistance.

Again this is a trainwreck but i don't see any way to avoid it. I'm just hoping for a soft landing when it happens.

If the world continues to use dollars as the basis of commerce (read: to buy oil) then we will always have a negative trade balance (or very close to it) as other nations would want to sell us good for Dollars so they can buy oil. If (please don't be when) we were off that standard our economy would flatline. Things here would be horrible. You could forget about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other Health Coverage because we wouldn't have the money to pay for any of it.

The scary thing is that no one is really talking about this or how bad it would be for our country. The only reports are a brushing off of the idea.

Now, if the Dollar were in a much stronger position, our economy was not based on the selling of dollars, we were not the #1 debtor nation, and a phased plan for a global currency might not be a bad idea. But still you will have producer nations, buyer nations and nations that can't afford to do either. Just because there may be one currency does not mean that all would be equal.

I don't know if I'm more tired of seeing the "Ra ra ra, America numbah 1" or "We're all human! Nationalism sux0rez! Look what happened to da Nazis!". They're both pretty trite with the latter merely endorsed by a smaller yet still significant enough number of people to make it a complete platitude.

I guess I'm still a big fan of moderate nationalism. Human beings are instinctually competitive. Most people who pretend as if they've transcended instinct are stupid and deny reality. It's like the guy who's completely bald with a massive combover: You aren't fooling anyone. I'll admit there are a number of people out there that have near-zero competitive drive, but for the majority of the population it's still a factor that resonates and results in action(though, admittedly, not always productivity, but something is often better than nothing).

It's not too strange when a guy dumps a girl, some big buff dude grabs her up, and suddenly she's desirable again. We want the things that are often just out of reach, and competition can breed that. You can take it to far and turn it into a fervor, but you can take anything that's usually good for you too far.

I'd prefer that the *outcome* is that humanity, rather than strictly individual nations, gain and fewer nations end up in poverty. I see no reason for everyone to hold hands and sing kumbayah to accomplish that.

The idea that "humanity is more important than nationality" does not equal "no competition sing Kum-bay-yah look at the Nazi's." There is still plenty of room for individual and corporate competition.

I do not appreciate being turned into a caricature.

Suggesting that a popularized ideology which ends up being particularly trite and something uttered as a tagline on a bumper sticker doesn't make you or anyone else a caricature just on account of agreeing with the original idea. I'm sure we've all endorsed them at one point or another. It's just nice to be able to identify them when we can, and I'm sure I probably hold some views that fall into that category as well. I can't undo the fact that it's as much a platitude as "ra ra ra America numbah one".

I'm sure there would still be for some competition, but my point was that it's not nearly on the same level. Nationalism and "we" is always going to be in people's blood. No sense in taking the carrot off the stick and replacing it with a pea. Subduing it will only make it appear elsewhere, and the best way to keep it in check is to allow it but alter where the flow of output exists and in the end let it surface in a diluted way.

I AM FUCKING AWESOME FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY ARBITRARY LIKE WHERE I WAS BORN FUCK YOUR FACE OMG!

Yup, that's the common line, but I'd say it's more than that. Do you look at your parents and say "They're great parents precisely because I was born into their household and none other!!". Or even one's spouse - odds are, for most of us, there was someone better out there, yet few of us make too fine a point to argue vigorously that we were simply born into a set of circumstances that ended up in that choice. The same applies to the nation you're born into, to an extent that is a bit less emphasized because nations do not have personal attributes that match up to yours in the way a spouse or parent does.

Obviously people typically endorse whichever nation, religion, or other set of norms/mores they're exposed to from a young age. However, my point is that most of us go through a process of appreciation and understanding for what constitutes that nation. People look down on Iran for its negative attributes, yet it's *precisely* because someone was born there and went through the typical growings of nationalism that we are able to SEE a positive side or an alternative. That's part of the reason I believe that gradual appreciation is worth something, even if we should never ascribe to the "my country is right no matter what!" extreme.

Summary: Born into it without choice, and often with little objectivity? Yes. But going through the process of understanding and appreciation for one's heritage is worth something in its own right. Pride because of it? Sure, but not because one had anything to do with being born into it. Pride because after a certain amount of intellectual consideration, you have come upon the conclusion that your country and the legacy you are a continuation of have significant merit. You alone are responsible for that consideration, and if it was thorough, there's little harm in and of itself to be a little proud of it.

Personally, I believe most people are good but often misunderstandings are the biggest sources of conflict. I guess that's part of the reason I have little problem with the idea that someone can grow to appreciate most people, including the larger groups which make up nations and culture. Being proud of them from loose association and collaboration isn't completely without merit, even if little accomplishment is shared on a personal level.

wow. I did not know this:

Full Story Here

I am a former GE employee. I have respected what the company does and how it operates, but this is beyond my comprehension.

I don't think that raising corporate rates should be the answer, but removing corporate loop-holes for some need to be looked at. Possibly reducing the overall rate but eliminating most of the loopholes would produce much more federal revenue.

Hear hear!

I've always said a lower tax rate with fewer loopholes would be ideal. Everytime we raise taxes we put "exceptions" into the mix, and the people who use those exceptions are the ones who can hire the most skilled tax team.