The dollar has been the leading international currency for as long as most people can remember. But its dominant role can no longer be taken for granted. If America keeps on spending and borrowing at its present pace, the dollar will eventually lose its mighty status in international finance.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3446249

Over the past three years the dollar has fallen by 35% against the euro and by 24% against the yen. The fall would have been greater if the dollar hadn't been propped up by Asian central banks.

The article explains the great risk we run, in part, for running massive deficits, and our trade imbalance doesn't help. We know that it's the policy of W and his Administration that "deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney said so.

So if/when the dollar stops being the primary world currency, and we suffer the economic consequences, whose fault will it be? We know Clinton will receive a healthy dose of blame, but it seems that W and his Crew, with a Republican Congress in tow, will be more deserving of the blame.

For extra credit, how many years of $300B-$500B deficits will it take for the dollar to be reduced to worthlessness? I'll say 4 years...

Of course, this could all be a grand scheme to weaken the dollar to the point that our overall debt is erased, sticking it to all those foreign bond holders, while empowering US export manufacturing with a weak dollar. In this case, W isn't economically incompetent, he's maliciously reckless... I lean toward the incompetent conclusion.

Haven't you learned from Steam and Bill by now? Just blame Clinton.

Don't you know anything about economics? The strong economy under Clinton was all due to Bush Senior. The current issues are Clinton's fault. And Reagan owed everything to Carter.

In this case, W isn't economically incompetent, he's maliciously reckless... I lean toward the incompetent conclusion.Why choose?

Because I am, .......


moneyman

Not that this is very relevant to this topic but.... a few years ago I caught a rerun of a Crossfire episode on PBS from around 1984. The whole episode was focused on the damage the corporate raiders and Reganomics were going to do to the economy.

What was interesting was that all of the raiders (I forget who they were but they were definitely not popular) were almost 100% correct in their 10-15 year predictions and those who were against them were dead wrong in pretty much all of their predictions. I was blown away by how right these guys were because, for me seeing it for the first time, it was current events. I mean the raiders were dead-on -- it was like they taped the show a week earlier.

The show was great and the hatred from the 'liberal' economists towards the raiders was tangable. At one point I thought they were going to actually duke it out. I remember hating them and their ilk when I was in school because their actions directly impacted members of my family in a bad way. Overall, I don't think anyone would say that the boom of the late 90s was a bad thing. Those raiders and their tactics play a huge role in making that boom possible.

Not that this is very relevant to this topic but.... a few years ago I caught a rerun of a Crossfire episode on PBS from around 1984. The whole episode was focused on the damage the corporate raiders and Reganomics were going to do to the economy.

What was interesting was that all of the raiders (I forget who they were but they were definitely not popular) were almost 100% correct in their 10-15 year predictions and those who were against them were dead wrong in pretty much all of their predictions. I was blown away by how right these guys were because, for me seeing it for the first time, it was current events. I mean the raiders were dead-on -- it was like they taped the show a week earlier.

The show was great and the hatred from the 'liberal' economists towards the raiders was tangable. At one point I thought they were going to actually duke it out. I remember hating them and their ilk when I was in school because their actions directly impacted members of my family in a bad way. Overall, I don't think anyone would say that the boom of the late 90s was a bad thing. Those raiders and their tactics play a huge role in making that boom possible.

So are you saying we should go back to Reganomics? I can still hear Gordon Gecko saying "Greed is good".

What would you prefer?

A strong dollar or a ban on Homosexual marriages?

Looks like most of the USA prefers the latter.

I think that the Texas banking scandal, Enron, and Worldcom were the legacy of the 80s corporate raiders.

You guys are dense. :(

The moral of the story is that the economists are very often very wrong and that eight years may not be a long enough time frame to judge any administration's economic policies. We may be well into the next admin before Clinton's policies are truly felt and three more beyond that by the time we feel the effect of Dubya's.

Because I am, .......


moneyman
Funny, I always pictured you as being taller.

Gee-I wonder what's going to happen next? Massive inflation, people carrying wheelbarrows full of bank notes to pay the bills? Then, with the collapse of the banks, radicals will blame the Jewish bankers, start a war, etc, etc.....

for the euro (or another stable currency) the US is screwed
if Asia calls in the billions extended to the US in loans the US is screwed

look at Argentina in from 1991 - 2002 and note the parallels

does the need to placate Asian countries who are underwriting American financial security at the moment undermine American foreign policy or in other words make the US their *****?

in the meantime enjoy a brief respite for your crappy manufacturing jobs and the shopping visits from well heeled Euros and Asians who are soon to be followed by Latin Americans...

maybe those same conservative economists Ken B referred to got the whole cold war thing right too?

I see the Democrats didn't learn much from this election. The party of Doom and Gloom continues its melancholy ways. So sad.

I see the Democrats didn't learn much from this election. The party of Doom and Gloom continues its melancholy ways. So sad.

bury your head in the sand and keep telling yourself everything's ok cause the very "christian" "moral" guy that ran every business he was ever involved with into the ground is making all the economic decisions

$50b per month every month in deficit is accruing

even the WSJ is taking note of the dropping dollar - how can you ignore it?

I see the Democrats didn't learn much from this election. The party of Doom and Gloom continues its melancholy ways. So sad.
And I see the neocons continue to subscribe to the ponzi scheme that is Bush's economic policy. Doesn't anyone take the long view anymore?

I see the Democrats didn't learn much from this election. The party of Doom and Gloom continues its melancholy ways. So sad.

situation DOES sound scary, doesn't it? C'mon Doug, if this were happening under and because of a Democrat President's policies, you'd be all over it. But neither you nor I REALLY know if it's as scary as it sounds, or as peachy as you make it seem, or not. You're a lawyer and I'm a retired drunkard, and all we know about economics is that the other party's is automatically bad. You and I are absolute, complete, and utter ignoramuses on this topic.

So ...

Being of open mind, I'm more than willing to be educated on this. Not from you reactionary nitwits who are as ignorant and partisan as I am -- you know who you are -- but by someone with some real knowledge and some common sense. $$ comes to mind, but who I really wish would explain it to me is TJeanloz, the little prick. He had a real way of putting me in my place.

Anyway, will some intelligent consevative explain to me why the shrinking dollar, and little matters like borrowing most of the world's saving to float our profligate government spending, shouldn't concern me? I don't want to worry unnecessarily, at my age. :eek:

Anyway, will some intelligent consevative explain to me why the shrinking dollar, and little matters like borrowing most of the world's saving to float our profligate government spending, shouldn't concern me? I don't want to worry unnecessarily, at my age. :eek:
< crickets chirping >

situation DOES sound scary, doesn't it? C'mon Doug, if this were happening under and because of a Democrat President's policies, you'd be all over it. But neither you nor I REALLY know if it's as scary as it sounds, or as peachy as you make it seem, or not. You're a lawyer and I'm a retired drunkard, and all we know about economics is that the other party's is automatically bad. You and I are absolute, complete, and utter ignoramuses on this topic.

So ...

Being of open mind, I'm more than willing to be educated on this. Not from you reactionary nitwits who are as ignorant and partisan as I am -- you know who you are -- but by someone with some real knowledge and some common sense. $$ comes to mind, but who I really wish would explain it to me is TJeanloz, the little prick. He had a real way of putting me in my place.

Anyway, will some intelligent consevative explain to me why the shrinking dollar, and little matters like borrowing most of the world's saving to float our profligate government spending, shouldn't concern me? I don't want to worry unnecessarily, at my age. :eek:

As usual, you rationally make good points, as opposed to the assumed doom and gloom of the initial post.

You are certainly correct that if Democrats were spending like we've seen in the last 4 years, we'd be raising holy hell. The only difference is that they'd be spending it on welfare and other entitlements, and the Republicans are spending it on war (other than that drug thing).

Republicans demanded responsible spending and balanced budgets for my entire lifetime, while the Democrats spent like deficits were meaningless, more often arguing that deficits were actually *good.* The only real difference is the approach to taxes. I think the bottom line is that Republicans want less spending and low deficits, *unless* we can spend *and* have low taxes. If so, what the heck?

People have been yiping about trade imbalances for 30 years, too. Dollar devaluation comes up periodically, too. yada yada yada. Same thing, different day. Everything seems to right itself eventually, then someone is yiping about the opposite effect -- if the dollar is high, then people are complaining that foreigners can't buy our products. Whatever. Damned if you do...

The approach of lowering taxes to stimulate the economy, so more people can be employeed and then more people can pay into the system, therefore generating more gross tax revenue than with higher tax rates, is at least arguably sound. It's *some* plan, and not totally nuts or arbitrary. Plus, all that spending is going somewhere, even if it's to defense contractors, who then employ people to make tanks and ammo, etc. The money isn't all pissed down the drain, but rather is recycled several times over in the economy, with each transaction creating more employment and more tax revenue. Sure, it's complicated as hell, and I doubt the greatest minds truly understand, much less can predict, all the consequences. You gotta try something, though, and that they are.

< crickets chirping >

Hey, Jackass (in the "Democrat" sense, of course), takes time to pound out some sensible paragraphs.

As usual, you rationally make good points, as opposed to the assumed doom and gloom of the initial post.

You are certainly correct that if Democrats were spending like we've seen in the last 4 years, we'd be raising holy hell. The only difference is that they'd be spending it on welfare and other entitlements, and the Republicans are spending it on war (other than that drug thing).

Republicans demanded responsible spending and balanced budgets for my entire lifetime, while the Democrats spent like deficits were meaningless, more often arguing that deficits were actually *good.* The only real difference is the approach to taxes. I think the bottom line is that Republicans want less spending and low deficits, *unless* we can spend *and* have low taxes. If so, what the heck?

People have been yiping about trade imbalances for 30 years, too. Dollar devaluation comes up periodically, too. yada yada yada. Same thing, different day. Everything seems to right itself eventually, then someone is yiping about the opposite effect -- if the dollar is high, then people are complaining that foreigners can't buy our products. Whatever. Damned if you do...

The approach of lowering taxes to stimulate the economy, so more people can be employeed and then more people can pay into the system, therefore generating more gross tax revenue than with higher tax rates, is at least arguably sound. It's *some* plan, and not totally nuts or arbitrary. Plus, all that spending is going somewhere, even if it's to defense contractors, who then employ people to make tanks and ammo, etc. The money isn't all pissed down the drain, but rather is recycled several times over in the economy, with each transaction creating more employment and more tax revenue. Sure, it's complicated as hell, and I doubt the greatest minds truly understand, much less can predict, all the consequences. You gotta try something, though, and that they are.
So basically you're saying it's complicated and we have to trust our leaders? I'd argue that Reganomics was a failure. The dot.com boom was responsible for a good portion of that prosperous economic time as was corporate raiding that led to short term profits and long term problems. I wish TJ was here to inform all us ignorant jackasses. He at least had some actual reasons behind why he believed the way he did.

situation DOES sound scary, doesn't it? C'mon Doug, if this were happening under and because of a Democrat President's policies, you'd be all over it. But neither you nor I REALLY know if it's as scary as it sounds, or as peachy as you make it seem, or not. You're a lawyer and I'm a retired drunkard, and all we know about economics is that the other party's is automatically bad. You and I are absolute, complete, and utter ignoramuses on this topic.

So ...

Being of open mind, I'm more than willing to be educated on this. Not from you reactionary nitwits who are as ignorant and partisan as I am -- you know who you are -- but by someone with some real knowledge and some common sense. $$ comes to mind, but who I really wish would explain it to me is TJeanloz, the little prick. He had a real way of putting me in my place.

Anyway, will some intelligent consevative explain to me why the shrinking dollar, and little matters like borrowing most of the world's saving to float our profligate government spending, shouldn't concern me? I don't want to worry unnecessarily, at my age. :eek:

The biggest losers in the dollar's drop are the Europeans. They can now buy US goods very cheaply, but there is little incentive for US firms to buy European goods. Think in terms of Airbus vs. Boeing. When someone in the US is looking for an airplane, if they buy Boeing they will pay $1.00 for a dollars worth of goods. If they buy Airbus, they will pay $1.35 for a dollar's worth of goods. Boeing gets the sale. Also, many European countries depend on the US tourist trade. With the Euro so high, it's very expensive to travel to Europe. We make economic choices and visit the Grand Canyon instead of London.

It is not in the best interest of non-US governments to let the dollar languish. There is talk today about active intervention, i.e., massive buying of dollars by central banks, to prop up the dollar. That has its own risks, but they are of the same mind that something needs to be done.

The biggest losers in the dollar's drop are the Europeans. They can now buy US goods very cheaply, but there is little incentive for US firms to buy European goods. Think in terms of Airbus vs. Boeing. When someone in the US is looking for an airplane, if they buy Boeing they will pay $1.00 for a dollars worth of goods. If they buy Airbus, they will pay $1.35 for a dollar's worth of goods. Boeing gets the sale. Also, many European countries depend on the US tourist trade. With the Euro so high, it's very expensive to travel to Europe. We make economic choices and visit the Grand Canyon instead of London.

It is not in the best interest of non-US governments to let the dollar languish. There is talk today about active intervention, i.e., massive buying of dollars by central banks, to prop up the dollar. That has its own risks, but they are of the same mind that something needs to be done.

that foreign bankers, especially Chinese bankers, have shipped all their countries' savings to us to float our extravagance, and so hold notes that could hold us hostage? I grew up believing that you NEVER want someone holding a note on your homestead.

The biggest losers in the dollar's drop are the Europeans. They can now buy US goods very cheaply, but there is little incentive for US firms to buy European goods. Think in terms of Airbus vs. Boeing. When someone in the US is looking for an airplane, if they buy Boeing they will pay $1.00 for a dollars worth of goods. If they buy Airbus, they will pay $1.35 for a dollar's worth of goods. Boeing gets the sale. Also, many European countries depend on the US tourist trade. With the Euro so high, it's very expensive to travel to Europe. We make economic choices and visit the Grand Canyon instead of London.

It is not in the best interest of non-US governments to let the dollar languish. There is talk today about active intervention, i.e., massive buying of dollars by central banks, to prop up the dollar. That has its own risks, but they are of the same mind that something needs to be done.

TJ, by the way. Hard as you try.

I see the Democrats didn't learn much from this election. The party of Doom and Gloom continues its melancholy ways. So sad.

I suppose I could be taken to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, but that's Ed's job - in his corner of Kentucky when the Dems can buy enough hootch to keep him on contract. I'm just me... Eyeore to my RBR friends. And you're right, I apparently didn't learn that glossy happy faces supersede discussions of complex, potentially scary issues.

I made a slightly inflammatory initial post to initiate discussion on a topic raised by the Economist magazine. I suppose I could have taken the Republi-Chaney line that "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter," even though Bush 41 sacrificed his political life to correct Reagan's fiscally reckless deficits. Then I could merrily deride the Economist article as Euro-trash economic nonsense, because nothing bad ever happens so long as a Good Republican is in the White House.

But Reagan tripled Carter's deficits, and we know what W has done. Only Repub Presidents in the past 30 years have driven deficits to the levels that Reagan and W have... It's a matter of scale. Maybe the Dem deficits weren't large enough, or occurred at a time of different global fiscal balance, that they really didn't matter. But the deficits seem to matter now. Not to Repubs, of course. Economist types who might not even be American.

I suppose that dismissing the issue as "Dems love deficits" in the face of these much higher Repub deficits is just another Repub Happy Face to shine through the Doom and Gloom. (I go back just 30 years because I haven't bothered to look back further...) At this point though, people other than Dems are raising the specter that our deficits ways may come home to roost in a very disruptive way. I just pointed it out.

Have a Happy Day. :)

The biggest losers in the dollar's drop are the Europeans. They can now buy US goods very cheaply, but there is little incentive for US firms to buy European goods. Think in terms of Airbus vs. Boeing. When someone in the US is looking for an airplane, if they buy Boeing they will pay $1.00 for a dollars worth of goods. If they buy Airbus, they will pay $1.35 for a dollar's worth of goods. Boeing gets the sale. Also, many European countries depend on the US tourist trade. With the Euro so high, it's very expensive to travel to Europe. We make economic choices and visit the Grand Canyon instead of London.

A weak dollar does help US manufacturers - and hurts US consumers. Maybe we should drop antitrust laws too... (Just kidding)

But I think the point of the concern goes much, much deeper than exchange rates. I think it relates to the concern that foreign banks could stop using the dollar as the main international currency. They could decide to stop spending billions to prop up a crappy currency in the face of endless fiscal nonsense on the part of W & his cabal. We have the lowest tax rate of any industrialized country, and yet the other industrialized countries are spending billions to support our currency/government. Why should they do that forever - or just the forseeable future?

You could take the Happy Face analysis and say, "they just will," but some economists are beginning to question that assumption. So if the world economy is based on euros, then buying a Boeing would still give a 30% discount. The issue is not that discount, but rather that the dollar is not the currency of international trade.

Where's TJ when wee need him? (Though, the last time this was raised he said it didn't matter because as a percentage of GDP it was still below Reagan's reckless deficits.)

I suppose I could be taken to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, but that's Ed's job - in his corner of Kentucky when the Dems can buy enough hootch to keep him on contract. I'm just me... Eyeore to my RBR friends. And you're right, I apparently didn't learn that glossy happy faces supersede discussions of complex, potentially scary issues.

I made a slightly inflammatory initial post to initiate discussion on a topic raised by the Economist magazine. I suppose I could have taken the Republi-Chaney line that "Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter," even though Bush 41 sacrificed his political life to correct Reagan's fiscally reckless deficits. Then I could merrily deride the Economist article as Euro-trash economic nonsense, because nothing bad ever happens so long as a Good Republican is in the White House.

But Reagan tripled Carter's deficits, and we know what W has done. Only Repub Presidents in the past 30 years have driven deficits to the levels that Reagan and W have... It's a matter of scale. Maybe the Dem deficits weren't large enough, or occurred at a time of different global fiscal balance, that they really didn't matter. But the deficits seem to matter now. Not to Repubs, of course. Economist types who might not even be American.

I suppose that dismissing the issue as "Dems love deficits" in the face of these much higher Repub deficits is just another Repub Happy Face to shine through the Doom and Gloom. (I go back just 30 years because I haven't bothered to look back further...) At this point though, people other than Dems are raising the specter that our deficits ways may come home to roost in a very disruptive way. I just pointed it out.

Have a Happy Day. :)

thats funny. when republicans win elections it was the way they framed the argument, never the substance of the argument. conversely, libbys squeal they just couldnt quite make people understand the message and if they were only better at painting better pictures, they'd have won. so all the red states are full of a bunch of stupid crackers.

but when libbies win, its all about the substance baby!

You are certainly correct that if Democrats were spending like we've seen in the last 4 years, we'd be raising holy hell. The only difference is that they'd be spending it on welfare and other entitlements, and the Republicans are spending it on war (other than that drug thing).


There's a lot of pork mixed in with that war spending.

I see the Democrats didn't learn much from this election. The party of Doom and Gloom continues its melancholy ways. So sad.

Shall I assume that you are happy about the decline of the dollar?

You are certainly correct that if Democrats were spending like we've seen in the last 4 years, we'd be raising holy hell. The only difference is that they'd be spending it on welfare and other entitlements, and the Republicans are spending it on war (other than that drug thing).

Isn't this enough of a compelling argument for liberalism? I'm astonished sometimes that people willfully support war spending over domestic social programs. It has little to do with the decline of the dollar, but I'm all the same surprised.

There's a lot of pork mixed in with that war spending.
And horror upon horror that we would spend our money on helping our own people out rather than spending it all bombing some foreign enemy into submission and then building them a new country. The nerve!

The approach of lowering taxes to stimulate the economy, so more people can be employeed and then more people can pay into the system, therefore generating more gross tax revenue than with higher tax rates, is at least arguably sound.

yeah, that's working so well that for the third straight month, businesses have announced job cuts of over 100,000.

and news that the oil exporters have reduced their exposure to the dollar down to about 60% from somewhere in the mid-70's, preferring instead the euro and gold, worried about what the falling dollar means to them. if the world economy decides to abandon the dollar as their preferred currency in favor of the euro, there's not much to stop the dollar from continuing iuts fall. soon our financial situation will look like argentina of a few years ago. rising inflation, shrinking wages, and massive unemployment.


Isn't this enough of a compelling argument for liberalism? I'm astonished sometimes that people willfully support war spending over domestic social programs. It has little to do with the decline of the dollar, but I'm all the same surprised.

killing people is so much more admirable than feeding them.

A weak dollar does help US manufacturers - and hurts US consumers. Maybe we should drop antitrust laws too... (Just kidding)

But I think the point of the concern goes much, much deeper than exchange rates. I think it relates to the concern that foreign banks could stop using the dollar as the main international currency. They could decide to stop spending billions to prop up a crappy currency in the face of endless fiscal nonsense on the part of W & his cabal. We have the lowest tax rate of any industrialized country, and yet the other industrialized countries are spending billions to support our currency/government. Why should they do that forever - or just the forseeable future?

You could take the Happy Face analysis and say, "they just will," but some economists are beginning to question that assumption. So if the world economy is based on euros, then buying a Boeing would still give a 30% discount. The issue is not that discount, but rather that the dollar is not the currency of international trade.

Where's TJ when wee need him? (Though, the last time this was raised he said it didn't matter because as a percentage of GDP it was still below Reagan's reckless deficits.)

Foreign governements can't afford to NOT float the dollar back to the top. There's an old saying that goes like this: If you owe the bank a dollar, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a million dollars, you own the bank.

"Some economists"? There are still "some economists" (and some on this board) who insist capitalism does not work. Not much credibility there.

I think the fear regarding the weak dollar is a product of the (forgive me) liberal press. While it is something that needs to be discussed, I don't believe that the Chinese will stop buying T-notes anytime soon.

yeah, that's working so well that for the third straight month, businesses have announced job cuts of over 100,000.

and news that the oil exporters have reduced their exposure to the dollar down to about 60% from somewhere in the mid-70's, preferring instead the euro and gold, worried about what the falling dollar means to them. if the world economy decides to abandon the dollar as their preferred currency in favor of the euro, there's not much to stop the dollar from continuing iuts fall. soon our financial situation will look like argentina of a few years ago. rising inflation, shrinking wages, and massive unemployment.




killing people is so much more admirable than feeding them.
Stay the course. GW only needs another 8-10 years to prove that what sounds like unmitigated folly is actually sensible economic policy! ;)

that foreign bankers, especially Chinese bankers, have shipped all their countries' savings to us to float our extravagance, and so hold notes that could hold us hostage? I grew up believing that you NEVER want someone holding a note on your homestead.

in the late '80's. Only that time it was the Japanese we were to be afraid of. See where that got them? Lots of grey hair, a languishing Japanese economy, and a robust US economy at the direction of the 42nd president.

US investments - government bonds - are seen as the safest investment in the world for a reason. Because they are. They are the preferred investment of banks and governments worldwide.

I'm no snotty snob. My collar is blue from birth. I just have to wear white ones to fit in.

I think the fear regarding the weak dollar is a product of the (forgive me) liberal press.

The Economist magazine in this case...

The Economist magazine in this case...
The Economist IS a liberal publication. Maybe you should read it sometime.

in the late '80's. Only that time it was the Japanese we were to be afraid of. See where that got them? Lots of grey hair, a languishing Japanese economy, and a robust US economy at the direction of the 42nd president.

US investments - government bonds - are seen as the safest investment in the world for a reason. Because they are. They are the preferred investment of banks and governments worldwide.

I'm no snotty snob. My collar is blue from birth. I just have to wear white ones to fit in.

I'm not so sure about our Red brothers.

The Economist IS a liberal publication. Maybe you should read it sometime.

I've been a subscriber for 10 years. It's fiscally/financially conservative, in a free trade sense, but socially liberal in a European sense. The Economist supported/supports the Iraq war, and grudgingly endorsed Kerry over Bush because of Bush's overall incompetence and nightmarish fiscal policies, even despite Kerry's waffling and weak support of free trade.

If you think The Economist is liberal in financial & fiscal matters, then we now have a nice calibration point that your fiscal policies are somewhere in the realm of 19th century American robber barons.

I'm not so sure about our Red brothers.
You have GOT to monitor your white lightning consumption! "Japs"? and "goddamn Japs"? Please. Tone down the anti-Asian rhetoric, OK?

As for the Chinese, I can see your point. But let's take it one step further. Do the Chinese want to be a bigger player in the world economy, or do they want to close up shop and just worry about the farmers in the hinterlands? By nature of having such a huge % of the worlds population, they HAVE to be a big player. What happens if they call in the debt? Well, they can't. The bonds have due dates and call dates that the US controls, not the creditors. If they want to be a big player, they have to play by the big guys' rules, which the US dictates at this point, because we are the big guys and we make the rules. The Chinese economy is still seen as an emerging market, frought with risk of failure. What they need now, more than anything, is capital investment. That will come from the richest nation in the world. If they decide to play dirty and do something that causes trouble, they hurt themselves. They have to play nice, or else they get kicked out of the game. After all, its our bat. And ball. And gloves. And uniforms. And umpires. And field.

You have GOT to monitor your white lightning consumption! "Japs"? and "goddamn Japs"? Please. Tone down the anti-Asian rhetoric, OK?.

a quote from Hunter Thompson?

I've been a subscriber for 10 years. It's fiscally/financially conservative, in a free trade sense, but socially liberal in a European sense. The Economist supported/supports the Iraq war, and grudgingly endorsed Kerry over Bush because of Bush's overall incompetence and nightmarish fiscal policies, even despite Kerry's waffling and weak support of free trade.

If you think The Economist is liberal in financial & fiscal matters, then we now have a nice calibration point that your fiscal policies are somewhere in the realm of 19th century American robber barons.
You Lenin loving Bolshevik! ;)

I guess we agree to disagree. I think its a left leaning publication, you don't. I don't believe either can be proven. You subscribe. I used to.

Robber barons. I'm going on the assumption that that comment, like my Bolshevik one, was tongue-in-cheek.

[QUOTE=moneyman] and a robust US economy at the direction of the 42nd president.QUOTE]

'Clinton' in this laudatory sentence?

........how can you ignore it?

Trust me, Doug can ignore just about anything. What do you expect from somebody who lives in a gated community in Fresno, of all places? I mean, if that isn't the epitome of head-in-the-sand neoconism, I don't know what is.
Hey, at least he's safe from all those chicanos he doesn't want to deal with. At least until the revolution happens and they attack the gated communities........

in the late '80's. Only that time it was the Japanese we were to be afraid of. See where that got them? Lots of grey hair, a languishing Japanese economy, and a robust US economy at the direction of the 42nd president.

US investments - government bonds - are seen as the safest investment in the world for a reason. Because they are. They are the preferred investment of banks and governments worldwide.

I'm no snotty snob. My collar is blue from birth. I just have to wear white ones to fit in.

and the japanese today owning a great deal of american real estate and corporations. columbia records and motion pictures? sony.

and the japanese today owning a great deal of american real estate and corporations. columbia records and motion pictures? sony.

so foreign ownership is a bad thing? should we tell them to take the jobs from those companies back to japan?

If this is as bad as you think, I suppose its another glaring example of how poorly managed the Democrats' campaign was run by not focusing on this issue.

[QUOTE=moneyman] and a robust US economy at the direction of the 42nd president.QUOTE]

'Clinton' in this laudatory sentence?
Just trying to see if you would pick it up, which I see you did. I have no problems naming Clin... Clint..... Clint..... Him.