November 15, 2004
Broke Nation
As a nation we are badly broken. Divided not united, financially dependent on other nations to fund our double deficits, Dependent on nations where we are hated to supply our oil and soon our natural gas. Leaning towards the establishment of religious tests for those who hold political office is another sign that our founding fathers bet on the wrong horse in establishing this Republic. They bet that education would prevail over prejudice and knowledge would trump ignorance. They firmly bet against the establishment of religion and toward the establishment of learned discourse as the foundation of our republic and now they are close to losing that bet.
I was raised in the Catholic Religion and educated in Catholic schools. I know that the priests and bishops are not ignorant men but they are supporters of a vast level of ignorance about the issue of abortion. They have also bent their faith to the purpose of supporting an American Empire that is now totally dependent on dominating the world by force of arms. The true issue with abortion is the conflict between any rights of a fetus that can be established within our society and the rights of a female parent of that fetus. If you establish the right to life of that fetus you must force the woman to use her body to sustain its life at some substantial physical expense to her person. If you come down on the side of the right of the fetus to life you come down against the right of the woman to form her own life.
Equivocating, quibbling and otherwise denying that incontrovertible fact is a constant in our national battle over abortion. The only choice here is the choice between allowing the death of a fetus or the suppression of the right of a woman to own her body during the time that a fetus occupies that body. Religion is the only basis for the support of the rights of the fetus over the rights of the woman. The logic of requiring the woman to sustain that life against her own interests is not ethical in its foundation but religious only. Ethics can be debated; religion is a matter of belief. The arguments for the dominance of the interests of a fetus are founded in beliefs not supported by logic or the rational application of logic to the issues involved.
The argument against abortion is that it cheapens human life. Poverty cheapens human life far more frequently in our world than abortion. War cheapens human life far more certainly in our world than abortion. Religious Intolerance cheapens human life far more absolutely than abortion ever could in our world today. Yet the same people who would murder to prevent abortion will argue that poverty war and intolerance are always with us and cannot be prevented.
By the same logic the deaths of fetuses occur every day in thousands of women’s bodies and many of those deaths could be prevented by the application of existing knowledge of medicine. No one has yet argued that women be required to report to their doctor as soon as the signs of their cycle indicate that they are pregnant. Yet, if the right to life of the fetus is established as dominant that must be done so that the fetus that is growing in their body can be sustained by the most rigorous application of medical knowledge possible.
One of my relatives aborted six fetuses by virtue of the fact that she could not work and remain active and sustain the life of a fetus inside her body. Should we have forced her to live in bed and impoverish her living children in order to save the lives of those fetuses? By any logic inherent in placing the rights of a fetus above those of its female parent we should have done that. She would certainly have bourne those fetuses to term had her body not rejected them in its effort to sustain her life; she would never have taken any direct action to have an abortion. But the death of a person by default is punished by laws against manslaughter, was she not guilty of that crime?
By the logic of the rights of a fetus dominating over those of a woman she was guilty. How far do we go in that direction once those fetal rights begin to dominate the lives of women? There is no obvious stopping point once we abandon the right of a woman to choose between pregnancy and abortion. However repugnant we may find abortion as a means of birth control the woman inevitably loses her right to decide how her body will be used if the fetal right to life becomes dominant. The arguments for women losing their rights are all founded in the religious doctrine of the sacredness of human life. That sacredness is compromised in endless ways by poverty, war and intolerance but they are not the subject of religious campaigns for or against various candidates. Only abortion has reached that level of attention because it conveniently divides the electorate into manageable and easily manipulated groups.
We are living in a world of terrorism because we have abandoned our dedication to freedom and equality in order to sustain our consumer society. The idea that we are fighting to impose freedom on Iraq is as absurd as the idea that we can continue to prosper as a nation by digging ourselves deeper into debt every year. We cannot sustain prosperity for the length of our lives and those of our children by wasting fuel and other resources at the pace of our current economy. We are consuming irreplaceable resources and demanding an unsustainable level of goods and services from our world.
For sixty years it has been our national policy to use any level of force necessary to keep oil flowing around the world. We have compromised with dictators worse than Saddam Hussein and with Saddam himself to sustain that flow. Every President since 1932, F.D.R. included, has supported that policy and now we are so dependent on that flow that we cannot stop even when it threatens us with constant warfare for fifty years. Dick Cheney has told us the war on terror will take that long. The reason it will take that long is it will take us that long to extract the last of the oil from under the Middle East and move it where our economic model requires that it be sent. There are many great things about our economic model. Our dependence on using natural resources that do not belong to us at an increasingly unsustainable cost in lives and money is not one of them. Our nation is broken but it can be fixed and made healthy again, it is up to us to do that. Not the President who is trapped by our economic model but the people themselves must fix this nation.
Replacing Roe V Wade may be tried but it will not fix our nation. Adding religious training to our public educational system may be tried but it will not fix our nation. National health care may be passed in one form or another but it will never fix our nation. We are consuming more than we produce. We must either produce more or consume less by about one trillion dollars per year or our nation will bankrupt itself. That is the first thing we must fix. The second is the idea that one person’s beliefs must dominate over those of another who just as fervently believes a different thing entirely. We cannot sustain a Republic if that is how we are going to operate our political machinery. Civil war will result from that political dedication to forcing compliance with our beliefs as it always has in the past. God bless and keep you all safe in the short term, the long term is certainly up to you. ©Henri Reynard/GoldenBrush Interactive
Posted by Henri Reynard at November 15, 2004 08:45 AMWhat a first paragraph. The founding fathers bet on the wrong horse? Compared to what? Since they made that bet 217 years ago, we have gone through a lot. While in other parts of the world, millions died (and continue to die) because of religion and/or the secular ideologies set up to replace them, in America we have been sometimes inconvenienced. And when people break the law to advocate their religious beliefs, they are prosecuted. To paraphrase Churchill, the U.S. is the worst country in the world, except compared to everything else.
Abortion is not an issue I generally take sides on, but I do have to take some issue with your example of the woman who had six abortions. Fool me once … After the fourth of fifth time, she might reconsider her birth control options.
“The logic of requiring the woman to sustain that life against her own interests is not ethical in its foundation but religious only.”
- I do not understand the basis for your statement.
I am an atheist, but yet, I find the murder of innocent children to be wrong. No religious feelings or thoughts at all.
“If you establish the right to life of that fetus you must force the woman to use her body to sustain its life at some substantial physical expense to her person.”
- Should we be allowed to murder our children then? In order to sustain our childrens lives, we endure substantial physical expense to our persons by being forced to work more and more.
When things get tough, why not just get rid of our children so that there is no extra physical expense?
“If you come down on the side of the right of the fetus to life you come down against the right of the woman to form her own life.”
- A person forms their life everyday. Should we allow a woman to murder her 3 year old because she decides one day that her newly formed life does not include being a parent?
Jack
“she might reconsider her birth control options”
- Why? Abortion is the ultimate birth control. She doesn’t have to be troubled to take a pill or being careful or anything. She has no responsiblities at all with abortion so readily available as birth control.
Get pregnant, have an abortion, back at work by noon.
kctim said: “When things get tough, why not just get rid of our children so that there is no extra physical expense?”
We do. It is called war where we send our young to die for the gains of the rest of us.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 15, 2004 01:40 PMCome on David-
There is no choice involved when our sons and daughters volunteer for the armed services? They are not adults responsible for their own decisions and choices?
Honestly that comment sounds like Michael Moore.
Posted by: George at November 15, 2004 01:52 PM“She has no responsiblities at all with abortion so readily available as birth control.
Get pregnant, have an abortion, back at work by noon.”
Spoken like someone who has never had an abortion.
Also - kctim - can I assume that you’re opposition to abortion is supported by your support of easily accessable birth control for women?
Posted by: Justin at November 15, 2004 02:05 PM“There is no choice involved when our sons and daughters volunteer for the armed services?”
For many poor kids, the armed forces is the only option for college money and a bright future. They should fight for our national security, not oil. As for Michael Moore, he’s a true American patriot who’s received hundreds of supportive letters from our troops.
Posted by: political news at November 15, 2004 02:56 PMHonestly that comment sounds like Michael Moore.
Because anything Michael Moore says is BS, right? I have never been a big fan of his — I think he’s arrogant and obnoxious and self-serving — just like our president. The difference is that Moore is sometimes amusing.
Posted by: Alejo at November 15, 2004 03:18 PMDavid:
Amen. Love the way you tell it like it is.
Of course, I’m still not seeing how the “rest of us” are gaining anything from the current war.
Justin:
Of course I support easy access to birth control, just not paid for by the tax payers.
If a woman is competent enough to get an abortion, she should be competent enough to know how to use birth control and pay for it.
You should also never assume anything. My opposition to abortion stems from the fact that I am a father. The fact that people murder defenseless and totally innocent children really brings sorrow to my heart.
HOWEVER, as of now, I do not believe it is my place to dictate whether a woman gives birth or not, I am pro-choice. Suprised?
“Spoken like someone who has never had an abortion.”
- No kidding! I’m a guy.
But, I am also someone who has worked security for clinics that performed this procedure. Are you saying it is impossible for a woman to go to work after this? If so, I know a few women, firsthand, who can prove you wrong.
To lump David’s quote in with the ilk of michael moore is wrong.
I am one of the biggest supporters of American military might, but as we have in the past, are doing so today and will continue into the future, we are sending our young troops off to fight unneccessary wars. Things have got to change and it is up to us to change them.
P-News
moore is a hack. Get rid of your “true American” thoughts of him. He outright lies and uses the hot topic of the day to prey off the fears of the people to make himself richer.
Of course, strictly speaking, we’re not sending “our young” off to fight and die in war - the ones forced into it for financial reasons are the poor youth who overwhelmingly voted Kerry..
Posted by: Josh at November 15, 2004 04:06 PMAlthough I’m certainly not a fan of Moore, my use of him was based upon that interview he did with O’Reilly basically calling Bush a baby killer.
How can the choice of an adult to enter into service and thereby accept the risk of his chosen career be compared to the killing of an innocent child or an unborn child?
Same with the pro life/pro death penalty argument; how can an innocent life be compared to a convicted (and hopefully guilty) murderer?
It’s not apples and apples in my book.
Posted by: George at November 15, 2004 04:49 PMkctim-
On the unnecessary war issue, doesn’t the blame for those lie at the feet of Congress? Especially after 1973 and the WPA? Wouldn’t it be better to blame people like Senator Kerry who voted for the authorization of force but who, in reality, did not support the actual use of force?
I know this is off the topic of abortion, but that’s really my point in calling out David’s comparision: It is not apples and apples.
Posted by: George at November 15, 2004 04:58 PMJosh
Most polls indicate that the military vote went more to Bush.
You all should not condescend to the “poor youth” who join the military. The military is a relatively better option for the poor than the rich because the rich have more options in general. Most people in the military are proud of their choice and they consider it a good experience.
Henri:
We are not bankrupting our country. The twin deficits you speak of I presume are the balance of payments, and the federal deficit. If you add both of those up, and divide by the GDP you find that the “twin deficits” are about the same percentage of GDP as the nominal rate of growth of the economy (inflation plus true growth). What that means is that the United States can sustain this current reality FOREVER. Unemployment is below historic norms, interest rates are low, the price of oil is declining. The economy is fine.
Craig
In terms of abortion, why abort a viable fetus? When a baby can be sustained outside the womb why kill it? There is also a shortage of babies in out country. Wouldn’t logic say to connect those wanting babies with those that do not want/can’t affort their babies?
At the beginning I would concede three areas. 1. where the mothers life is in danger. 2. incest, 3. Rape. When none of those conditions exist, and their is disagreement among voters, why not let the voters decide? Why not over turn Roe v Wade and let the states figure it out. In my state (Washington), under that formula abortion will always be legal, next door in Idaho, it would probably not be legal. Don’t voters have any say in this??
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 15, 2004 05:55 PMCraig,
Per your comments to Henry:
Wow, where is the math on THAT equation? And why is the head of the Federal Reserve not expressing the same opinions about our federal deficit as you are? Maybe we should nominate you for that job (considering Greenspan is getting old and in some peoples’ opinions partisan and ineffective). Please feel more than welcome to correct me where I am wrong, but I fail to see how our current spending is maintainable forever. The simple fact is that we are consuming more than we are producing; we are spending more money than we are bringing in; and if I am not mistaken, the larger proportion of our Treasury notes are going to foreign creditor nations. It seems to some that the US can only continue to outspend its means for a finite amount of time (a lot of it depends on the strength of the dollar and the likelyhood that other nations will continue to consume our debt).
Now, in terms of abortion:
This is a topic which, of course, everyone has an opinion. Therefore, I will express mine.
I would be inclined to agree with Henri on his women’s rights vs. fetus rights deductions. How I see it is that it breaks down to a few things: if the soul exists, when the soul is inserted into the fetus, and when a fetus becomes a human. I know some of these are similar, but (per kctim’s comments) they do basically break down to an issue over religion. The reason I say this is because it is nearly impossible to believe in a soul and at the same time not believe in a deity.
I, as an atheist, do not believe in the existance of the soul. Atheist, as per the commonly held definition, do not believe in existance after death. This works contrary to the idea of a soul, which is immortal. So, if we are arguing over abortion and at the same time negating the influence of religion over the issue, we can eliminate my first two premises.
The third premise comes down to a fundamental disagreement over when a fetus becomes a person. Where I tend to stand on this issue conforms fairly closely to our current abortion laws. In my opinion, a fetus is not initially a human; instead it has the “potential” to be a human. I say this because a fetus does not have the ability to exist outside of the womb. If we conform to the laws of nature (thank you Darwin), than a creature must be able to sustain life on its own in order to survive. I find it rediculous, under these rules, to say that a fetus (which before a certain incubation period has a 0% chance of living outside the womb) can be considered a living being.
The way I see it is, before a certain period (I think that is about 6 months), a fetus is not a human being, it just has the potential to be one. I would agree, barring things like rape or the health of the mother, that a child should not be aborted after that point. However, I see very little difference between an abortion and a miscarriage; basically abortion is just assisted miscarriage. If abortion gets overturned should we then convict mothers of murder for having a miscarriage?
Ok, I’ve lost my train of thought. But I may have more to say on this later.
Posted by: Nick at November 15, 2004 08:22 PMI would be inclined to agree with Henri on his women’s rights vs. fetus rights deductionsRelating my above comments back to this topic: The way I see it (based on my deductions), if we can not consider a fetus to be a living creature before a certain period, how can we give preferential rights to a non-living being over a fully developed living creature? It seems unfair for us to mandate what another person is required to do with their body. Lets not even begin to think about what kind of life we would be bringing the child into (one where a woman has to resent the fact that they were forced to give birth to the child). Lets think about the welfare of this would be child. Do we want to bring this child into a life where it will not receive the things it needs to become a responsible contributor to society? I would never want to impose on a child parents that are not willing or able to give that child every advantage it deserves. That, to me, is more inhumane than aborting that child and instead waiting until you are absolutely ready and willing to have a child.
There is also a shortage of babies in out countryPlease provide proof here, I have never seen any indications that this statement is true.
Don’t voters have any say in this??I don’t think anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they can and can not do with their own body.
ok, thats enough for now.
Posted by: Nick at November 15, 2004 08:34 PMNick:
The math is pretty simple. When you add together the budget deficit and the trade deficit and divide by the Gross Demostic product that number is at the nominal growth rate of the economy (inflation plus real growth).
Imagine your own income. If a person made $50,000 a year and owed $25,000 in debt and then their income rose by say $5,000, and they borrowed $2500 more dollars relatively they would be in the same place. Since nations do not have the same lifespan as humans it literally makes no difference. What Greenspan is saying is that we need to change policy and reduce the deficit and trade imbalance because we want to improve our relative situation.
If this were not true, you would see a dramatic sell off in bonds. The fed really only controls short term rates. If what you and Henri fear is true long term rates would be double what they are now. Eventually they will need to go up, but only as capital gets scarce because of the expanding economy.
Basically the economy only “feels” bad because of the large sum of money put into advertizing to try to elect Senator Kerry.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 15, 2004 09:31 PMNick:
If you will review my comments to Henri, I was discussing when a baby was viable, meaning could be sustained outside of the womb. What would be the logical arguement that a viable fetus is not human, or does not deserve life?
What you are saying about your beliefs about a soul etc, are simply beliefs simular to religion. Your values should not sway the world. I think voters should decide between a mothers right to her own body and the baby’s right to life. Liberal judges should not be allowed to force their morality on the baby. Just stating that an unborn human is not a baby doens’t make it so!!! By your own words you do not believe in a soul. By that definition none of us have a right to life.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 15, 2004 09:40 PMWe really ought to break this up into a couple of different lines. Budget problems and abortion rights are two different things. It is like putting spaghetti sauce on a crème doughnut
Posted by: jack at November 15, 2004 09:57 PMThe real argument over abortion comes down to deciding when the fetus becomes a person. Ignoring this wastes everyone’s time. Everyone agrees on when abortion should be legal - until the fetus is a person. The disagreement is not over what rights a woman has, but when a fetus becomes a separate person.
The most sensible times to declare that a fetus has become a person are: conception, when the heart starts beating, when the brainwaves take on regular patterns, when all the organs are fully formed, when the fetus becomes viable without the mother, birth, when the child can walk, when the child can speak, when all the baby teeth have grown in, when all the adult teeth have grown in, and puberty. In Roman society, a person did not have a right to life until they got to puberty. At any time before then, the father could disown them and they were then thrown out on the street to die (some survived, but it was not guaranteed). Nobody now is arguing for anything after birth, but the point is that opinions on this matter change and science does not have a clear answer. Based on opinion polls that I have seen, most Americans would prefer to say that life starts somewhere around the 3rd to 6th month of pregnancy. There are a few extremists on both sides that say life starts at conception or at birth. Both of these are equally wrong to most Americans. Focusing entirely on the idea of woman’s rights completely ignores the actual disagreement. Arguing about when life begins is more productive. My own personal opinion is that the brainwaves test is the most useful one (it is verifiable and has the good argument that the fetus might feel pain after its brain is functioning, but not before).
Posted by: James at November 15, 2004 10:06 PMJames:
We will never reach a consensus on when life begins. If we did agree on that issue, we still wouldn’t agree on whether abortion should be legal or not. I believe that if we could “zap” a fetus out of a woman’s body and raise that fetus into a baby in a lab or something with no side effects to a woman at all, there would still be those how would want abortion on demand.
I think it is an issue for the voters to decide state by state.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 15, 2004 10:29 PMI was watching Hardball one night and Matthews was interviewing a couple of religious leaders on abortion. He never was able to pin them down on what they thought the legal consequences should be for a woman who has an abortion. Death penalty?
As for the twin deficits, there was a really good article in the NY Times recently,
An influential group of economists has argued that there is no reason that this imbalance cannot go on relatively undisturbed - if not forever, at least for a very long time. But most mainstream economists argue that, at a minimum, the unraveling of this web would send the dollar lower and squeeze American consumption.Kenneth Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard, said that to smoothly and significantly narrow the current account deficit requires a depreciation of at least 20 percent in the dollar, making it much more costly for Americans to buy imported goods and travel abroad.
The imbalance is fueling a stupendous buildup of foreign debt in the United States. At the end of last year, the nation’s net financial deficit - broadly, what Americans owe the rest of the world minus what the rest of the world owes to the United States - amounted to nearly 30 percent of total output. And both sides are digging themselves deeper into holes, with American debts mounting and foreigners acquiring ever greater piles of depreciating paper assets.
…’Asian policy is changing,’ Mr. Eichengreen said. ‘The end is growing increasingly near.’
Posted by: American Pundit at November 16, 2004 03:27 AM
ABORTION:
Thank you James and Craig for more clearly defining what I was trying to get at. I agree that the major disagreement in society is when a fetus becomes a human being. Where I stand on the issue, as I have previously stated, is that a fetus becomes a human when it can viably exist (not necessary fend for itself, just exist) outside of the womb. That is my opinion, its not a wrong opinion or a right opinion, its just the conclusions I have drawn based on “research” I have done into the topic. I am always open to dissenting opinion and information.
As per leaving the decision to the states: while its not a bad idea in nature (meaning if more people in one area are against abortion they should be able to outlaw it) lets remember here that not everybody in ANY area is 100% pro-life. Its not like the laws are forcing people to have an abortion; its just an option. I really don’t understand peoples’ insistance on medaling in other peoples’ business. I think it is really none of my business if someone I do not know decides to have an abortion. It really should be their decision as to when they feel this being living inside of them becomes a human. Obviously after that child is matured enough to live separate of its host, it should be seen as a separate entity (meaning I am against late term abortions except in cases where the woman’s health is in serious jeopardy). Under these circumstances, I would begrudgingly agree that someone like Scott Peterson should be charged with two counts of manslaughter (I am not insinuating he should be convicted…just charged).
TWIN DEFICITS:
AP, again I appreciate the great referrences. Thank you craig for the further explanation. I think we may already be seeing some of the things AP’s quote is talking about. In the last year, esspecially, the dollar has seen an substantial depreciation. People HAVE been selling off their US Treasury bonds. The Euro has made substantial gains in the money market. While this isn’t a major problem yet, it is a noticable trend which is showing a shift away from the dollar and toward other currency standards(AP, if you have any information confirming this I would appreciate a link).
I understand that there are compelling studies showing that fiscal deficit spending is maintainable. However, even those people advocating that position stress that fiscal disipline is necessary. As long as we continue to borrow real future growth to ensure current fiscal stability, we will continue to place a burden on our stability. There is a compelling report from the IMFC which discusses some of the pitfalls of deficit spending and the effects US fiscal deficits are having on other world economies.
Alright enough for now.
Posted by: Nick at November 16, 2004 03:45 PMNick:
Just one added comment on the twin deficits. The dollar typically falls when the fed reduces interest rates to improve the economy. The reverse happens when the fed raises rates. It is a delayed event. So with the fed right now raising rates at first it should “slow the slide” of the dollar and later actually reverse course. We should see an improving dollar later on in this cycle.
As for equity prices, my expectation is that stock prices should rise over the next few years. Bond prices should slowing decrease as the labor market tightens and capital becomes relatively scarce.
There is an upside to why so many foreigners are investing in the US. It is because the US with the exeption of China leads the devoloped counties in economic growth. We are a growing machine relative to our European partners. Growth requires capital. Since economic growth is relatively (I said relatively) scarce in Europe, money flows here.
Sorry for the boring economics,
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 16, 2004 04:29 PMIts hard to conclude why some of you are so close minded and arrogant some what because I don’t know any of your ages. When looking at Demographics, one can see that the youth of America had a majority voting for Kerry. This would make sense when it is OUR LIVES that you thick headed Bush lovers are ruining and sending off to die in this generations Vietnam. You call Micheal Moore money hungry, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL OUR PRESIDENT. He’s a selfish gold digging MORON. I’m glad so many of you are so concerned about the abortion issue, talk about agenda setting!!! PRO life!!!! what about all the lives that are being lost over in Iraq. Have any of you thought about the fact that we have killed more Iraqies in the past year then Sadaam did in 15 years!!!!! But since you are all so ignorently obsessed with abortion issue, I’ll comment on that. If you pro lifers are going to count life on its potential… then should we have a damn funneral every time a female has her period. Let me guess- it wasn’t an embryo, it was never connected with sperm. FINE. either way mind your own damn business and worry about issues that are actually affecting you. Worry about your selfish republican ways RICH GET RICHER, POOR GET POORER. hate on taxes- be a complete selfish fool. You probably live in the suberbs, own your house and don’t pay rent, send your children if you have them to public schools and still want less taxes for the rich so you can go out and be FANCY. If my parents can live in NYC one of the most expensive locations in the world, pay rent every month, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars sending their children to school and still sacrifice their FANCY THINGS despite the fact they work their butts off every single day… Maybe you rich trust fund baby, suberb living, selfish Bush lovers should reconsider. Let the primarily poor army population fight a unethical war so youuuuuuu can be FANCY!!!!! Just one question HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT?????
Posted by: Jessica M at November 16, 2004 10:21 PM“youth of America had a majority voting for Kerry”
- Thats because they are being taught to be dependent on the govt for everything.
“either way mind your own damn business and worry about issues that are actually affecting you”
- Your right. The next time a complete stranger is murdered, it doesn’t affect me. I’ll keep my eyes closed, even if I’m witnessing it. Good advice.
“If my parents can live in NYC one of the most expensive locations in the world, pay rent every month, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars sending their children to school”
- Why not send their children to our great liberal public schools? Then they can be good little liberals and give their hundreds of thousands of dollars to help those who need it.
“still want less taxes for the rich so you can go out and be FANCY”
- Actually, I want lower taxes so “I” can support my family.
“HOW DO YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT?????”
- Alot better knowing I didn’t vote for kerry.
But hey, I still believe in America. Land of the free.
And that includes being free from govt control!
We should see an improving dollar later on in this cycle.
Really, Craig. Most economists are predicting a continuing slide. Nick, it’s true that China and Japan, our major loansharks, are diversifying into other currencies, mostly the Euro. That’s why the dollar is sliding. The Fed is continuing to raise rates to keep if from abruptly plummeting, but it’s not going to turn around anytime soon.
Last January, Robert Rubin forecast,
…a “very substantial” risk that continued high budget deficits could bring on a cascading series of economic and political problems including rising interest rates, a falling stock market and a sharp decline in the value of the dollar.Rubin, currently a top executive and director at Citigroup, said the fundamental problem is that financial markets and investors, particularly foreign investors, will lose confidence in the ability of the U.S. political system to control the deficit and will demand higher interest rates to compensate for the rising risk of inflation.
The confidence factor is something conservative economic pundits constantly overlook, even though it constantly kicks them in the teeth - like speculators artificially driving up the price of oil based on fears of terrorist disruptions to the supply.
Some traders said upbeat U.S. economic indicators are of little consequence to a market that has a taste for punishing the dollar.“I think that people are putting a lot of stories together to try and find reasons to sell dollars,” said Luke Waddington, head of forex trading at Royal Bank of Scotland.
“They may not be accurate, but I think that the market just wants to sell dollars,” he said, adding that the euro would likely mark a record peak against the dollar by Wednesday but shouldn’t move much higher.
Currency speculation, whether at the private or the central bank level is all about confidence. So far, Snow has said the US favors a strong dollar, but he’s made no attempt to bolster it, causing Asia to start looking elsewhere.
China is talking about abandoning the dollar,
http://www.chinadaily.co[remove me]m.cn/en/doc/2004-01/23/content_300802.htm
But the United States is benefiting from China using its trade surplus with the United States to buy U.S. Treasuries as a reserve currency, along with other Asian nations. In the long run, Zhu [Min, general manager and advisor to the president for the Bank of China] said, this was not sustainable.“All the Asian countries hold dollars for security reasons, but at some point this has to end,” said the U.S. educated economist. “There is a love affair. But everybody knows that this love affair has to end.”
Over time, he said, China’s pace of export growth would wane, weakening its ability to buy dollar-denominated assets.
“China will focus more and more on domestic demand, which is growing fast. Then it won’t be able to finance the U.S. deficit,” he said. “We cannot keep exporting our goods at a growth rate of 30 percent. That’s too much.”
And most recently, the latest auction of Treasuries showed weak buying by foreign central banks,
Official purchases of Treasuries fell around 47 percent, with private investors picking up the slack.“Although we had a positive headline number, there are negative elements in the report given the sharp decline in official purchases of U.S. Treasuries and the back-to-back sales in U.S. equities,” said Ashraf Laidi, chief currency analyst at MG Financial in New York.
“This is not necessarily comforting for the deficit sustainability story,” he added.
And even beyond the slowed buying, Japan has actually started selling off its Treasury notes.
I’ve been watching this situation for a while now. Like a train wreck in slow motion. :/
American Pundit:
You said:
Really, Craig. Most economists are predicting a continuing slide. Nick, it’s true that China and Japan, our major loansharks, are diversifying into other currencies, mostly the Euro. That’s why the dollar is sliding. The Fed is continuing to raise rates to keep if from abruptly plummeting, but it’s not going to turn around anytime soon.
I think they are right in the near term. Raising interest rates is a bit like the weather Dec 21st and January 21st. The days get longer but the weather actually gets colder, then in Feb or so the temps start to warm up. The reason is that even though the days are getting longer, there is still a net outflow of energy for a while until the time the sun is shining increases to reverse the trend. With the Fed just starting to raise interest rates, the dollar should fall but should slow down. As I said, later in the cycle the dollar should start to rebound.
Economically we are in a better position than Europe. Our employment numbers are superior as is our economic growth.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at November 17, 2004 08:24 PMWell, Craig. You keep on whistling a happy tune. I’ll keep reading the newspaper and buying gold. ;)
