| U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Postal Square Building 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington, DC 20212-0001 |
Phone: (202) 691-5200 |
LOL!
Posted on 11/02/2007 5:23:12 AM PDT by Thorin
The euro, worth 83 cents in the early George W. Bush years, is at $1.45.
The British pound is back up over $2, the highest level since the Carter era. The Canadian dollar, which used to be worth 65 cents, is worth more than the U.S. dollar for the first time in half a century.
Oil is over $90 a barrel. Gold, down to $260 an ounce not so long ago, has hit $800.
Have gold, silver, oil, the euro, the pound and the Canadian dollar all suddenly soared in value in just a few years?
Nope. The dollar has plummeted in value, more so in Bush's term than during any comparable period of U.S. history. Indeed, Bush is presiding over a worldwide abandonment of the American dollar.
Is it all Bush's fault? Nope.
The dollar is plunging because America has been living beyond her means, borrowing $2 billion a day from foreign nations to maintain her standard of living and to sustain the American Imperium.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
And that threw a serious monkey wrench into the supporters of the North American Union which is the predecessor to the New World Order / One World Government.
Is that your feeling? Or do you have a factual source?
You have before. Shall I post your comments and make you look like a fool?
You can't blame losses on NAFTA when there were net gains, can you?
The gains in manufacturing jobs were in the '93/94 era before Nafta was passed and right after before any person with common sense knows companies would not have had time to move to mehico. When nafta was in after a few years the maufacturing jobs started to show losses.
About 50% the Chinese global trade surplus dollars is being used to make arms for China and building up their infrastructure - it’s in their constitution basically.
| U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Postal Square Building 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington, DC 20212-0001 |
Phone: (202) 691-5200 |
LOL!
The gains in manufacturing jobs were in the ‘93/94 era when the economy was recovering from the recession and companies were rehiring before Nafta was passed and right after before any person with common sense knows companies would not have had time to move to mehico. When nafta was implemented the job losses started to show up several years after.
That wasn’t intended to be cute — it’s reality.
I don’t believe the problem isn’t tariffs or dollar value.
I think public schools are hurting middle America.
Bookmark
LOL
The recession ended in March 1991.
As an aside, I'll note that our textile manufacturing sector is humming right along . . . I believe you meant apparel manufacturing (just a pet peeve of mine when the two are confused).
Most of the crises experienced over the last 15 years, beginning with the Persian Gulf crisis of 1990, were related to problems outside the United States.
There was a flight of safety into U. S. Treasury bonds by some domestic investors, but also by international ones. This, in turn, tended to strengthen the U.S. dollar in times of crisis. However, with the Fed again embarking on a massive money printing operation would foreign investors still consider the U. S. dollar and U. S. bonds to be safe? I doubt it.
Under such circumstances a far more likely outcome would be a rapid sell-off of the dollar and, along with it, selling off U. S. bonds. In the wake of massive selling of bonds by foreign investors, interest rates would likely rise and a further loss of confidence in the dollar would follow.
According to the US Census Bureau:
The US population is:
U.S. POPClock Projection
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 11/02/07 at 16:46 GMT (EST+5) is
303,271,972
Source:http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
BTW, I actually used 330 million for the current population to give the 22%.
I'm not picking one fact to harp one; I'm not a prophet; I've just looked at a lot of data to include official US Census stuff, university studies, and several other non-profit organizations.
My personal opinions have been molded from studying such information since 12/2001 ands the 2002-2003 recession.
Why did the Feds drop the prime 0.25% and then the next day print $41 billion more new dollars?
Well, the aberration was the Fifties - when due to WWII and American economic ascendancy it for the first time in history became possible for a hardworking blue collar guy to achieve a middle class lifestyle. Of course, that possibility quickly became viewed as the norm, and our political class has spent an extraordinary forty-year period trying to borrow tomorrow's prosperity to maintain the illusion. Now that China and India are ascendant and we are on the downslope, something is about to give...
The only way for the US to remain on top is to relax regulation, limit taxation, and encourage immigration (of the world's biggest brains - not more Mexican day laborers). Unfortunately, powerful segments of the political class oppose all three options, and thus we stand exactly where Britain stood a hundred years ago - at the brink of the precipice.
Can you get 2001-Dec2006 data to append to that table?
Yes, Buchanan's great book on trade, "The Great Betrayal." Lots of people have written about the pressure on working class wages, which largely is the result of free trade and mass immigration.
All, well said.
Part of the dollar’s fall is opec’s increasing reluctance to accept it for oil.
So 22% is not 77 million. Glad you realized your error.
BTW, I actually used 330 million for the current population to give the 22%.
That'd be 72.6 million.
Why did the Feds drop the prime 0.25%
They thought they saw the economy weakening in the future.
and then the next day print $41 billion more new dollars?
That was a temporary injection of money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.