Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (5669)	7/6/2001 8:38:55 PM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

now that is a thought worthy of prayer! and right in line with the "what are they up to" question. i really need to think about that.... first thought... if they did, is that not anti the thesis of maintaining purchasing power for an ever more bewildered consumer to drive the world machine? Seems that might be the first hurdle when asking what hoop they have to jump in such an interesting policy change.... I don't have the history,,,,,,but I remember the devaluation of the DM... perhaps in the 70's... and later when the dollar was at 3.50 dm... 30% higher from here btw.... but in a far different interest rate climate in the USA....(thought not devalued) but if you do a world devaluation... getting back to the first part..... do you get more of the same minus one or two zero's... or do you get a devaluation war.... i.e. real trouble. or what if they all try to agree at this months meeting... i will guess... that because something is up.... you got the thought in the first place via your uncanny sixth sense..... J

To: TobagoJack who wrote (5669)	7/6/2001 11:09:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

<what happens if the US devalues the dollar, but the other nations do not let it, and devalue right in sync? Which is most likely what they will do, from Japan, to China to Euro, because all are as weak or weaker. Then we will be in real real trouble, as opposed to real trouble.> Jay, as part of my half-decade long ponderings on this stuff, I concluded three years ago that there would indeed be a competitive [or co-operative] devaluation of the currencies, so they would retain parity [more or less]. Each country will print money and lower interests in synchronized harmony. So they have been doing. Of course Japan isn't cutting their interest rates but they can still print all the money they like which is the same thing by another name. So far, the printing has resulted in acceptable inflation rates of around 3%. I don't think it's real trouble and definitely not real real trouble though the Real might be in trouble. I think it's quite nice and just what I have planned for and have been depending on for a few years. So far, we are steady on course. Hooray for Alan Green$pan. Incidentally, I would not be surprised to see no more interest rate cuts. He won't want to overshoot in panic and there is no need for panic. Besides, it would be cruel and unusual punishment [against the USA constitution] of people holding cash to cut their interest rates. They will get very miserable watching through their rifle-scope for half a decade for the damn financial crash to happen while their interest-rate income remains in the doldrums leaving them in penury. Mqurice

To: TobagoJack who wrote (5669)	7/9/2001 1:15:39 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

How can the US "devalue"? Devalue == ? reset the rate of exchange between the dollar and other currencies How could we do this without agreement and coordination with other countries? I don't understand "competitive" devaluation -- if everyone tries to fix an exchange rate that lowers the value of their own currency relative to others -- wouldn't we be back in the same place we started at? How would that be worse? I don't think the US would attempt an explicit "devaluation" of the dollar vs. other currencies. Indirect means would be better for a 'unilateral' policy (supposing that were a goal), no?