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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (222857)	2/20/2003 12:59:51 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

So where is the evidence they are packing up? Right here: quotes.ino.com

To: GraceZ who wrote (222857)	2/20/2003 1:50:26 PM
From: Ahda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

The investment drives other economies . The question then becomes does that investment have a great enough impact on this economy. You can apply one answer but it is necessary to view it as a whole. It then becomes how great of a of a return can you receive for the dollar. Then one has to think in terms of cost efficient which means a manageable debt base and political security that is included in the decision to hold currency of any specific nation. The answer to me is in the employment figures which will as time goes on increase the deficit in a the tax base. I don't know if anyone has done any research on the larger scope of the undercounter economy. As payroll figures decreases ease of collection changes drastically. I believe this could lead to far to many services traded in lieu of dollars. This inturn depletes tax revenue. When you have the deficit we have you need additional dollars to meet the debt figures. Additional dollars in a slow economy which includes foreign investment become inflation which further erodes the value of the dollar. Theoretically your statement is accurate but i don't think it will work out quite as you anticipate.

To: GraceZ who wrote (222857)	2/20/2003 4:05:18 PM
From: Earlie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

Grace: The US buck has been smacked for 20% over this past year against the global basket of currencies. This ought to be headlined in black-edged front pages across the nation, but of course, it is "of no consequence". Gold is up beaucoup against the US buck. The Chinese central bank (2nd largest holder of US treasuries) is slowly but surely converting the paper to gold (as obviously are others, including the U.K.). For close to three years, the percentage of global oil transactions that are settled in Euros (and gold) has been rising (from nil to over fifty percent in that short period, last I looked). U.S. employment continues under pressure, etc. I have no quarrel with your basic argument that the trade deficit has to be offset by an equivalent inflow, but the evidence suggests that foreigners are: - demanding more bucks for the same imported goods. - starting to move to gold - starting to move to Euros Not worried about that? Well I would be. It doesn't take too much imagination to conjure up a world where the buck becomes an "avoided" currency. Yes, the Yen is a crater hole and the Europeans have fought among themselves for hundreds of years, which makes their unified currency a worry, but from my perspective, a movement away from fiat toilet paper is already underway,..... to the only real currency, gold. Not to hurt any feelings but it appears that folks around the planet are beginning to recognize that accepting gilt-edge debt paper for hard goods might not produce a solid long term benefit. And the tattiness of the buck provides visible evidence of this. Best, Earlie