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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (93445)	11/12/2007 5:29:20 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206093

after a big EM blowup What is EM ? You expecting the Chinese to revalue ? Message 24046337

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (93445)	11/12/2007 8:21:23 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206093

that US trade deficit ex-energy has already started to decline considerably. True, but the deficit was significantly lower than present level only 3 or 4 years ago. The reduction we are seeing is from historically high levels to historically not quite as high levels. In 2003 we were looking at monthly deficits in the $30-40 bn range while last month's deficit was still appx $56 bn. I can't seem to find 2003 figures deficit figures which back out the cost of energy imports so as to make an apples to apples comparison. It might be therefore that CR's figures are correct. Intuitively, however, I don't think the lower price of energy in 2003-2004 is responsible for the lower 'true' trade deficit figures then. In order to get to get to apples to apples ex energy costs, the higher costs of energy now must account for as much $16 to 26 bn worth of the monthly trade deficit when compared to 2003-2004, which intuitively I think is way too high. Still, a $56 bn monthly trade deficit sucks and carries with it even more trouble for the dollar. I expect it would be higher if domestic economic activity were not quite as sluggish. To make a difference, a cut of the deficit has be based on strong exports and a reduction of the value of imports in a growing economy. And, anyway, I question the wisdom of backing out energy costs out of the figures since one way or the other the cost of the imports must be paid. A deficit is a deficit is a deficit whether made up of oil imports or Barbie doll imports. The yen for sure has not moved much and I think its time has come so I went long FXY today.