Comments on: A Weak US Dollar

By: etch

etch — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:11:49 +0000

“”so 7 x 0.25% =1.75% minimum
does that add up to big biccckkies????????”

well let me answer it ..it does …
if 0.25% equal an extra say $1000 PER YEAR repayments
on average 300k loan as stated in a previous post

times that by 7 = another $7000 per year minimum & i would say to alot of people will be suffering

By: cb

cb — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 04:38:00 +0000

I posted a response that, etch, but it does not appear to have come through. Must have gotten stuck somewhere, or maybe I am now being audited.

By: etch

etch — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 04:23:27 +0000

so 7 x 0.25% =1.75% minimum

does that add up to big biccckkies??????????????????

By: etch

etch — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:36:05 +0000

7 extra interest rates a forecasted in near future ,to be implemented by gLEN sTEVENS,,,,,,,,,,
WHY???????????????????
because to make a dent ,any headway on this huge astronomical debt ,well much more payments have to occur

By: cb

cb — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:01:48 +0000

Part of the problem, and excuse me for being vague or out of my depth here, is the supposition that the traditional relationship between the underlying economy and the financial sector remained and remains the same. According to that supposition, the financial sector thrives when the economy thrives and will suffer when the underlying economy suffers.

I suspect that this is no longer the case, and at least that it is no longer the case to the degree that it used to be. No. Today, if the underlying economy gets sick and is unwell, it will be tapped and sucked dry of all sustaining juices in the interests of keeping the financial sector alive and healthy.

I am right, then the financial sector will continue to do well and will keep coming up with fantastic numbers for headlines for a very very long time, even while all along the underlying economy cannot get a leg up. Part of the problem for the underlying economy, in fact, is that all its energy and vitality continues to be sucked out to sustain the parasitic financial sector. Correct me if I am wrong.

In that light, there is perhaps another way of thinking about which part of the economy really is a zombie. There is much talk about zombie banks, but the bankers are doing just very fine, thank you, and without having to risk money by lending, while it feeds off a depressed and barely breathing economy. It is not so clear to me which one is the real zombie.

By: cb

cb — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:48:42 +0000

Yes, with all the hype and boom from mainstream media, and with all the gloom and doom from MM and DR, we are uniquely well positioned here for being totally confused …………….
errrr…… to get the complete picture, lol.

By: Ralph

Ralph — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:01:00 +0000

That may be true for the time being, Jason. The government has a vested interest in the economy performing well, so they’ll do what they can to stave off a recession. So far, they’ve achieved their aim. But I think Sayce’s point is that the underlying fundamentals are very weak. So the issue becomes how long this can all continue.

Kris has indicated that the government could continue for some time yet and that’s probably true. But beneath the covers, it’s all unraveling. Other people think that the economy has rebounded and is undergoing a fantastic recovery. Who knows? We’ll see in time.

I do know that the mainstream media provides very little substantive analysis of the situation. So it’s good to get a few different perspectives from people who like to dig a little deeper.

By: cb

cb — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:23:45 +0000

So true, Jason. But guess what sells newspapers, ……..errr, advertising space on your website!!! Never let reality, as they say, get in the way of a good story.

By: jason

jason — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:37:07 +0000

all you seem to do is call a crash for the property market or the share market, but every day all i see is property galloping higher and higher and the same with the stock market, obviously your right and everyone else is wrong, lol.

By: cb

cb — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:42:40 +0000

I have only just read through this article. It is little more than just another simplistic and simple minded treatment for a complex subject. For example, there is no mention or accounting for the benefits that accrue in spades to the US through inflating the value of the massive foreign debt away. The US has borrowed trillions and trillions from their lenders, and the plan is to pay them back with gutted dollars, effectively paying them, if they are lucky, 10c worth in purchasing power for every dollar they borrowed.

I mean, everybody knows and talks about this as the primary reason why the Fed is inflating, and on the first reading of Sayce’s article I did not catch a glimpse of this reason being analysed in any detail. Forget about import – export considerations. At best, it is a secondary reason for inflating the USD. The primary reason is to inflate the debt away. Miss this, and you are missing the bus that runneth you over.