This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated
Press Writer


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.

The hardline Iranian leader's comments also highlighted the growing
challenge that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, faces
from Iran and its ally Venezuela within the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries.

"They get our oil and give us a worthless piece of paper," Ahmadinejad
told reporters after the close of the summit in the Saudi capital of
Riyadh. He blamed U.S. President George W. Bush's policies for the
decline of the dollar and its negative effect on other countries.

Oil is priced in U.S. dollars on the world market, and the currency's
depreciation has concerned oil producers because it has contributed to
rising crude prices and has eroded the value of their dollar reserves.

"All participating leaders showed an interest in changing their hard
currency reserves to a credible hard currency," Ahmadinejad said.
"Some said producing countries should designate a single hard currency
aside from the U.S. dollar ... to form the basis of our oil trade."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez echoed this sentiment Sunday on the
sidelines of the summit, saying "the empire of the dollar has to end."

"Don't you see how the dollar has been in free-fall without a
parachute?" Chavez said, calling the euro a better option.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah had tried to direct the focus of the
summit toward studying the effect of the oil industry on the
environment, but he continuously faced challenges from Ahmadinejad and
Chavez.

Iran and Venezuela have proposed trading oil in a basket of currencies
to replace the historic link to the dollar, but they had not been able
to generate support from enough fellow OPEC members -- many of whom,
including Saudi Arabia, are staunch U.S. allies.

Both Iran and Venezuela have antagonistic relationships with the U.S.,
suggesting their proposals may have a political motivation as well.
While Tehran has been in a standoff with Washington over its nuclear
program, left-wing Chavez is a bitter antagonist of Bush. U.S.
sanctions on Iran also have made it increasingly difficult for the
country to do business in dollars.

During Chavez's opening address to the summit on Saturday, the
Venezuelan leader said OPEC should "assert itself as an active
political agent." But Abdullah appeared to distance himself from
Chavez's comments, saying OPEC always acted moderately and wisely.

A day earlier, Saudi Arabia opposed a move by Iran on Friday to have
OPEC include concerns over the falling dollar included in the summit's
closing statement after the weekend meeting. Saudi Arabia's foreign
minister even warned that even talking publicly about the currency's
decline could further hurt its value.

But by Sunday, it appeared that Saudi Arabia had compromised. Though
the final declaration delivered Sunday did not specifically mention
concern over the weak dollar, the organization directed its finance
ministers to study the issue.

OPEC will "study ways and means of enhancing financial cooperation
among OPEC ... including proposals by some of the heads of state and
governments in their statements to the summit," OPEC Secretary General
Abdalla Salem el-Badri said, reading the statement.

Iran's oil minister went a step further and said OPEC will form a
committee to study the dollar's affect on oil prices and investigate
the possibility of a currency basket.

"We have agreed to set up a committee consisting of oil and finance
ministers from OPEC countries to study the impact of the dollar on oil
prices," Gholam Hussein Nozari told Dow Jones Newswires.

Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said the committee would
"submit to OPEC its recommendation on a basket of currencies that OPEC
members will deal with." He did not give a timeline for the
recommendation.

The meeting in Riyadh, with heads of states and delegates from 13 of
the world's biggest oil-producing nations, was the third full OPEC
summit since the organization was created in 1960.

Abdullah tried to take the focus off the dollar debate, announcing the
donation of $300 million to set up a program to study the effect of
the oil industry on the environment. Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab
Emirates also agreed to donate $150 million each to the fund, Prince
Saud Al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, said Sunday.

The run-up to the meeting was dominated by speculation over whether
OPEC would raise production following recent oil price increases that
have approached $100. But cartel officials have resisted pressure to
increase oil production and said they will hold off any decision until
the group meets next month in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

They have also cast doubt on the effect any output hike would have on
oil prices, saying the recent rise has been driven by the falling
dollar and financial speculation by investment funds rather than any
supply shortage.

During his final remarks, el-Badri stressed he was committed to supply
-- but did not mention changing oil outputs.

"We affirm our commitment ... to continue providing adequate, timely,
efficient, economic and reliable petroleum supplies to the world
market," he said.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:14:44 -0500, "Dick"
wrote:

What else would you expect. Every day our money is worth less. Would you
want to hold onto it. Every time the Repugs get in control it's the same
thing, increase spending, cut taxes and make sure all of their crony buddies
in big business who shell out the money to get them elected have a free
reign to rape and pillage the country. They just keep lowering taxes and
printing more money to cover all of their expenditures. They want all of the
amenities but don't want to pay for anything. They've let big business
completely rape the lending sector so that there is probably going to be a
world wide depression over it.

Dick


You are well named.

So tell us "Dick", how yall are going to tax us into prosperity.

We will be waiting.


Gunner



"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated
Press Writer


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.

This last happened during the 1970s inflation that peaked during Jimmy
Carter's term. At the time, the Saudis threatened to demand payment in
gold, as the dollar was deflating too fast to be tracked. Far worse
than now, by the way: interest rates peaked at ~20%. And the Euro
didn't exist then.

The switch to gold never happened, probably because Reagan stopped the
inflation more or less immediately upon becoming President.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated
Press Writer


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.

This last happened during the 1970s inflation that peaked during Jimmy
Carter's term. At the time, the Saudis threatened to demand payment in
gold, as the dollar was deflating too fast to be tracked. Far worse
than now, by the way: interest rates peaked at ~20%. And the Euro
didn't exist then.

The switch to gold never happened, probably because Reagan stopped the
inflation more or less immediately upon becoming President.

Pffhht. All that Reagan knew about inflation was that it was something you
do to a balloon.

It was Paul Volker, not Reagan, and Jimmy Carter hired him, not Reagan.
Ronnie was just smart enough to keep Volker on. Just barely smart enough...

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated
Press Writer


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.

This last happened during the 1970s inflation that peaked during Jimmy
Carter's term. At the time, the Saudis threatened to demand payment in
gold, as the dollar was deflating too fast to be tracked. Far worse
than now, by the way: interest rates peaked at ~20%. And the Euro
didn't exist then.

The switch to gold never happened, probably because Reagan stopped the
inflation more or less immediately upon becoming President.

Pffhht. All that Reagan knew about inflation was that it was something you
do to a balloon.

It was Paul Volker, not Reagan, and Jimmy Carter hired him, not Reagan.
Ronnie was just smart enough to keep Volker on. Just barely smart enough...

Umm. Reagan was one tough bird, and he allowed/encouraged Volker to
cause the recession that stopped the inflation. It's politically
impossible for a Fed Chief to do anything that strong without
presidental backing.

It was a beautiful strategy. One blames the recession on the failed
policies of one's predecessor for the two years it takes the recession
to run its course, and takes credit for the rebounding economy in the
second two years leading up the the reelection campaign. Worked too.

Joe Gwinn

A little more balanced report...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/19/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated
Press Writer


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.

This last happened during the 1970s inflation that peaked during Jimmy
Carter's term. At the time, the Saudis threatened to demand payment in
gold, as the dollar was deflating too fast to be tracked. Far worse
than now, by the way: interest rates peaked at ~20%. And the Euro
didn't exist then.

The switch to gold never happened, probably because Reagan stopped the
inflation more or less immediately upon becoming President.

Pffhht. All that Reagan knew about inflation was that it was something
you
do to a balloon.

It was Paul Volker, not Reagan, and Jimmy Carter hired him, not Reagan.
Ronnie was just smart enough to keep Volker on. Just barely smart
enough...

Umm. Reagan was one tough bird, and he allowed/encouraged Volker to
cause the recession that stopped the inflation. It's politically
impossible for a Fed Chief to do anything that strong without
presidental backing.

Volcker says he had almost no contact with Reagan and that he doesn't
believe Reagan understood the monetary policies that Volcker was directing
at the Fed. That seems likely to me, because Reagan was not the sharpest
knife in the drawer and the arguments about monetary policy at that time,
around 1980, were being debated at a very high level among the world's top
economists.

I realize that Bruce Bartlett and the rest of the supply-siders have a
different view, but they're always taking credit for things and they're hard
to take seriously about anything. That's why I haven't taken the time to
read his book that blasts the Shrub.

Reagan backed Volcker, often against serious opposition from people like
Bartlett and the rest of the usual supply-side suspects. That was Reagan's
talent, I think: to recognize when someone should be left alone.


It was a beautiful strategy. One blames the recession on the failed
policies of one's predecessor for the two years it takes the recession
to run its course, and takes credit for the rebounding economy in the
second two years leading up the the reelection campaign. Worked too.

Joe Gwinn

Ha! Well, Carter was a little late in realizing that Miller's policies
weren't working, and the recession probably was coming anyway, but it is
true that Volcker's tight money policy guaranteed it.

--
Ed Huntress

Seems to me another president cooked the books (and us) and his wife
is running for office now.

Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated
Press Writer


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.
This last happened during the 1970s inflation that peaked during Jimmy
Carter's term. At the time, the Saudis threatened to demand payment in
gold, as the dollar was deflating too fast to be tracked. Far worse
than now, by the way: interest rates peaked at ~20%. And the Euro
didn't exist then.

The switch to gold never happened, probably because Reagan stopped the
inflation more or less immediately upon becoming President.
Pffhht. All that Reagan knew about inflation was that it was something you
do to a balloon.

It was Paul Volker, not Reagan, and Jimmy Carter hired him, not Reagan.
Ronnie was just smart enough to keep Volker on. Just barely smart enough...

Umm. Reagan was one tough bird, and he allowed/encouraged Volker to
cause the recession that stopped the inflation. It's politically
impossible for a Fed Chief to do anything that strong without
presidental backing.

It was a beautiful strategy. One blames the recession on the failed
policies of one's predecessor for the two years it takes the recession
to run its course, and takes credit for the rebounding economy in the
second two years leading up the the reelection campaign. Worked too.

Joe Gwinn

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Seems to me another president cooked the books (and us) and his wife
is running for office now.

Martin, what are you talking about? The dollar is falling because of our
national debt. Take a look at where the national debt comes from. It didn't
come from Clinton. The first horrendous runup was under Ronnie. The second,
and deeper one, has happened under Bush. Under Clinton we actually reduced
the debt for a few years.

The reason the dollar has fallen sharply is that we've been running enormous
deficits and the world's currency traders think that the dollar's value is
therefore artificially high.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2007-11-20, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Seems to me another president cooked the books (and us) and his wife
is running for office now.

Martin, what are you talking about? The dollar is falling because of our
national debt. Take a look at where the national debt comes from. It didn't
come from Clinton. The first horrendous runup was under Ronnie. The second,
and deeper one, has happened under Bush. Under Clinton we actually reduced
the debt for a few years.

The reason the dollar has fallen sharply is that we've been running enormous
deficits and the world's currency traders think that the dollar's value is
therefore artificially high.

This is my opinion exactly. The deficits amount to plunder of national
wealth, and inevitably devaluate the dollar.

i

On Nov 19, 2:42 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:14:44 -0500, "Dick"
wrote:

What else would you expect. Every day our money is worth less. Would you
want to hold onto it. Every time the Repugs get in control it's the same
thing, increase spending, cut taxes and make sure all of their crony buddies
in big business who shell out the money to get them elected have a free
reign to rape and pillage the country. They just keep lowering taxes and
printing more money to cover all of their expenditures. They want all of the
amenities but don't want to pay for anything. They've let big business
completely rape the lending sector so that there is probably going to be a
world wide depression over it.

Dick

You are well named.

So tell us "Dick", how yall are going to tax us into prosperity.

We will be waiting.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

So tell us "Gunner", how yall Republicans are going to pay for this
war you wanted.....you have till November 2008 to cough up the cash.

Use all the white space you need.

And remember no new taxes...you promised.

TMT

On Nov 19, 9:39 pm, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:
Seems to me another president cooked the books (and us) and his wife
is running for office now.

Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.http://lufkinced.com/



Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated
Press Writer

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.
This last happened during the 1970s inflation that peaked during Jimmy
Carter's term. At the time, the Saudis threatened to demand payment in
gold, as the dollar was deflating too fast to be tracked. Far worse
than now, by the way: interest rates peaked at ~20%. And the Euro
didn't exist then.

The switch to gold never happened, probably because Reagan stopped the
inflation more or less immediately upon becoming President.
Pffhht. All that Reagan knew about inflation was that it was something you
do to a balloon.

It was Paul Volker, not Reagan, and Jimmy Carter hired him, not Reagan.
Ronnie was just smart enough to keep Volker on. Just barely smart enough...

Umm. Reagan was one tough bird, and he allowed/encouraged Volker to
cause the recession that stopped the inflation. It's politically
impossible for a Fed Chief to do anything that strong without
presidental backing.

It was a beautiful strategy. One blames the recession on the failed
policies of one's predecessor for the two years it takes the recession
to run its course, and takes credit for the rebounding economy in the
second two years leading up the the reelection campaign. Worked too.

Joe Gwinn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Got proof?

You Republicans doing smear attacks are getting old....give us proof.

Meanwhile anyone can see Bush is costing us money and lives for
nothing in return.

I would be interested in hearing how the Republicans will pay the war
by November 2008 with no new taxes.

Or are you leaving it to a Democrat to clean up your mess?

TMT

On Nov 19, 9:57 pm, Ignoramus31473 ignoramus31...@NOSPAM.
31473.invalid wrote:
On 2007-11-20, Ed Huntress wrote:



"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Seems to me another president cooked the books (and us) and his wife
is running for office now.

Martin, what are you talking about? The dollar is falling because of our
national debt. Take a look at where the national debt comes from. It didn't
come from Clinton. The first horrendous runup was under Ronnie. The second,
and deeper one, has happened under Bush. Under Clinton we actually reduced
the debt for a few years.

The reason the dollar has fallen sharply is that we've been running enormous
deficits and the world's currency traders think that the dollar's value is
therefore artificially high.

This is my opinion exactly. The deficits amount to plunder of national
wealth, and inevitably devaluate the dollar.

i

And the person responsible for this raping of America is George Bush.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
- Show quoted text -


Got proof?

You Republicans doing smear attacks are getting old....give us proof.

Meanwhile anyone can see Bush is costing us money and lives for
nothing in return.

I would be interested in hearing how the Republicans will pay the war
by November 2008 with no new taxes.

Or are you leaving it to a Democrat to clean up your mess?

TMT


Hillary Clinton?

Clean Up Anything????

Gimme a Break, Please!

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated
Press Writer


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.

This last happened during the 1970s inflation that peaked during Jimmy
Carter's term. At the time, the Saudis threatened to demand payment in
gold, as the dollar was deflating too fast to be tracked. Far worse
than now, by the way: interest rates peaked at ~20%. And the Euro
didn't exist then.

The switch to gold never happened, probably because Reagan stopped the
inflation more or less immediately upon becoming President.

Pffhht. All that Reagan knew about inflation was that it was something
you do to a balloon.

It was Paul Volker, not Reagan, and Jimmy Carter hired him, not Reagan.
Ronnie was just smart enough to keep Volker on. Just barely smart
enough...

Umm. Reagan was one tough bird, and he allowed/encouraged Volker to
cause the recession that stopped the inflation. It's politically
impossible for a Fed Chief to do anything that strong without
presidental backing.

Volcker says he had almost no contact with Reagan and that he doesn't
believe Reagan understood the monetary policies that Volcker was directing
at the Fed. That seems likely to me, because Reagan was not the sharpest
knife in the drawer and the arguments about monetary policy at that time,
around 1980, were being debated at a very high level among the world's top
economists.

Reagan made no claim to being an economist for sure. Most likely he had
little use for economists either -- few presidents do. Truman is famous
for wanting a one-armed economist, one who could not say .. on the one
hand .. on the other hand.

Reagan's strength was to realize that the failure of all the prior
attempts to end inflation without pain were doomed, instead choosing to
take the medicine, sweat it out, and be done with it.

Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. If you cut the
dollar supply, inflation must stop. But the transition will hurt. All
central bankers know this. The question is if the political
establishment is willing to tolerate the pain.


I realize that Bruce Bartlett and the rest of the supply-siders have a
different view, but they're always taking credit for things and they're hard
to take seriously about anything. That's why I haven't taken the time to
read his book that blasts the Shrub.

Nor have I read these books, on either side.

Nor is inflation really a supply-side issue. For all of History, going
back to the Ancients, inflation has always resulted from the Sovereign
debasing the currency, most often to pay for a war or two.


Reagan backed Volcker, often against serious opposition from people like
Bartlett and the rest of the usual supply-side suspects. That was Reagan's
talent, I think: to recognize when someone should be left alone.

Exactly.


It was a beautiful strategy. One blames the recession on the failed
policies of one's predecessor for the two years it takes the recession
to run its course, and takes credit for the rebounding economy in the
second two years leading up the the reelection campaign. Worked too.

Joe Gwinn

Ha! Well, Carter was a little late in realizing that Miller's policies
weren't working, and the recession probably was coming anyway, but it is
true that Volcker's tight money policy guaranteed it.

Carter hoped against hope for a painless solution. Do you remember all
those articles suggesting one strategy or another that purported to end
with a "soft landing"? Didn't work, and inflation peaked during
Carter's last term. Carter could have backed Volker to stop the
inflation, but didn't.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT,
Associated
Press Writer


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's
members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after
U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the
falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.

This last happened during the 1970s inflation that peaked during
Jimmy
Carter's term. At the time, the Saudis threatened to demand payment
in
gold, as the dollar was deflating too fast to be tracked. Far worse
than now, by the way: interest rates peaked at ~20%. And the Euro
didn't exist then.

The switch to gold never happened, probably because Reagan stopped
the
inflation more or less immediately upon becoming President.

Pffhht. All that Reagan knew about inflation was that it was something
you do to a balloon.

It was Paul Volker, not Reagan, and Jimmy Carter hired him, not
Reagan.
Ronnie was just smart enough to keep Volker on. Just barely smart
enough...

Umm. Reagan was one tough bird, and he allowed/encouraged Volker to
cause the recession that stopped the inflation. It's politically
impossible for a Fed Chief to do anything that strong without
presidental backing.

Volcker says he had almost no contact with Reagan and that he doesn't
believe Reagan understood the monetary policies that Volcker was directing
at the Fed. That seems likely to me, because Reagan was not the sharpest
knife in the drawer and the arguments about monetary policy at that time,
around 1980, were being debated at a very high level among the world's
top economists.

Reagan made no claim to being an economist for sure. Most likely he had
little use for economists either -- few presidents do. Truman is famous
for wanting a one-armed economist, one who could not say .. on the one
hand .. on the other hand.

Reagan's strength was to realize that the failure of all the prior
attempts to end inflation without pain were doomed, instead choosing to
take the medicine, sweat it out, and be done with it.

Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. If you cut the
dollar supply, inflation must stop. But the transition will hurt. All
central bankers know this. The question is if the political
establishment is willing to tolerate the pain.


I realize that Bruce Bartlett and the rest of the supply-siders have a
different view, but they're always taking credit for things and they're hard
to take seriously about anything. That's why I haven't taken the time to
read his book that blasts the Shrub.

Nor have I read these books, on either side.

Nor is inflation really a supply-side issue. For all of History, going
back to the Ancients, inflation has always resulted from the Sovereign
debasing the currency, most often to pay for a war or two.


Reagan backed Volcker, often against serious opposition from people like
Bartlett and the rest of the usual supply-side suspects. That was
Reagan's talent, I think: to recognize when someone should be left alone.

Exactly.


It was a beautiful strategy. One blames the recession on the failed
policies of one's predecessor for the two years it takes the recession
to run its course, and takes credit for the rebounding economy in the
second two years leading up the the reelection campaign. Worked too.

Joe Gwinn

Ha! Well, Carter was a little late in realizing that Miller's policies
weren't working, and the recession probably was coming anyway, but it is
true that Volcker's tight money policy guaranteed it.

Carter hoped against hope for a painless solution. Do you remember all
those articles suggesting one strategy or another that purported to end
with a "soft landing"? Didn't work, and inflation peaked during
Carter's last term. Carter could have backed Volker to stop the
inflation, but didn't.

Joe Gwinn

That's not what Volcker himself says about it, Joe. He says that he worked
more closely with Carter than with any other president he worked for (It
included Nixon, and I think LBJ, in different capacities). Carter only
"resisted" Volcker initially because his advisors told him that Volcker was
independent and would not coordinate Fed policy with administration policy.
That turned out to be true -- Volcker was independent as hell and still is.

Volcker also was known as an inflation hawk and Carter's advisors recognized
that Volcker, should he be made chairman, could cost the Democrats the
coming election. Volcker himself recognizes that he contributed to it. But
Carter realized it was necessary medicine and hired him anyway.

Volcker was surprised. He thought he had burned himself off in a one-hour
interview with Carter. But he did wind up working with him as much as he
could. In a Fed. Reserve of Minneapolis interview, Volcker said this:

"As under secretary of the Treasury, I did at times have to deal with
President Nixon, but I certainly wasn't close. The one I saw the most of in
a substantive way, but for a limited period of time, was President Carter.
The election oratory implying that everything that happened during the
Carter years was bad irritates me a bit. The implication that Carter was a
failed and ineffective president strikes me as overdone."

As for his relationship with Reagan, here's what Volcker said in an
interview for "Commanding Heights":

"I saw him from time to time, but I was not a close intimate of President
Reagan's. His entourage in the White House, or certainly in the Treasury,
were very critical at times. They were... kind of a funny mixture. They had
monetarist doctrine, supply-side doctrine, libertarian doctrine all mixed
together, so some of it wasn't terribly coherent, which helped me a bit.
There was unhappiness because there was a big recession early in his term,
and things were not really stable. But he himself never criticized me
directly in public, certainly. I always had the feeling that he was urged to
do so. [It seemed] that every time he had a press conference somebody was
urging him to take a slap at the Federal Reserve, but he never did, and I
don't know why. I speculate that he was not a highly sophisticated
economist. I'm sure he didn't understand all the arguments his own people
were giving him. He did understand that he didn't like inflation, and I
think he had some kind of a feeling that the Federal Reserve was trying to
deal with inflation."

Reagan would have had no idea what to back or not, because Volcker, in his
usual polite style, understates Reagan's utter ignorance on the subject.
Some of his campaign quotes make it clear that he was completely clueless --
not that most presidents are a lot better at economics.

It may well all be true, but at the end of the day, Carter proved unable
to pull the trigger. Regan did pull the trigger, immediately upon
becoming President, and protected Volcker during the two years of pain
that resulted. That's why Reagan gets the credit, not Carter.

Nor does it matter if Reagan understood the deep economic arguments, or
if Carter did for that matter. These are presidents, not economists.


All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan, had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary.

But Carter did *not* bite the bullet. It was all talk.


Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.

I'm always deeply suspicious of these XX-jobs-lost headlines. How does
one tell? And how many jobs were then or subsequently gained?
Important to know, but no easier to tell. And far less reported. If
one followed the headlines and added up all the lost jobs, one would be
forced to conclude that there are no jobs left. But it never quite
seems to happen.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This should make life interesting for the United States....

TMT

OPEC interested in non-dollar currency By SEBASTIAN ABBOT,
Associated
Press Writer


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's
members
have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a
currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a
"worthless piece of paper."

His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state
exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel -- especially after
U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the
falling
dollar in the summit's final declaration.

This last happened during the 1970s inflation that peaked during
Jimmy
Carter's term. At the time, the Saudis threatened to demand payment
in
gold, as the dollar was deflating too fast to be tracked. Far worse
than now, by the way: interest rates peaked at ~20%. And the Euro
didn't exist then.

The switch to gold never happened, probably because Reagan stopped
the
inflation more or less immediately upon becoming President.

Pffhht. All that Reagan knew about inflation was that it was something
you do to a balloon.

It was Paul Volker, not Reagan, and Jimmy Carter hired him, not
Reagan.
Ronnie was just smart enough to keep Volker on. Just barely smart
enough...

Umm. Reagan was one tough bird, and he allowed/encouraged Volker to
cause the recession that stopped the inflation. It's politically
impossible for a Fed Chief to do anything that strong without
presidental backing.

Volcker says he had almost no contact with Reagan and that he doesn't
believe Reagan understood the monetary policies that Volcker was
directing
at the Fed. That seems likely to me, because Reagan was not the sharpest
knife in the drawer and the arguments about monetary policy at that time,
around 1980, were being debated at a very high level among the world's
top
economists.

Reagan made no claim to being an economist for sure. Most likely he had
little use for economists either -- few presidents do. Truman is famous
for wanting a one-armed economist, one who could not say .. on the one
hand .. on the other hand.

Reagan's strength was to realize that the failure of all the prior
attempts to end inflation without pain were doomed, instead choosing to
take the medicine, sweat it out, and be done with it.

Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. If you cut the
dollar supply, inflation must stop. But the transition will hurt. All
central bankers know this. The question is if the political
establishment is willing to tolerate the pain.


I realize that Bruce Bartlett and the rest of the supply-siders have a
different view, but they're always taking credit for things and they're
hard
to take seriously about anything. That's why I haven't taken the time to
read his book that blasts the Shrub.

Nor have I read these books, on either side.

Nor is inflation really a supply-side issue. For all of History, going
back to the Ancients, inflation has always resulted from the Sovereign
debasing the currency, most often to pay for a war or two.


Reagan backed Volcker, often against serious opposition from people like
Bartlett and the rest of the usual supply-side suspects. That was
Reagan's
talent, I think: to recognize when someone should be left alone.

Exactly.


It was a beautiful strategy. One blames the recession on the failed
policies of one's predecessor for the two years it takes the recession
to run its course, and takes credit for the rebounding economy in the
second two years leading up the the reelection campaign. Worked too.

Joe Gwinn

Ha! Well, Carter was a little late in realizing that Miller's policies
weren't working, and the recession probably was coming anyway, but it is
true that Volcker's tight money policy guaranteed it.

Carter hoped against hope for a painless solution. Do you remember all
those articles suggesting one strategy or another that purported to end
with a "soft landing"? Didn't work, and inflation peaked during
Carter's last term. Carter could have backed Volker to stop the
inflation, but didn't.

Joe Gwinn

That's not what Volcker himself says about it, Joe. He says that he worked
more closely with Carter than with any other president he worked for (It
included Nixon, and I think LBJ, in different capacities). Carter only
"resisted" Volcker initially because his advisors told him that Volcker was
independent and would not coordinate Fed policy with administration policy.
That turned out to be true -- Volcker was independent as hell and still is.

Volcker also was known as an inflation hawk and Carter's advisors recognized
that Volcker, should he be made chairman, could cost the Democrats the
coming election. Volcker himself recognizes that he contributed to it. But
Carter realized it was necessary medicine and hired him anyway.

Volcker was surprised. He thought he had burned himself off in a one-hour
interview with Carter. But he did wind up working with him as much as he
could. In a Fed. Reserve of Minneapolis interview, Volcker said this:

"As under secretary of the Treasury, I did at times have to deal with
President Nixon, but I certainly wasn't close. The one I saw the most of in
a substantive way, but for a limited period of time, was President Carter.
The election oratory implying that everything that happened during the
Carter years was bad irritates me a bit. The implication that Carter was a
failed and ineffective president strikes me as overdone."

As for his relationship with Reagan, here's what Volcker said in an
interview for "Commanding Heights":

"I saw him from time to time, but I was not a close intimate of President
Reagan's. His entourage in the White House, or certainly in the Treasury,
were very critical at times. They were... kind of a funny mixture. They had
monetarist doctrine, supply-side doctrine, libertarian doctrine all mixed
together, so some of it wasn't terribly coherent, which helped me a bit.
There was unhappiness because there was a big recession early in his term,
and things were not really stable. But he himself never criticized me
directly in public, certainly. I always had the feeling that he was urged to
do so. [It seemed] that every time he had a press conference somebody was
urging him to take a slap at the Federal Reserve, but he never did, and I
don't know why. I speculate that he was not a highly sophisticated
economist. I'm sure he didn't understand all the arguments his own people
were giving him. He did understand that he didn't like inflation, and I
think he had some kind of a feeling that the Federal Reserve was trying to
deal with inflation."

Reagan would have had no idea what to back or not, because Volcker, in his
usual polite style, understates Reagan's utter ignorance on the subject.
Some of his campaign quotes make it clear that he was completely clueless --
not that most presidents are a lot better at economics.

All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan, had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary. Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:13:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Volcker says he had almost no contact with Reagan and that he doesn't
believe Reagan understood the monetary policies that Volcker was directing
at the Fed. That seems likely to me, because Reagan was not the sharpest
knife in the drawer and the arguments about monetary policy at that time,
around 1980, were being debated at a very high level among the world's top
economists.

I realize that Bruce Bartlett and the rest of the supply-siders have a
different view, but they're always taking credit for things and they're hard
to take seriously about anything. That's why I haven't taken the time to
read his book that blasts the Shrub.

Reagan backed Volcker, often against serious opposition from people like
Bartlett and the rest of the usual supply-side suspects. That was Reagan's
talent, I think: to recognize when someone should be left alone.


It was a beautiful strategy. One blames the recession on the failed
policies of one's predecessor for the two years it takes the recession
to run its course, and takes credit for the rebounding economy in the
second two years leading up the the reelection campaign. Worked too.

Joe Gwinn

Ha! Well, Carter was a little late in realizing that Miller's policies
weren't working, and the recession probably was coming anyway, but it is
true that Volcker's tight money policy guaranteed it.
snip
Using monitary policy as Volker did is about like bleeding the
patient to reduce their fever. It works, but there is good
change it willkill them.

My primary objection is that the people that had the party,
charged the booze on my credit card, expected me to clean up
their mess, and stuck me with not only the bills, but the
hangover.

As an alternative, I suggest a very high tax rate on incomes over
that of the POTUS. Don't want a high tax rate? Then don't gen
up the magic money machine, ala CDOs, SIVs, conduits, etc.. Also
impose 100% margin requirements, and possibly a time phased
steeply progressive capital gains tax to reduce speculation. For
example

time assets held tax rate on "profit"
(not entire inv.)
0-10 days 100%
11-30 days 90%
31-180 days 75%
181-360 days 50%
361-720 days 25%
721-up days 1% for tracking/reporting only

What good does it do to "gut" the people who did not cause the
problems in the first place?


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:09:10 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan, had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary. Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.
snip
========
If you get the chance read Greenspan's book. Very extensive
"ends justify the means" rationalizations and ideological blind
spots, with very little hard data. 20$ from Amazon, or if you are
a cheap screw like me, get from your local library.
click on
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence...FTaEOAodTSIAMg


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


Reagan would have had no idea what to back or not, because Volcker, in
his
usual polite style, understates Reagan's utter ignorance on the subject.
Some of his campaign quotes make it clear that he was completely
clueless --
not that most presidents are a lot better at economics.

It may well all be true, but at the end of the day, Carter proved unable
to pull the trigger. Regan did pull the trigger, immediately upon
becoming President, and protected Volcker during the two years of pain
that resulted. That's why Reagan gets the credit, not Carter.

Frankly, I don't of anyone who gives Reagan credit for initiating the
tight-money policies that Volcker introduced, except perhaps some
conservative apologists. In the economics literature the story is all about
how surprising it was that Carter nominated Volcker and that the
administration sat there and took it as Volcker put their hands in a vise
and started turning the crank.

Volcker was sworn in on August 6th. On Saturday, October 6th, Volcker
announced an increase of a full percentage point in the Fed's discount rate,
to 12%, in his own version of the "Saturday Night Massacre." On Monday, the
stock market began a dive and bond interest went sky-high.

What is it that Reagan supposedly "supported," except to leave Volcker in
place? I've never heard of such a thing, except, as I said, from the
revisionist story told by Bartlett. From Volcker's own words we know that a
lot of Bartlett's story is self-serving apologia. And (I forget where I read
this, but it's around somewhere), Volcker's biggest complaint was that
Reagan's deregulation made it extremely difficult for the Fed to control
inflation. It left too many leaks.

I'd be curious if you have some source on that, Joe. I haven't read
Treaster's biography of Volcker, so there could be some things in there that
would change my mind. But I've read several Volcker interviews and analyses
of the period. I don't recall seeing anything from a knowledgeable source
that gave Reagan credit for anything more than for leaving Volcker alone to
do his job.


Nor does it matter if Reagan understood the deep economic arguments, or
if Carter did for that matter. These are presidents, not economists.


All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan
decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan,
had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what
most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary.

But Carter did *not* bite the bullet. It was all talk.

Apparently not. Volcker started squeezing the money supply within days of
taking office. As I noted, as early as Oct. 6th he started shaking the
foundations.



Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.

I'm always deeply suspicious of these XX-jobs-lost headlines. How does
one tell? And how many jobs were then or subsequently gained?
Important to know, but no easier to tell. And far less reported. If
one followed the headlines and added up all the lost jobs, one would be
forced to conclude that there are no jobs left. But it never quite
seems to happen.

I'm not going to second-guess Volcker on that one, and I think it's pretty
easy to tell, compared to some things they have to measure in applied
economics.

But new jobs eventually replace jobs lost. That's why they don't all go
away.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


Reagan would have had no idea what to back or not, because Volcker, in his
usual polite style, understates Reagan's utter ignorance on the subject.
Some of his campaign quotes make it clear that he was completely
clueless -- not that most presidents are a lot better at economics.

It may well all be true, but at the end of the day, Carter proved unable
to pull the trigger. Regan did pull the trigger, immediately upon
becoming President, and protected Volcker during the two years of pain
that resulted. That's why Reagan gets the credit, not Carter.

Frankly, I don't of anyone who gives Reagan credit for initiating the
tight-money policies that Volcker introduced, except perhaps some
conservative apologists. In the economics literature the story is all about
how surprising it was that Carter nominated Volcker and that the
administration sat there and took it as Volcker put their hands in a vise
and started turning the crank.

I don't know what side you are arguing. In a now snipped quote, Volcker
said that Reagan protected him even from the White House staff. Given
Volcker's polite nature, that's a very strong statement.

The question is how fast and far that vice can be tightened before
Congress revolts, and having the President on your side has to help. In
fact, it's essential.


Volcker was sworn in on August 6th. On Saturday, October 6th, Volcker
announced an increase of a full percentage point in the Fed's discount rate,
to 12%, in his own version of the "Saturday Night Massacre." On Monday, the
stock market began a dive and bond interest went sky-high.

What is it that Reagan supposedly "supported," except to leave Volcker in
place?

What more is needed? And Volcker credits Reagan with support, not just
tolerance.


I've never heard of such a thing, except, as I said, from the
revisionist story told by Bartlett. From Volcker's own words we know that a
lot of Bartlett's story is self-serving apologia. And (I forget where I read
this, but it's around somewhere), Volcker's biggest complaint was that
Reagan's deregulation made it extremely difficult for the Fed to control
inflation. It left too many leaks.

I'd be curious if you have some source on that, Joe. I haven't read
Treaster's biography of Volcker, so there could be some things in there that
would change my mind. But I've read several Volcker interviews and analyses
of the period. I don't recall seeing anything from a knowledgeable source
that gave Reagan credit for anything more than for leaving Volcker alone to
do his job.

Source on what? All that I've said was in the newspapers of the time.
We do know who talked versus who pulled the trigger

Aside from the usual score-settling and ankle-biting one finds in
memoirs, we may find out more of peoples' reasons, and of the debates
then raging, but the fundamentals don't change. Was the trigger pulled,
or not? Nor do we necessarily care what those reasons were, 30 years
later.


Nor does it matter if Reagan understood the deep economic arguments, or
if Carter did for that matter. These are presidents, not economists.


All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan
decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan,
had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what
most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary.

But Carter did *not* bite the bullet. It was all talk.

Apparently not. Volcker started squeezing the money supply within days of
taking office. As I noted, as early as Oct. 6th he started shaking the
foundations.

If Carter had ordered a sufficiently painful tightening soon upon
becoming president, we would have a far different story, and Reagan
might not have become president. But that's not what happened.


Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.

I'm always deeply suspicious of these XX-jobs-lost headlines. How does
one tell? And how many jobs were then or subsequently gained?
Important to know, but no easier to tell. And far less reported. If
one followed the headlines and added up all the lost jobs, one would be
forced to conclude that there are no jobs left. But it never quite
seems to happen.

I'm not going to second-guess Volcker on that one, and I think it's pretty
easy to tell, compared to some things they have to measure in applied
economics.

But new jobs eventually replace jobs lost. That's why they don't all go
away.

No, it's not easy to tell that policy X caused Y loss or gain of jobs.
The real world is far too complex for that.

It's like those articles or books that claim if only strategy X had been
implemented, WW2 would have been shortened by Y years (usually 2 years).
How can one even know such a thing, never mind prove it?

Joe Gwinn

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:13:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Volcker says he had almost no contact with Reagan and that he doesn't
believe Reagan understood the monetary policies that Volcker was directing
at the Fed. That seems likely to me, because Reagan was not the sharpest
knife in the drawer and the arguments about monetary policy at that time,
around 1980, were being debated at a very high level among the world's top
economists.

I realize that Bruce Bartlett and the rest of the supply-siders have a
different view, but they're always taking credit for things and they're
hard
to take seriously about anything. That's why I haven't taken the time to
read his book that blasts the Shrub.

Reagan backed Volcker, often against serious opposition from people like
Bartlett and the rest of the usual supply-side suspects. That was Reagan's
talent, I think: to recognize when someone should be left alone.


It was a beautiful strategy. One blames the recession on the failed
policies of one's predecessor for the two years it takes the recession
to run its course, and takes credit for the rebounding economy in the
second two years leading up the the reelection campaign. Worked too.

Joe Gwinn

Ha! Well, Carter was a little late in realizing that Miller's policies
weren't working, and the recession probably was coming anyway, but it is
true that Volcker's tight money policy guaranteed it.
snip
Using monitary policy as Volker did is about like bleeding the
patient to reduce their fever. It works, but there is good
change it willkill them.

My primary objection is that the people that had the party,
charged the booze on my credit card, expected me to clean up
their mess, and stuck me with not only the bills, but the
hangover.

As an alternative, I suggest a very high tax rate on incomes over
that of the POTUS. Don't want a high tax rate? Then don't gen
up the magic money machine, ala CDOs, SIVs, conduits, etc.. Also
impose 100% margin requirements, and possibly a time phased
steeply progressive capital gains tax to reduce speculation. For
example

time assets held tax rate on "profit"
(not entire inv.)
0-10 days 100%
11-30 days 90%
31-180 days 75%
181-360 days 50%
361-720 days 25%
721-up days 1% for tracking/reporting only

What good does it do to "gut" the people who did not cause the
problems in the first place?

I think that depends on whether one is the gutter or the guttee. d8-)

I dunno, George. I think the question has changed from fairness to how many
billionaires need tax breaks in order to keep the pot boiling. Somewhere in
the background I hear a voice saying, "Keep shoveling! More coal! More
steam! More! I want more!..."

Something seems wrong there, but maybe we're already through the looking
glass and the Red Queen is in charge of the factory.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:09:10 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan, had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what
most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary. Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.
snip
========
If you get the chance read Greenspan's book. Very extensive
"ends justify the means" rationalizations and ideological blind
spots, with very little hard data. 20$ from Amazon, or if you are
a cheap screw like me, get from your local library.
click on
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence...FTaEOAodTSIAMg

I'd like to read it but I've been discouraged by some criticism of the book,
that it contains a lot of self-justification and glossing-over, which makes
it a second-tier read to me. What do you think about it?

--
Ed Huntress

On 2007-11-20, Ed Huntress wrote:

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:09:10 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan, had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what
most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary. Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.
snip
========
If you get the chance read Greenspan's book. Very extensive
"ends justify the means" rationalizations and ideological blind
spots, with very little hard data. 20$ from Amazon, or if you are
a cheap screw like me, get from your local library.
click on
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence...FTaEOAodTSIAMg

I'd like to read it but I've been discouraged by some criticism of the book,
that it contains a lot of self-justification and glossing-over, which makes
it a second-tier read to me. What do you think about it?




I have the same concerns, but I decided that at $12 used, I could take
that risk.

i

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip everything

'Tell you what, Joe. I'm out of time for this because I have a deadline.
Maybe I'll read that Volcker bio sometime and take it up again. For now,
it's too much digging.

Regards,
--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus10223" wrote in message
news
On 2007-11-20, Ed Huntress wrote:

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:09:10 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan
decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan,
had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what
most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary. Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.
snip
========
If you get the chance read Greenspan's book. Very extensive
"ends justify the means" rationalizations and ideological blind
spots, with very little hard data. 20$ from Amazon, or if you are
a cheap screw like me, get from your local library.
click on
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence...FTaEOAodTSIAMg

I'd like to read it but I've been discouraged by some criticism of the
book,
that it contains a lot of self-justification and glossing-over, which
makes
it a second-tier read to me. What do you think about it?




I have the same concerns, but I decided that at $12 used, I could take
that risk.

i

Aha. Well, then, we expect a book report. g

--
Ed Huntress

On 2007-11-20, Ed Huntress wrote:
I have the same concerns, but I decided that at $12 used, I could take
that risk.

i

Aha. Well, then, we expect a book report. g


I will report once I read it.

i

F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip
========
If you get the chance read Greenspan's book. Very extensive
"ends justify the means" rationalizations and ideological blind
spots, with very little hard data. 20$ from Amazon, or if you are
a cheap screw like me, get from your local library.
click on
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence...FTaEOAodTSIAMg


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

Funny, same impression from Robert Macnamerra's book justifying Viet
Nam. And a lot of, "You must understand - there were other things going
on".

Kinda like a used car in Chicago.
LOTS o' Glossy paint over not much substance...

Richard

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Eh, I should have done more than just shut the door and run. And I finished
my article. g

So let me also say that there are others besides Bartlett who agree with you
that Reagan was the one who should be credited. I just don't see it in any
discussion from Volcker himself, or from most analyses that aren't about the
politics and personalities. I look at where the "triggers" were, and I see
that Volcker increased the Fed's discount rate by 3% in just a few months
under Carter, and only by one more percentage point during the entire Reagan
administration. It looks to me like the trigger was already pulled.

But I haven't read Volcker's bio or other detailed accounts of the period;
mostly just interviews and straight analyses of the facts and figures. Some
time I'll take it up more deeply, because it was a watershed period for the
US economy.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:38:37 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:09:10 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan, had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what
most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary. Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.
snip
========
If you get the chance read Greenspan's book. Very extensive
"ends justify the means" rationalizations and ideological blind
spots, with very little hard data. 20$ from Amazon, or if you are
a cheap screw like me, get from your local library.
click on
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence...FTaEOAodTSIAMg

I'd like to read it but I've been discouraged by some criticism of the book,
that it contains a lot of self-justification and glossing-over, which makes
it a second-tier read to me. What do you think about it?
================
Above amazon links has several reviews written by real people in
addition to the usual jacket blurbs and puff pieces.

IMNSHO Dr, Greenspan and company spent far too much time finding
cures i.e. bleeding the patient] and far too little time finding
preventions. There also appears that little or no effort
investigative effort was ever made and certainly no
hard/objective data across a significant [or any] time period
was included in the book.

As is the case with most idealogues, when something is not [or
has stopped] working, the cure is always the same Hit 'em again,
hit 'em again -- harder -- HARDER.....

It is well know that by far the biggest objective measurable
improvements in public health as measured by infant
mortality/morbidity, life span, etc. have been attained through
preventative measures such as sanitation, pure food and drug
laws, and vaccinations, and comparatively little has resulted
from curative/palative measures such as antibiotics.

By extension, I suggest that a major effort should be made to
identify the sources of the "problems" in our economic/financial
systems and take steps accordingly. I also note that complete
understanding or a comprehensive economic theory is *NOT*
required, merely some accurate observations and honest recording.

One of the first examples of epidemiology affecting a public
health improvement was when it was determined that almost every
one that had come down with cholera in London had drunk water
from a certain town pump. When the pump handle was removed the
cholera epidemic abated. The germ theory of disease,
understanding of hydro geology, and the identification of the
cholera bacillus was many years in the future, but the epidemic
was contained. The [or at least some of the] buzz words for this
is "Action Research." Google for more information

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:38:37 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:09:10 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
All in all, we're lucky that Carter bit the bullet and that Reagan
decided
he'd keep riding the same horse. Volcker, perhaps more than Greenspan,
had
the confidence of the world banking community and he accomplished what
most
knowledgeable people knew was necessary. Volcker later said that his
policies probably cost 1,000,000 jobs, directly, but that they saved the
economy from a tailspin.
snip
========
If you get the chance read Greenspan's book. Very extensive
"ends justify the means" rationalizations and ideological blind
spots, with very little hard data. 20$ from Amazon, or if you are
a cheap screw like me, get from your local library.
click on
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence...FTaEOAodTSIAMg

I'd like to read it but I've been discouraged by some criticism of the
book,
that it contains a lot of self-justification and glossing-over, which
makes
it a second-tier read to me. What do you think about it?
================
Above amazon links has several reviews written by real people in
addition to the usual jacket blurbs and puff pieces.

IMNSHO Dr, Greenspan and company spent far too much time finding
cures i.e. bleeding the patient] and far too little time finding
preventions. There also appears that little or no effort
investigative effort was ever made and certainly no
hard/objective data across a significant [or any] time period
was included in the book.

As is the case with most idealogues, when something is not [or
has stopped] working, the cure is always the same Hit 'em again,
hit 'em again -- harder -- HARDER.....

It is well know that by far the biggest objective measurable
improvements in public health as measured by infant
mortality/morbidity, life span, etc. have been attained through
preventative measures such as sanitation, pure food and drug
laws, and vaccinations, and comparatively little has resulted
from curative/palative measures such as antibiotics.

By extension, I suggest that a major effort should be made to
identify the sources of the "problems" in our economic/financial
systems and take steps accordingly. I also note that complete
understanding or a comprehensive economic theory is *NOT*
required, merely some accurate observations and honest recording.

One of the first examples of epidemiology affecting a public
health improvement was when it was determined that almost every
one that had come down with cholera in London had drunk water
from a certain town pump. When the pump handle was removed the
cholera epidemic abated. The germ theory of disease,
understanding of hydro geology, and the identification of the
cholera bacillus was many years in the future, but the epidemic
was contained. The [or at least some of the] buzz words for this
is "Action Research." Google for more information

Economics has always objected to its use as a predictive policy science.
There are just too many variables and a lot of them are of the
butterfly-effect variety. But that's exactly what everyone expects of
economists, except the academic types who only teach or study it.

So I don't know what you could do about it. Greenspan is a
deregulation/free-market/inflation-hawk guy. Following Volcker, his
leadership at the Fed was mostly about controlling inflation. Whether he was
really successful, or whether he was really lucky, only history will tell.

I'm skeptical that we'll see much more successful control of economic health
than we've already had. This has been a great run, in terms of freedom from
recessions and low interest rates. I don't doubt that Greenspan's policies
helped but I doubt if they were really determinant. We just have a lot more
stability built into our economy now than at any time in the past -- except,
perhaps, at the bottom of the Great Depression. And deregulation really has
made our economy extraordinarily flexible. Unfortunately it also gives us a
lot of fraud and corruption along with it: the price of deregulation, IMO.

I'm sure I'm way behind on the state of predictive economics. Maybe it's a
lot better than it was. Even if it is, there's the additional matter that
much of our economic policy is in the hands of Congress, not the Fed, and
it's always tempting to give the economy a shot of nitrous just before an
election. Then we pay for it later.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:09:11 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Nov 19, 2:42 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:14:44 -0500, "Dick"
wrote:

What else would you expect. Every day our money is worth less. Would you
want to hold onto it. Every time the Repugs get in control it's the same
thing, increase spending, cut taxes and make sure all of their crony buddies
in big business who shell out the money to get them elected have a free
reign to rape and pillage the country. They just keep lowering taxes and
printing more money to cover all of their expenditures. They want all of the
amenities but don't want to pay for anything. They've let big business
completely rape the lending sector so that there is probably going to be a
world wide depression over it.

Dick

You are well named.

So tell us "Dick", how yall are going to tax us into prosperity.

We will be waiting.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

So tell us "Gunner", how yall Republicans are going to pay for this
war you wanted.....you have till November 2008 to cough up the cash.

The same way we paid for the Democrats wars, such as WW2, Korea and
Vietnam.

Are you somehow claiming they were paid off before the next political
party took office?

Laugh laugh laugh

Use all the white space you need.

And remember no new taxes...you promised.

TMT

Im still waiting for Dicks response. And Ill ask you...how are you
going to tax us into prosperity?

Gunner

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:15:39 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Nov 19, 9:57 pm, Ignoramus31473 ignoramus31...@NOSPAM.
31473.invalid wrote:
On 2007-11-20, Ed Huntress wrote:



"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Seems to me another president cooked the books (and us) and his wife
is running for office now.

Martin, what are you talking about? The dollar is falling because of our
national debt. Take a look at where the national debt comes from. It didn't
come from Clinton. The first horrendous runup was under Ronnie. The second,
and deeper one, has happened under Bush. Under Clinton we actually reduced
the debt for a few years.

The reason the dollar has fallen sharply is that we've been running enormous
deficits and the world's currency traders think that the dollar's value is
therefore artificially high.

This is my opinion exactly. The deficits amount to plunder of national
wealth, and inevitably devaluate the dollar.

i

And the person responsible for this raping of America is George Bush.

TMT

Not to mention global warming, BO, tooth decay, bald tires, the
untimely and horrific industrial death of a small organism named
g+*#a! on Aldebaran IV, foundling kittens and dandruff.

Say...I see that the Congress is Democrat controlled. Has been for a
couple years . And they have done what again to stop the raping?

Oh...besides continuing to fund the war......?

Gunner

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:14:35 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

Got proof?

You Republicans doing smear attacks are getting old...

Coming from an extremist leftwing fringe kook...the irony of this
statement...is exquisite.

Gunner

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:58:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
I'm sure I'm way behind on the state of predictive economics. Maybe it's a
lot better than it was. Even if it is, there's the additional matter that
much of our economic policy is in the hands of Congress, not the Fed, and
it's always tempting to give the economy a shot of nitrous just before an
election. Then we pay for it later.
snip
Astute observations, esp. about paying for it later.

Two areas that seem to be firmly established/proven, but then
excused with the rationale "things are different this time" a

(1) Borrowing short term at lower interest rates and lending
long, and making a "profit" from the difference. Of course the
yield curve always inverts sooner or later, and the lender get
crunched. Last time it was the S&Ls, this time it was the banks
and so-called money market funds or commercial paper via the SIVs
and conduits.

(2) Evasion of the 10% reserve requirement for bank loans to
prevent the unlimited "expansion" of "virtual" money/capital,
again using the SIVs and conduits to keep the loans off the banks
books and therefore not generate any reserve requirements. The
huge expansion of the non-bank banks [i.e.
brokeragerages/hedgefunds/private equity scammers, etc.] with no
[or very little oversight] greatly exacerbates the problem.

These problems have been know at least since the 29 depression
and legislation was enacted at that time to try to control the
worst abused, but are gradually not enforced until another
disaster occurs.

Derivatives are another can of worms and one which came within a
trey [never mind an ace] of bringing down the financial network
when LTCM went tits up. It appears things are much worse now
because of the increased complexity and proliferation, to the
extent that the debts still cannot be calculated. A real
Frankenstein's monster has been created and fed that no one
understands and no one can control. When Warren Buffet calls
derivatives "Financial WMDs" everyone should pay close attention.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:58:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Then we pay for it later.
snip
Another "nut crusher" squeeze appears to be in the offing.

For the last few years the scheemers, scammers, and skimmers,
have engaged in a "carry trade" where they borrowed Yen in Japan
at 1% and loaned it in the US at 5% or more.

While Japan appears to be keeping their very low interest 1%
rates to fight their DEflation problem, the dollar/yen exchange
rate is also a factor and the dollar is "doing the Thrasher"
against the yen. see
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has the potential to put a major knot in the US financial
system's panty hose, as most of these loans were short-term and
now must be paid back [or rolled over] in much more expensive
yen, greatly increasing the effective interest rates, far beyond
the yield that can be obtained in the domestic US markets.

Do you know what companies have been active in this scam and who
will be dumping [or attempting to dump] their securities/stock
on the public?

I can hear my phone ringing now "For you such a deal...."

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...


snip


Derivatives are another can of worms and one which came within a
trey [never mind an ace] of bringing down the financial network
when LTCM went tits up. It appears things are much worse now
because of the increased complexity and proliferation, to the
extent that the debts still cannot be calculated. A real
Frankenstein's monster has been created and fed that no one
understands and no one can control. When Warren Buffet calls
derivatives "Financial WMDs" everyone should pay close attention.

They're scary. The web is so tangled that the fear is, when they finally
untangle by means of some financial crisis, we'll find that they're actually
secured by each other.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:58:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Then we pay for it later.
snip
Another "nut crusher" squeeze appears to be in the offing.

For the last few years the scheemers, scammers, and skimmers,
have engaged in a "carry trade" where they borrowed Yen in Japan
at 1% and loaned it in the US at 5% or more.

While Japan appears to be keeping their very low interest 1%
rates to fight their DEflation problem, the dollar/yen exchange
rate is also a factor and the dollar is "doing the Thrasher"
against the yen. see
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has the potential to put a major knot in the US financial
system's panty hose, as most of these loans were short-term and
now must be paid back [or rolled over] in much more expensive
yen, greatly increasing the effective interest rates, far beyond
the yield that can be obtained in the domestic US markets.

Do you know what companies have been active in this scam and who
will be dumping [or attempting to dump] their securities/stock
on the public?

I can hear my phone ringing now "For you such a deal...."

No. If you find out, let us know. Some people will want to sell some stock.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:00:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:58:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Then we pay for it later.
snip
Another "nut crusher" squeeze appears to be in the offing.

For the last few years the scheemers, scammers, and skimmers,
have engaged in a "carry trade" where they borrowed Yen in Japan
at 1% and loaned it in the US at 5% or more.

While Japan appears to be keeping their very low interest 1%
rates to fight their DEflation problem, the dollar/yen exchange
rate is also a factor and the dollar is "doing the Thrasher"
against the yen. see
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

This has the potential to put a major knot in the US financial
system's panty hose, as most of these loans were short-term and
now must be paid back [or rolled over] in much more expensive
yen, greatly increasing the effective interest rates, far beyond
the yield that can be obtained in the domestic US markets.

Do you know what companies have been active in this scam and who
will be dumping [or attempting to dump] their securities/stock
on the public?

I can hear my phone ringing now "For you such a deal...."

No. If you find out, let us know. Some people will want to sell some stock.
===================
This seems to have hit a few nerves. In response to several
emails for very brief background of the carry trade click on
http://www.americanchronicle.com/art...rticleID=38431

An article from February
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/176117

google on yen major American "carry trade" for 110k hits.
There is some recent governmental data such as
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/i...99/default.htm
32 pages but very general.

You can google on "carry trade" KKR OR Cerberus" but the less
mainstream sites are what come up. What they have to say makes
my blood freeze, even if only 10% of what they say is correct.
It appears that a large portion of the capital that was driving
the CDO and Private Equity / LBO (hyper)activity was being
generated by the carry trade, and when this dried up, so did the
activities based on the [no longer available] cheap money, (which
must now be paid back as expensive money, even with a low
domestic/yen interest rate because of the decline in the value of
the dollar.

To paraphrase the old Pennsylvania Dutch saying "So many ways to
get poor -- so few ways to get rich..."

click on

http://www.creditsal.com/forex-volat...inancial-time/

http://www.creditsal.com/forex-volat...inancial-time/

http://abnormalreturns.com/?cat=

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...worldecon.html
A particular shot of cold p**s to the heart [if correct] is the
involvement of the government of the PRC via Blackstone in
currency speculation/arbitrage. [NB L.Larouche is not considered
mainstream anything]

On Nov 22, 12:59 pm, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:09:11 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools





wrote:
On Nov 19, 2:42 am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:14:44 -0500, "Dick"
wrote:

What else would you expect. Every day our money is worth less. Would you
want to hold onto it. Every time the Repugs get in control it's the same
thing, increase spending, cut taxes and make sure all of their crony buddies
in big business who shell out the money to get them elected have a free
reign to rape and pillage the country. They just keep lowering taxes and
printing more money to cover all of their expenditures. They want all of the
amenities but don't want to pay for anything. They've let big business
completely rape the lending sector so that there is probably going to be a
world wide depression over it.

Dick

You are well named.

So tell us "Dick", how yall are going to tax us into prosperity.

We will be waiting.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

So tell us "Gunner", how yall Republicans are going to pay for this
war you wanted.....you have till November 2008 to cough up the cash.

The same way we paid for the Democrats wars, such as WW2, Korea and
Vietnam.

Are you somehow claiming they were paid off before the next political
party took office?

Laugh laugh laugh



Use all the white space you need.

And remember no new taxes...you promised.

TMT

Im still waiting for Dicks response. And Ill ask you...how are you
going to tax us into prosperity?

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thought so...typical Republican response.

You make the mess and then expect someone else to clean up.

Bush has made the debt....let's see him have it paid for before he is
tossed out.

TMT