How'd we ge here? A blast from the past -

[54anickel]

I came across this little tidbit from 99 while doing a bit of research. Hind-sight lends much credibility.

http://internationalecon.com/tradeimbalance/US.html

snip>
Furthermore, the exchange rate in 1998 began to depreciate US dollar. If this trend continues, the United States is likely to have smaller deficit. If the current account deficit continues to increase while the dollar depreciates, that would suggest decline in US economy's competitiveness. In long-run, this overall decline in US industries' competitiveness would become a serious problem, since that would lead to overall slowdown of the US economy, decreasing the standard of living for the US residents.

The data on net equity and debt ratio to GDP (Figure 2.3) reveals that the international debt position of the US is more serious than the international investment position number suggests. Net debt as a percentage of GDP is approaching 20% in 1996. If this debt surpasses 20% of GDP and continuously increase, this would be bad for the economy, because that means that the US will keep borrowing from abroad, although a rapid increase in GDP growth is not expected. Therefore, would be more difficult to repay. If the United States is in a rapid economic growth, this can be a good thing, but that is not the case for the United States.
snip>

NOTE: This section brought to mind the discussion of euros for oil

snip>
Currently, capital account surplus is larger than current account deficit for the US (Appendix 4), suggesting that the United States is importing capital from abroad to pay back for the current account deficit. In addition, given the size of the economy and its internationally used domestic currency, international default for the United States is least likely. If the new currency, euro, replaces the US dollar in international markets, and if the United States government begins to incur large debts denominated in euro, the likelihood of US default would increase.

more...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Take the money and run

That's why the corporations who bought and paid for Bush are getting such big handouts from him now. Both they and Bush know that this country is going down economically, and they are squeezing out every last penny before the bottom falls out, which I predict will happen in 2005.

[bemildred]

2. The question as to whether they can keep things patched

together until after the election is the one of interest
right now.

It is also interesting, in that context, that they seem to
want to be in office during the debacle; one presumes in
order to be able to control the backlash.

And it is fascinating to see that even the richest and most
powerful seem to be driven primarily by fear and greed.

[kalian]

3. That's the question.....

and I'm surprised that the dems haven't really been trying to pick
this apart.
But then again, the dems running for prez aren't really the
sharpest knives in the drawer to begin with. All of them are tame
little kitties... :eyes:

[54anickel]

4. Exactly - none of them seems to want to touch this issue. It's not

popular to point out bad news and the need to raise taxes and cut spending, yet that is exactly what Clinton did. Any Dem should be pointing out the fact that this was widely know and reported back in 99, yet what did the supposedly conservative Repugs do - ignored all of these warning signs.

[54anickel]

5. Another tidbit from 4/00 Seems the EU thought Shrub would be the

one to save the world's monetary system. Guess they were way off the mark on that one.

http://www.geoinvestor.com/archives/goarchives/april300.htm

snip>
The world is clearly ripe for monetary reform. The recent alignments in Europe are but one example of the desire for greater international monetary stability. The nations of Latin America and East Asia, cruelly stung by the devaluations of the Mexican peso in 1994-95 and the Thai baht in 1997, would no doubt also welcome a move toward currency stabilization. Such an action would require leadership that only the U.S. can provide. In that regard, 2000 could prove an auspicious year. Odds are that Republican George W. Bush, Jr. will win the November presidential election. If he were then to decide to restore order to the world's monetary system, a new Bretton Woods-type accord could become a reality as early as 2002.

[bemildred]

6. Funniest thing I've read today, thanks. nt

[rapier]

7. notes

No bad things have happened in the 4 intervening years as the trade defict has continued to soar and as the Federal government account has gone from marginally positive to massively negative.

Or rather bad things have happened but who cares about losing crummy jobs when everyone who is anyone is getting rich on the inflation of financial assets.

Take those worries from 99 and mulitiply them by 10 and you end up the level of worry today for those few who worry about such things. Worries about debt, and balance of payments, and currencies and inflation etc. etc.

All conventional economic analysis from the past would suggest that America is bankrupt and set up for a fall of Biblical proportions. Yet stocks are rising like a ballon and our Treasury paper is priced to perfection near rates that are near 50 year lows.

Go to any of the threads started by Junker and see how these concerns lead to the frustration of any negative analytic prediction. The point being it will serve you well perhaps to try and understand these things but as a political matter or a personal financial matter don't expect to be able to use them to predict anything.

[54anickel]

8. Not trying to make predictions, just noting how they continue to

ignore the obvious. Article basically states, "we're doing OK, as long as X doesn't happen". Bushco comes in and does X.

You're right, they just keep doing it. It's that whole instant gratification economy we've been in for the past 30 some years. They have tranformed money from wealth to debt to speculative investments. It's very sad.

[KoKo]

9. All I can think of is that old game "Musical Chairs." As long as the

number of players in the game is large enough, when the music stops and someone is out, it's not noticeable and still fun to play the game. As the number of players gets smaller and more people are "out" the music plays longer because the crowd of players has thinned and the players left are getting more nervous.

How long can the music keep playing and playing with less and less stops distracting us from noticing how few are left playing the game? And who is the one that will be left standing when the game and the music finally stop? :-(