EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
No worries. It was just so different from the usual. Feel free to tell me what's what (but nicely, please).
Headlines...
- Thread starter effenheimer_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
profette_IHB
New member
Here is an article on the Bush administration’s weak dollar policy.
“Treasury Secretary John Snow has tacitly but unmistakably abandoned Washington's longstanding support for a strong dollar in favor of a weak dollar that is getting weaker, though he continues to insist there has been no change in policy.
Stripped of the code words and elliptical references to "excessive volatility" in exchange rates, the message that Snow delivered over the weekend to finance ministers from Europe and Japan was that the dollar's plunge against the euro is just fine and that the dollar should now decline more rapidly against Asian currencies as well.
In so doing, the Bush administration has made a calculated economic and political choice. By condoning and even encouraging a cheap dollar, the administration is providing a big push to American exporters by making their products less expensive in foreign markets…”
<em>San Francisco</em><em> Chronicle</em>, 2/9/2004
“Treasury Secretary John Snow has tacitly but unmistakably abandoned Washington's longstanding support for a strong dollar in favor of a weak dollar that is getting weaker, though he continues to insist there has been no change in policy.
Stripped of the code words and elliptical references to "excessive volatility" in exchange rates, the message that Snow delivered over the weekend to finance ministers from Europe and Japan was that the dollar's plunge against the euro is just fine and that the dollar should now decline more rapidly against Asian currencies as well.
In so doing, the Bush administration has made a calculated economic and political choice. By condoning and even encouraging a cheap dollar, the administration is providing a big push to American exporters by making their products less expensive in foreign markets…”
<em>San Francisco</em><em> Chronicle</em>, 2/9/2004
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
Will do.
I'm off to finish packing.
And Nude, you have fun on your vacation, too. I hope you get the op to meet up with some IHB folks, and that your shirt arrives on time!
I'm off to finish packing.
And Nude, you have fun on your vacation, too. I hope you get the op to meet up with some IHB folks, and that your shirt arrives on time!
Nude_IHB
New member
profette, no offense, but that article is 3 and half years old. Furthermore, any policy put in place didn't move the dollar more than 6 points in the following year from that article and it rose to (and stayed near) 90 for most of 2005/06. Even the article admits this "policy" was put in place to help american exporters compete and reduce the trade deficit, both would reduce the current account balance in the process.
IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
<a title="Permanent Link: LendingTree cuts 250 jobs, mostly in Irvine" rel="bookmark" href="http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com/2007/09/28/lendingtree-cuts-250-jobs-mostly-in-irvine/" linkindex="166" set="yes">LendingTree cuts 250 jobs, mostly in Irvine</a>
IrvineRenter_IHB
New member
<a href="http://realestate.msn.com/Improve/Article_wsj.aspx?cp-documentid=5448793>1=10431">Kitchen remodels go on a diet</a>
<em>The number of renovations costing more than $20,000 has dropped by 40% compared with last year.</em>
Are we having mortgage equity withdrawal withdrawals?
<em>The number of renovations costing more than $20,000 has dropped by 40% compared with last year.</em>
Are we having mortgage equity withdrawal withdrawals?
Daedalus_IHB
New member
I sure hope so. I could not believe the price increases of construction materials in '03-'04. I used to be able to buy 4x8x5/8 drywall sheets for <$5 each on sale. I expect once the remodeling demand cools material prices will become very friendly again.
No_Such_Reality_IHB
New member
<p>Free money for babies. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_po/clinton_baby_bonds_9;_ylt=Aq8.GUzwDAZfh9MXAy1CcmQE1vAI">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_po/clinton_baby_bonds_9;_ylt=Aq8.GUzwDAZfh9MXAy1CcmQE1vAI</a></p>
<p>"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home. "</p>
<p>Yeah, that'll help.</p>
<p>But the best line... "I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until they're 18?" </p>
<p>It's only $20 billion a year.</p>
<p>"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home. "</p>
<p>Yeah, that'll help.</p>
<p>But the best line... "I think it's a wonderful idea," said Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, an Ohio Democrat who attended the event and has already endorsed Clinton. "Every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until they're 18?" </p>
<p>It's only $20 billion a year.</p>
Trooper_IHB
New member
Oh man....that's crazy....and I'm a Dem.
CygnusX1_IHB
New member
<p>Sorry to bring this up again, but this " Weak Dollar 101" page might illuminate the relationship between interest rates, the deficit and the dollar:</p>
<p>http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/economy/weakdollar/</p>
<p>White House has significant influence over fiscal policy and monetary policy, and this administration has favored large deficits and irresponsible interest rate cuts. It's not too hard to connect the dots.</p>
<p>http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/10/news/economy/weakdollar/</p>
<p>White House has significant influence over fiscal policy and monetary policy, and this administration has favored large deficits and irresponsible interest rate cuts. It's not too hard to connect the dots.</p>
graphrix_IHB
New member
<a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20070928-9999-1bn28auction.html">DR Horton doesn't want the media to see just how bad the auction will be.</a>
effenheimer_IHB
New member
<p><em>every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond"</em></p>
<p>Who pays for that? </p>
<p>Who pays for that? </p>
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>Cygnusx1-</p>
<p>I got accused earlier of being shrill, so I am going to try and be nicer in my responses on this issue. The power of the Federal purse resides with the Congress, both House and Senate. While people like to claim that Presidents have great power to control the economy, the truth is they only have the strength of their last election and a veto pen on their side. When it comes to the budget, taxes, spending, cutting, whowhatwhereandwhen, the Congress decides that in the budget bills. The President can suggest a budget, and usually does. But they cannot spend one dime until the Legislative branch signs off on it. On the other hand, if the President faces overwhelming opposition in Congress or didn't get enough of a majority in the last election to push through a 'mandate' of budget plans, that President has only one option to affect the budget: the Veto. If the Legislature overrides that veto, then the President has no control over the budget... at all.</p>
<p>Clinton was the last one to go to battle over the budget, with a House that was fresh off an election won in part on budgetary issues. He refused to sign the budget into law, the House couldn't override the Veto, government shut down until they reached a compromise. But the President couldn't do anything but lobby and wait. He had no direct control over spending, Bush doesn't, and no President ever will. At best, they can use their "bully pulpit" to lobby Congress, but they couldn't cut a single tax without both the House and Senate passing a bill to do so. The biggest misnomer repeated constantly by the media and candidates is some version of "the President's economy" as if they held the reins and the whip. If this were really true, do you honestly think any politician capable of winning a national election would ever allow a recession to occur? The answer to that is "Hell No" and yet, every single president has seen one begin on their watch. None of them want to take credit for a downturn, but don't stand between them and a camera when the economy is booming; you'll get run over. But really, they have very little to do with the result. Congress giveth, and Congress taketh away.</p>
<p>When it comes to the money supply, they have even less control. The Bush could call Ben tomorrow and demand a 100 basis point rise in the Fed Funds rate and there is nothing requiring Ben to do it. Neither can Congress order a 100 basis point cut and have any expectation of a result. The laws creating the Federal Reserve and it's board intentionally divorced monetary policy from political influence for stability's sake. So the President's control is limited to appointing members, and Congress gets a monthly visit from the Chairman. That's it. Any other influence ranks at about the same level as Cramer screaming on TV. The Chairman can be removed "for cause", but a rate cut doesn't rise to that level and neither does a weakening dollar. The Fed may have the greatest effect on the economy, but only relative to the rest of the government. Their effect pales in comparison to BoA, or Citigroup, or even Warren Buffett.</p>
<p>So, in direct response to your comment: Influence is not control, and favoring something doesn't make it happen. They may favor lower interest rates, but Ben and Friends went right ahead and raised them 17 straight times while Bush could do nothing but grin and bear it. The article you linked pointed out both sides of a declining dollar in terms of world trade, but no where does it suggest a causal relationship between debt/deficit and dollar value. The two may be affected simultaneously by one event, but a rise in one does not have a seesaw effect on the other in terms of numbers. </p>
<p>Value is at the heart of the dollar's decline. Everyone is trying to avoid losses in what has become a bearish market, so they are moving money from one market to another, trading dollars for euros, trying to preserve capital and hopefully find a return on their money. All of that reduces demand for dollars and dollar-denominated debt. Ben cutting the fed rate is partly responsible for setting off the current run down, but so is the rising demand for oil around the world, and the rise in the price of wheat and other commodities. But you can't blame Bush for any direct action resulting in the decline of the dollar because there hasn't been any. Just like you can't give him credit if it storms back to 110+.</p>
<p>Bush has done plenty to earn the derision and scorn of most of America. We don't need to invent reasons that don't actually exist. In this particular case, doing so puts you at risk of missing the real reason these things happen. In a world where every one is pushing their own agenda, the truth is a vanishing resource that has to be protected. So blame him for being a jerk, a homophobe, having a complete lack of backbone with the budget, lacking the capacity to enunciate words with more than two syllables, screwing up Iraq, and embarrasing Colin Powell into retirement. I'm not defending the man, I'm clearing up a misconception about the process. I don't need any more reasons to hate Bush, I've got plenty.</p>
<p>Sorry about the wall of text and any typos will get fixed later...maybe </p>
<p>I got accused earlier of being shrill, so I am going to try and be nicer in my responses on this issue. The power of the Federal purse resides with the Congress, both House and Senate. While people like to claim that Presidents have great power to control the economy, the truth is they only have the strength of their last election and a veto pen on their side. When it comes to the budget, taxes, spending, cutting, whowhatwhereandwhen, the Congress decides that in the budget bills. The President can suggest a budget, and usually does. But they cannot spend one dime until the Legislative branch signs off on it. On the other hand, if the President faces overwhelming opposition in Congress or didn't get enough of a majority in the last election to push through a 'mandate' of budget plans, that President has only one option to affect the budget: the Veto. If the Legislature overrides that veto, then the President has no control over the budget... at all.</p>
<p>Clinton was the last one to go to battle over the budget, with a House that was fresh off an election won in part on budgetary issues. He refused to sign the budget into law, the House couldn't override the Veto, government shut down until they reached a compromise. But the President couldn't do anything but lobby and wait. He had no direct control over spending, Bush doesn't, and no President ever will. At best, they can use their "bully pulpit" to lobby Congress, but they couldn't cut a single tax without both the House and Senate passing a bill to do so. The biggest misnomer repeated constantly by the media and candidates is some version of "the President's economy" as if they held the reins and the whip. If this were really true, do you honestly think any politician capable of winning a national election would ever allow a recession to occur? The answer to that is "Hell No" and yet, every single president has seen one begin on their watch. None of them want to take credit for a downturn, but don't stand between them and a camera when the economy is booming; you'll get run over. But really, they have very little to do with the result. Congress giveth, and Congress taketh away.</p>
<p>When it comes to the money supply, they have even less control. The Bush could call Ben tomorrow and demand a 100 basis point rise in the Fed Funds rate and there is nothing requiring Ben to do it. Neither can Congress order a 100 basis point cut and have any expectation of a result. The laws creating the Federal Reserve and it's board intentionally divorced monetary policy from political influence for stability's sake. So the President's control is limited to appointing members, and Congress gets a monthly visit from the Chairman. That's it. Any other influence ranks at about the same level as Cramer screaming on TV. The Chairman can be removed "for cause", but a rate cut doesn't rise to that level and neither does a weakening dollar. The Fed may have the greatest effect on the economy, but only relative to the rest of the government. Their effect pales in comparison to BoA, or Citigroup, or even Warren Buffett.</p>
<p>So, in direct response to your comment: Influence is not control, and favoring something doesn't make it happen. They may favor lower interest rates, but Ben and Friends went right ahead and raised them 17 straight times while Bush could do nothing but grin and bear it. The article you linked pointed out both sides of a declining dollar in terms of world trade, but no where does it suggest a causal relationship between debt/deficit and dollar value. The two may be affected simultaneously by one event, but a rise in one does not have a seesaw effect on the other in terms of numbers. </p>
<p>Value is at the heart of the dollar's decline. Everyone is trying to avoid losses in what has become a bearish market, so they are moving money from one market to another, trading dollars for euros, trying to preserve capital and hopefully find a return on their money. All of that reduces demand for dollars and dollar-denominated debt. Ben cutting the fed rate is partly responsible for setting off the current run down, but so is the rising demand for oil around the world, and the rise in the price of wheat and other commodities. But you can't blame Bush for any direct action resulting in the decline of the dollar because there hasn't been any. Just like you can't give him credit if it storms back to 110+.</p>
<p>Bush has done plenty to earn the derision and scorn of most of America. We don't need to invent reasons that don't actually exist. In this particular case, doing so puts you at risk of missing the real reason these things happen. In a world where every one is pushing their own agenda, the truth is a vanishing resource that has to be protected. So blame him for being a jerk, a homophobe, having a complete lack of backbone with the budget, lacking the capacity to enunciate words with more than two syllables, screwing up Iraq, and embarrasing Colin Powell into retirement. I'm not defending the man, I'm clearing up a misconception about the process. I don't need any more reasons to hate Bush, I've got plenty.</p>
<p>Sorry about the wall of text and any typos will get fixed later...maybe </p>
awgee_IHB
New member
<i>"When it comes to the money supply, they have even less control. The Bush could call Ben tomorrow and demand a 100 basis point rise in the Fed Funds rate and there is nothing requiring Ben to do it. Neither can Congress order a 100 basis point cut and have any expectation of a result. The laws creating the Federal Reserve and it's board intentionally divorced monetary policy from political influence for stability's sake. So the President's control is limited to appointing members, and Congress gets a monthly visit from the Chairman. That's it."</i><p>
There are a multitude of inaccuracies in your post, and there are too many for me to address them all, so for now I will address only this one, as it is the most important in my eyes. You may take this as a put down. It is not. It is only correct information.<p>
The president has great control over the money supply. You are correct in that B-52 Ben makes the decisions as regards the Fed funds rate and the discount window, but only the smallest portion of the overall change in money supply is determined by the Feds declaration on interest rates. The change in money supply is mostly affected by the Feds purchase of treasury notes, (IOUs from the US government), and the treasury dept is under direct control of the president. I do not know for sure, but it is my understanding that the Fed has never refused to buy the treasury notes offered by the treasury dept when it has been unable or does not want to sell them on the open market.<p>
All that said, it is my opinion that to blame one president for the present deficit is short-sided. Sure the current president has had a large part in deficit spending, but to place all resonsibility for our current fiscal situation can only be done by closing one's eyes to many administrations before him.
There are a multitude of inaccuracies in your post, and there are too many for me to address them all, so for now I will address only this one, as it is the most important in my eyes. You may take this as a put down. It is not. It is only correct information.<p>
The president has great control over the money supply. You are correct in that B-52 Ben makes the decisions as regards the Fed funds rate and the discount window, but only the smallest portion of the overall change in money supply is determined by the Feds declaration on interest rates. The change in money supply is mostly affected by the Feds purchase of treasury notes, (IOUs from the US government), and the treasury dept is under direct control of the president. I do not know for sure, but it is my understanding that the Fed has never refused to buy the treasury notes offered by the treasury dept when it has been unable or does not want to sell them on the open market.<p>
All that said, it is my opinion that to blame one president for the present deficit is short-sided. Sure the current president has had a large part in deficit spending, but to place all resonsibility for our current fiscal situation can only be done by closing one's eyes to many administrations before him.
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
<a href="http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/Budget2000/surplus.html">One clarification.</a>
awgee_IHB
New member
Sorry Eva - That is the bigggest bunch of horse puckey. If any private accountant ran their numbers the way the GAO runs theirs, they would be in prison. Those supposed surpluses are absolute nonsense and no one who understands either accounting or finance gives them any credibility.
profette_IHB
New member
<img height="760" alt="Housing Picture Worsens, Again" width="629" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/28/business/0929-biz-CHARTSweb.gif" />
Nude_IHB
New member
<p>awgee-</p>
<p>I'd welcome any corrections you would like to make. I don't think I know everything on the subject, but I am pretty confident in what I do know. So if you feel like taking the time, I will be happy to read it when I get back from Disneyland next Friday. As for the supply of money, you are correct and I neglected to point that out in my wall of text. However, I can't find evidence of a direct correlation between the decline of the dollar and the release of t-notes into the market nor can I find a historical one based on the data available. From what I see, it is a factor in the pressure on the dollar but only one of many and as such does not represent direct control by a President over the dollar's relative value.</p>
<p>PS: the Fed currently holds something like $750 Billion in treasuries, so I think it's safe to say that they don't say "no".</p>
<p>I'd welcome any corrections you would like to make. I don't think I know everything on the subject, but I am pretty confident in what I do know. So if you feel like taking the time, I will be happy to read it when I get back from Disneyland next Friday. As for the supply of money, you are correct and I neglected to point that out in my wall of text. However, I can't find evidence of a direct correlation between the decline of the dollar and the release of t-notes into the market nor can I find a historical one based on the data available. From what I see, it is a factor in the pressure on the dollar but only one of many and as such does not represent direct control by a President over the dollar's relative value.</p>
<p>PS: the Fed currently holds something like $750 Billion in treasuries, so I think it's safe to say that they don't say "no".</p>