Todays monday exchange rate in thailand £ to baht

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

I find it fairly arrogant that America expect to simply tell another country what it should do with its own currency.. China will do whats good for China, not what is good for America.. When cheap consumer goods was spurring the US consumer to spend and that was touted as a way out of recession you didnt hear any grumbles from the US administration then.. Its hipocracy to want it at one point and then reverse course and expect another country to do something detrimental to thier own economic well being and benefit the USA's at the USA's request.. If the roles were reversed America would tell them to feck off..

Also Capital didnt go there for a better return, captial has accrued there because Americans bought Chinese goods, Chinese are not buying American goods.. Simple !!! American dollars go to China and China sends them 50 USD DVD players, Ipods, Plasma TVs, Clothing, etc.. They are able to produce these items at a fraction of what a US company can produce them at..
..

I would not call this arrogance. A bit closer to the pot calling the kettle black. America's loose money policy has been bascially unsound, IMHO. Because the past 4 US administrations hae been very pro-free trade, and pro-globalization, they do not want to get into a tariff war with China. It would go againt the principles that they preach. However, China is flooding the US with cheap goods. China is contributing to all the problems that you decry with this policy. Raising the value of their currency would be an appropiate and resposible action, which in the long haul, would benefit all parties IMHO. You decry America's profligacy of 5% consuming 25%, but are not China, Japan, and many others(probably LOS included), encouraging America to do so. It takes two to tango. Nobody is forcing China to sells its' goods so cheaply, in fact, quite the opposite.

As far as an accrual of trade deficit dollars conributing to the boom in China, that is not entirely the case. It is probably a contributing factor, but look at what China is doing with trade profits. Buying US bonds, and attempting to buy US companies, like Unocal and Maytag. That is a lot smarter than plowing their profits back into their own economy. That would require spending the hard-earned capital and thereby distributing it back into the global currency market. They want to accumulate capital, and use it to control resources and acquire more sources of capital, not distribute it. Distributing the capital would dilute it, and also would weaken the dollar, same as letting their currency float would do.

Much of their current boom is being fueled by foreign investment. Foreign investors, including Americans, are bringing tons of new capital into China, because aggressive investors can make large returns there, rather than meager below inflation returns offered in American investments. This is another example of smart Chinese economic strategy. Why spend their hard-earned capital when they can get foreigners to build up their economy for them with foreign capital. Then their capital is free to go for control of resources, technology gained by buying foreign companies, and political clout which ultimately comes from holding enough US bonds to be able to wreak havoc on the US econoy if they chose to do so. Very good strategy. Plus they also get a free infusion of valuable technology when foreigners come in , build hi-tech plants and teach Chinese to operate them.

I wish Greenspan and the others at the controls running the US economy had the brains and balls the Chinese economic architects seem to have.

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

I took it to mean greenspan didnt have the balls to tell them or effect thier peg.. miss understood your comment..

"Easy Al" is just a joke on easy credit.. Old Bubbles Greenspan has been the most inflationary Fed chief in history.. Luckily for him he has ridden the up wave and will step out before the crash it seems. Probably let Bernake (a man that thinks throwing money out of helicopters is the solution to every economic problem) take the wrap..

Voker was a much more level head.. fiscal responsibility has just been completely forgotton..

Agreed 100%. I was a staunch Volcker man. That dude had big balls!! IMHO he is the kind of guy you need running the show.

[swiftdave]

Originally Posted by JayBee

Because the past 4 US administrations hae been very pro-free trade, and pro-globalization, they do not want to get into a tariff war with China. It would go againt the principles that they preach.

The past 4 administrations have preached free trade however the US insists on dictating the terms of that free trade. Time after time the US has lost Nafta and WTO rulings only to ignore those rulings and continue to legislate tariffs and duties against the NAFTA charter. Further the US uses these "Free Trade" agreements as an attempt to manipulate the internal politics of their trading partners. Applying trade pressure in an attempt to influence the internal policies and legislations of the foreign governments.

Further they have used the guise of 9/11 and the terrorist threat to further restrict the entry of foreign goods. They have legislated and manipulated the NAFTA agreement so badly that it no longer resembles a "Free Trade" agreement at all. NAFTA was a great idea that is going the way of the League of Nations, as a castrated, bastardized failed pipe dream.



Oh yeah, I was a softwood lumber broker for 6 years.

[K2]

Jaybee, LivinLOS perhaps judging Greenspan a little harshly - consider the alternatives. If post 9/11 he hadnt eased rates then slow down globally would have most likely been severe - and despite the so called housing bubble this is not of great concern as population growth and demographics mean that US will continue to see demand pull for housing. Fair to say that American home owners have used refinancing to service further consumer spending but would you advocate a squeeze in rates to choke of spending - thus growth?

Greenspan led Fed has been the most successful ever in stabilising growth/recession cycle - mean reversion of -2% - +5% q/q growth is impressive taking any long term central bank record into account.

While I feel stats gathering is 'rigged' to some degree espcially in relation to CPI and PPI - not truely reflecting inflation for the ave. guy on the street - despite this inflation has been pretty contained.

Fed's role primarily is to stamp on inflation - to 'maintain price stability' in this its hard to argue they have failed on that front. Asset price inflation comes and gets corrected and no central bank can control everything.

By far more potential damage comes from the enormous budget deficit - was it not for (mainly Asian) central banks buying treasuries then long end rates would make 4.5% 10 yr yields look way to cheap - something like 6% would be more 'normal'.

Seriously would you want Volker back? - dont think would like the recession his policy style would cause - post Greenspan perhaps Reuben would be a good choice.

PS - We must all be having too much spare time to endulge this thread!

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

Steel.. America is a net importer AND maintains Tarrifs on imported steel.. As to the health of US steel v Asian imports fully half American Steel producers declared bancruptcy (2002) LTV the nations 3rd biggest was actually in liquidation last time I followed this.
.

I am happy to report that the steel industry in the US is currently booming. My brother has been in the steel business all his working life, many years with US Steel, several with a Japanese company, and currently is with Republic Steel. He is been through some lean years in the 90's, but now they are selling all they can make and gearing up production for more.

The tariffs probably have helped the resurgence of the steel industry in this country. But even tho China steel production is up 28.2 per cent this year, they are a net importer by a 4 to 1 ratio in the first quarter this year. India's production is also up 21.3%. Excluding those two, world production is down 1.2%.

But the US would be the world's biggest idiots to not protect their steel industry. How long can a major military power remain so, if it has no steel production capability? Any major power can not be put in the position of relying on its potential adversary to supply it with steel for armaments in the event of a conflict.

In 2004 the biggest importers of steel were:
1. China 33.2 million metric tons
2. US 32.8 million " "
3. EU 30.4 million " "

The strange thing about those statistics is that if the US is importing all that much steel, it really makes you wonder what we are doing with it all, considering the fact that "no goods are produced in US." I guess we just like buying steel! It's great fun!

So much for the US not producing anything!!

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by swiftdave

The past 4 administrations have preached free trade however the US insists on dictating the terms of that free trade. Time after time the US has lost Nafta and WTO rulings only to ignore those rulings and continue to legislate tariffs and duties against the NAFTA charter. Further the US uses these "Free Trade" agreements as an attempt to manipulate the internal politics of their trading partners. Applying trade pressure in an attempt to influence the internal policies and legislations of the foreign governments.

Further they have used the guise of 9/11 and the terrorist threat to further restrict the entry of foreign goods. They have legislated and manipulated the NAFTA agreement so badly that it no longer resembles a "Free Trade" agreement at all. NAFTA was a great idea that is going the way of the League of Nations, as a castrated, bastardized failed pipe dream.

Oh yeah, I was a softwood lumber broker for 6 years.

Point well-taken!!

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by SAT

Jaybee, LivinLOS perhaps judging Greenspan a little harshly - consider the alternatives. If post 9/11 he hadnt eased rates then slow down globally would have most likely been severe - and despite the so called housing bubble this is not of great concern as population growth and demographics mean that US will continue to see demand pull for housing. Fair to say that American home owners have used refinancing to service further consumer spending but would you advocate a squeeze in rates to choke of spending - thus growth?

Greenspan led Fed has been the most successful ever in stabilising growth/recession cycle - mean reversion of -2% - +5% q/q growth is impressive taking any long term central bank record into account.

While I feel stats gathering is 'rigged' to some degree espcially in relation to CPI and PPI - not truely reflecting inflation for the ave. guy on the street - despite this inflation has been pretty contained.

Fed's role primarily is to stamp on inflation - to 'maintain price stability' in this its hard to argue they have failed on that front. Asset price inflation comes and gets corrected and no central bank can control everything.

By far more potential damage comes from the enormous budget deficit - was it not for (mainly Asian) central banks buying treasuries then long end rates would make 4.5% 10 yr yields look way to cheap - something like 6% would be more 'normal'.

Seriously would you want Volker back? - dont think would like the recession his policy style would cause - post Greenspan perhaps Reuben would be a good choice.

PS - We must all be having too much spare time to endulge this thread!

It is interesting to hear someone speak in defense of Greenspan. What you say makes perfectly good sense, and is typically American logic.

But it is the logic of putting off the bitter pill by dosing yourself with sugar, and hoping you will never suffer for it. Put off the day of reckoning as long as possible, and say what a wonderful job we've done of putting off the day of reckoning.

The nature of economies are expansion followed by consolidation and contraction. When you extend and extend an expansion period by artificial means such as handing out free money for people to spend to keep the economy afloat, you reward imprudent financial planning. It is a policy of spend, spend, spend. Reward the borrowing and punish the saving. Reward profligate financial behavior and penalize sound, reasonable behavior.

Volcker stamped out inflation, and imposed a harsh recession on America. It was the right thing to do. It rewarded the people who were careful, didn't overextend themselves, and stuck to sound business principles. The people who are too loose with their finances, and get overextended get whacked in that kind of scenario. It is Darwinian economics. The weak companies perish and the strong are rewarded by picking up the business that the bankrupt companies ar no longer there to service.

The recession of 81-82 was deep, sharp, and painful. And it laid the groundwork for nearly 20 years of prosperity that followed. That prosperity was real and brought about the long-dreamed about balanced budget that many had thought they would never see again in their lifetimes. When the budget is balanced, then there is plenty of captial for lending, investment, and growth, because the government isn't sucking up all the money. The availability of capital is real, and interest rates are reasonable, because people need to get a return on their capital.

Under the Greenspan regime since 2001, the availability of capital is contrived. Money is printed up and shelled out. It is a giveaway, which encourages speculation, and creates a false sense of prosperity.

It is as if you or I quit our jobs, applied for 2 dozen credit cards, all with $25,000 credit limits and then went to LOS and lived like billionaires for a year, charging everything. We would be well-f*cked when we reached our limits, and got back home to no job with no rent money. Our lives would be f*cked up for years trying to repair the damage.

Obviously govts. can get a way with a lot of things that we can't, but someone always gets screwed in the end. Because putting off a recession is not a good excuse for unsound fiscal policy that will create deficits and imbalances that will make problems for this economy for a decade to come.

Volker and Clinton(fiscal restraint/military budget cutting) put our house in order. Bush and Greenspan(loose money/military expansionism) have really messed it up. In the future the job is left to someone else to clean up the mess. In the end there are no free rides. Someone has to pay the piper.

[LivinLOS]

I am in 100% agreement with the above.. Sound fiscal policy is exactly that and holds for the long run not the brief euphoria to be followed by the painful withdrawal..

Yes the US has had some sustained growth but at what cost, negative saving rates, massive personal and government debt, huge trade imbalances.. The free money put into the system has flowed out of the US into overseas hands... In essence they have given the keys to the treasury over to these holders of thier debts at a very critical time in history, I personally think that they have incurred a huge security risk as a nation by allowing themselves to be in such a position.

[swiftdave]

Originally Posted by JayBee

It is interesting to hear someone speak in defense of Greenspan. What you say makes perfectly good sense, and is typically American logic.

But it is the logic of putting off the bitter pill by dosing yourself with sugar, and hoping you will never suffer for it. Put off the day of reckoning as long as possible, and say what a wonderful job we've done of putting off the day of reckoning.

The nature of economies are expansion followed by consolidation and contraction. When you extend and extend an expansion period by artificial means such as handing out free money for people to spend to keep the economy afloat, you reward imprudent financial planning. It is a policy of spend, spend, spend. Reward the borrowing and punish the saving. Reward profligate financial behavior and penalize sound, reasonable behavior.

Volcker stamped out inflation, and imposed a harsh recession on America. It was the right thing to do. It rewarded the people who were careful, didn't overextend themselves, and stuck to sound business principles. The people who are too loose with their finances, and get overextended get whacked in that kind of scenario. It is Darwinian economics. The weak companies perish and the strong are rewarded by picking up the business that the bankrupt companies ar no longer there to service.

The recession of 81-82 was deep, sharp, and painful. And it laid the groundwork for nearly 20 years of prosperity that followed. That prosperity was real and brought about the long-dreamed about balanced budget that many had thought they would never see again in their lifetimes. When the budget is balanced, then there is plenty of captial for lending, investment, and growth, because the government isn't sucking up all the money. The availability of capital is real, and interest rates are reasonable, because people need to get a return on their capital.

Under the Greenspan regime since 2001, the availability of capital is contrived. Money is printed up and shelled out. It is a giveaway, which encourages speculation, and creates a false sense of prosperity.

It is as if you or I quit our jobs, applied for 2 dozen credit cards, all with $25,000 credit limits and then went to LOS and lived like billionaires for a year, charging everything. We would be well-f*cked when we reached our limits, and got back home to no job with no rent money. Our lives would be f*cked up for years trying to repair the damage.

Obviously govts. can get a way with a lot of things that we can't, but someone always gets screwed in the end. Because putting off a recession is not a good excuse for unsound fiscal policy that will create deficits and imbalances that will make problems for this economy for a decade to come.

Volker and Clinton(fiscal restraint/military budget cutting) put our house in order. Bush and Greenspan(loose money/military expansionism) have really messed it up. In the future the job is left to someone else to clean up the mess. In the end there are no free rides. Someone has to pay the piper.

I agree with all but your conclusion. Clinton was not resposible for the house being in order. That stage was set by Reagan and GB the elder. Bush took the hit come election time for raising taxes and Clinton was able to skate though a period of growth set up by the pprevious administrations. It also didn't hurt that there was a period of crazyness brought in by the dot com gold rush where companies were trading at many times over earnings. GW has been able to prolong the period of prosperity with deficit spending and Greenspan's monetary policy. Politicians really only have to look in four years bursts, let the next guy take the hit. Forward thinking is discouraged in Washington.

[K2]

Enough said .....