1) US debt ~ $12 trillion. Would you rather pay that loan back with gold or dirt? 2) What you call goofyspeak, I call economic theory. 3) We are talking about whether or not a lower value USD is good or bad, not the root causes behind the valuation. 4) They are. That is not the real question. The real question is why would anyone want to buy anything from the USA when they can buy a similar product elsewhere for a fraction of the cost? Hence the need for a devalued USD. Just because it will be more expensive for you to take your Caribbean vacation this year, does not mean a lower USD is a bad thing.
Ugh...you are so ignorant it is astounding. You cut and paste the definitions of appreciate and depreciate and think you can argue economics? You are embarrasing yourself. Instead of name calling perhaps you should educate yourself before trying your hand at a debate. Your mom should have told you to get an education instead (if you are old enough for college). Essentially your argument for why you want a higher value USD is "so I can buy more stuff!" You are not even close to understanding the ramifications throughout the economy of fluctuating currency values so I suggest you stop now.
1) a)Funny you statist numb nuts, worship govt so much that nothing else comes to your mind than US govt when you write "USA". Very telling. b)Odd you mention actually paying "tangible repayment" on your fiat currency. Here's a hint buddy, it's been awhile since that was done. c) I think myself and others might just get a little PO if the gubbermint devalues our dollars to the that of dirt or less just for govt convenience. Besides with all the automatic COLA's out there you would have to do it without causing inflation. Not bloody likely with fiat currency. d) Evidently you favor the paying back with dirt method since you champion a weaker dollar. Well I certainly hope if that's the plan the gubbermint has changed it's profligate spending ways of obama and has borrowed all the money it will ever need again. To essentially default on the US govt debt by devaluation will cause the cost of capital to skyrocket if available at all. Bannana republics don't get good loan terms, ask latin america how well that one works out. 2) "Economic goofyspeak boy" you can call it anything you want to but that won't change it into anything other than "magical thinking". 3) You simply are effectively rendered a moron " by being well educated in economic goofyspeak" if you are so daft as to miss that a more valuable dollar is better for US private citizens than a weak dollar. 4) Oh so in your myopic feeble mind it's better to destroy wealth of all dollar holders for a temporary (and relatively lower grossing) export advantage. Sweet jesus that's like losing money on every sale but making up for it in volume. or Giving money to your customers just in hopes they will buy your crap. 5) More "moronic economic goofyspeak". Holy crap You think a dollar devaluation is the exact same thing as a stock split. Where the the number of shares (dollars) increases proportional to the split so as to retain the same previous equity (purchasing power).
1) Sorry "goofyspeak boy" I included definions so you would not get lost, because you obviously are under the impression that your "magical economic toothfairy theories" somehow change the meanings of words and reality to your whims. 2) Holy crap! You can't even grasp that I have a preference for my net worth to be larger in purchasing power vs smaller? If the logic of more being better than less , in this case escapes you. Then you have some serious mental defects to work on. Might want to check with your dept of health to see if they have any special needs programs available to help you. 3) As long as overly educated idiots try to prove their superiority through backward-ass logic and assertions, clear thinking folks will laugh at their expense.
Never say never, eh? http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/br...an-dies-in-US-52083467.html?viewAllComments=y
" the U.S. and Japan shared top billing as the least taxed developed countries." hmmmm, how much of a coincidence is it that the number one and the number two economies in the world are the lowest taxed based on these numbers? (not that I buy into these numbers to begin with ) Anyway the number is BS in terms of meaning. A better number would be to use the total (personal and business ) % in relation to total income. any other measure is just statistical masturbation to use some "logic" to defend an ideological opinion on either side of the isle.
Not for long I'm afraid :S Return to the 1940s and 50s where the income tax was double or triple what it is now anyone? I nearly fell out of my desk when I saw this chart back in Econ when I was in high school I was just bored and flipping thru the book. we never covered it..... Of course the lower income people's taxes won't get this high This is just a chart for the top 1% It maxed out at 94% and that doesnt even include whatever state tax they had to pay which was probably in the 2% range
A lot of liberals want to raise the taxes on the extremely rich. One kos columnist proposed taxing the highest 1% at 10% of their entire wealth per year until the unemployment rate goes back below 5%, saying "they're rich enough that they won't miss it". That seems to be the common thread, that people only need around $100K/year to live and that everything above that should be redistributed to those less fortunate.
Now you're just trolling. The dollar gets devalued year over year due to inflation, and day by day due to the Fed's current (and long standing) policy. Unless you're going on a European vacation or are a big importer of foreign-made goods, the plummeting dollar is good for you. If you sell products overseas, it means more dollars for you. If you own commercial property in the US, it means more foreigners will buy it or rent it or vacation in it. If you're a typical citizen, it means your stock market investments automatically go up. It's true that imports are more expensive, but as long they're cheap enough (and for even companies dependent on imports such as Wal-Mart, they are), that's fine.