I am not trying to pull a Clinton here ("what is the definition of 'is'? "), but what is your definition of a moving economy? Straight up - my definition would mean that the private economy is growing at least as fast as or faster than private debt is growing. By my definition the private economy is close to break even right now (in spite of the "stimulus packages"). As for the "public economy" - the govt should be kept as small as possible, because it can only have a negative effect on the real wealth of the citizenry. As for the govt situation - I do not care whether it was Bush or Obama - they are growing the "public economy" - something that can only end up VERY badly. I would, to some extent, agree with Alexander Tytler's cycle of nations...and dependency is the stage we are presently in...next stop is bondage (and not in the kinky way ;-) ). ANYTHING that will stop the growth of the public economy is better than saying that "we are growing the private economy at the expense of growing the public economy" (so called "stimulus" packages). In short - Keynes has proven time and time again that he was wrong! -gastropod
This is the type of thing that makes you lose all credibility, which is a problem when you're the Treasury Secretary. You can debate whether debasing the currency is good, necessary, etc in this situation, but if that is the strategy you're going to chose, at least don't spew garbage like this.
Drain the liquidity. Stop the purchases by the Fed. Raise rates to lows, but normal lows (1.5% ish). Blast fiscal responsibility into Congress and the Senate. Reject further stimulus measures. Right taxation laws that make sense and are pro-business, pro-jobs. In fact, put in a flat tax. Of course, all of this is political suicide as we'd have to take our lumps finally, but we'll have to take them sooner or later. At least THIS way we come out of it with a stronger nation. Lil' Timmy and Banana Ben are fucking criminals.
Banana Ben,,,, that's quality. You are right. I think that the new president has been under a lot pressure to turn things around quickly which has added to this liquidity driven rally. You pull the plug on the presses and the market tanks. Sadly the response to this crisis has been very similar to the Japanese response in the early 90's, which means that the recovery will be the same (it won't recover). At some point people will have to suffer pain from this debacle.
Well the USA would certainly "take its lumps" under this scenario. Credit markets would come to a stand still, even more so than now, effectively halting what little growth the economy may see in the coming years.
The way I see it, the alternative to a low USD is to raise rates and reign in the deficit through increased taxes. Both of these two measures will fuck the USA economy, more so than it is now. The question is, is there a way to stop the bleeding in the USD without resorting to these measures? I don't see a way. Which is why a low USD (to a certain point), could be good for the USA.
Marc Faber & Jim Rogers on the art of inflation in a 2003 article. http://www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/2003/RT090603.html