[Beren]

You entirely brush over it each time you say something to the effect of: "I don't believe a weak dollar is a policy direction".

What each time? I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Seriously.

[Crantag]

I don't suggest you're on a conspiracy tick @Crantag, but what you suggest is a conspiracy. In my opinion they just don't care if the dollar gets weaker, as it may even help the economy. However, I'd consider that a kind of high stakes gambling myself.

So it's been about the conspiracy thing all along? Sorry, I should have used another expression then. All I meant to say is that the GOP is all about tax cuts rather than a weak dollar or anything like that.

There you go, @Beren.

Because you know best right? No need to consider any evidentiary material on the current developments?

[Beren]

Oh, you mean this thread.

[Hindsite]

What each time? I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Seriously.

I think he is talking about something like the Chinese economic policy where they keep their currency values down to be able to sell more of their goods to the U.S.A. and creating a trade imbalance in their favor.

[Crantag]

I think he is talking about something like the Chinese economic policy where they keep their currency values down to be able to sell more of their goods to the U.S.A. and creating a trade imbalance in their favor.

Actually I'm happy to discuss that too.

An interesting thing happened the other day, as the dollar tended down and the Chinese Yuan tended up. Commentators were expecting the Yuan would keep rising, but somehow it didn't! Well, the commentators, they just chalked it down to the fact that the Chinese Yuan is, in fact, pegged to a basket of currencies; and so it's probably as simple as the other currencies exerted a downward pressure.

Yeah, sure.

By the way, what are the chief US export goods that you think are going to benefit from a cheaper dollar?

Also, what does China have in spades, which the US has, well, less in spades?

[Beren]

Well @Crantag, I don't care much about what they say. They have to say it's an economic policy, of course, like they invented Reaganomics. And everybody discussed whether it trickles down indeed!

[Crantag]

Well @Crantag, I don't care much about what they say. They have to say it's an economic policy, of course, like they invented Reaganomics. And everybody discussed whether it trickles down indeed!

Fair enough.

I somewhat agree with the chicken and egg problem here. But also, the discussion is really just about potentialities, and sometimes reality intervenes in economic events. So we don't know what will happen as time goes on, but I see a dangerous trajectory. I think you basically said the same, with the gambling comment.

In any case, your interpretation could be a correct one, and that is not a possibility which I have dismissed.

Edit: @Beren , I've just noticed that this is essentially just what I said in my first reply to you

I do think they certainly know what they are doing. Large deficits are in line with a weak dollar. That said, it may be more than a cynical whim to suggest that the eventuality is driving the supposed policy, rather than the other way around. But, us rubes aren't privy to any of this sort of information.

That's what you called a 'conspiracy theory', but what I was really getting at was basically exactly what you've said here. They are declaring a weak dollar because it's on the horizon; so therefore, they are trying to get a leg up with the announcement.

The critical take away for me though is that this circumstance--Trump owning a weak dollar--has predictive power over the future of the dollar. Now, the writing is most certainly already on the wall. Pronouncements are still taken as significant.

In and of itself the comments are really a non-topic. The writing is, after all, on the wall. The venue I suppose lent the air of acquiescence to a new norm.

Even this isn't an issue.

For me, it boils down to, if you were an odds maker, and you figured there was .95 probability of things tending one way, the probability was probably moved upward a small notch. It is what it is, high finance isn't the concern of peasants like us. But markets respond to these sorts of information. Well and good, once again. At the end of the day, seeking to understand can have defensive utility. Or, can just be barroom babble. Whichever mine may be I cannot say.

[Finfinder]

Yes, we are quite aware that you would refuse to admit being wrong at pain of death.

LOL liberals claiming they are now for "fiscal responsibility".

Do you sell swampland as well ?

[Crantag]

LOL liberals claiming they are now for "fiscal responsibility".

Do you sell swampland as well ?

The Democrats were opposed to Bush's tax cuts, which were announced on the back of his war declarations, and this was due to the fiscal consequences.

That is an indication of consistency, which is the opposite to what the Republicans are known for.

(p.s. DemsnRepubsBothSuck.)

[blackjack21]

I have heard talk about America's economic collapse since the days I was masturbating thinking about Jane Fonda.

Was that anytime recently, or back when she was posing with North Vietnamese anti-aircraft guns?

Trump not only said he would eliminate the deficit. He said he would eliminate all US debt within 8 years ($19 trillion).

Wow! That's a doozy if he really said he'd raise $19T in budget surpluses over 8 years.

I can’t say there was ever a time in my life that this ever seemed like a real Republican issue. If it ever was, they’d have somehow made revenue increases a priority.

It was under Gingrich, but that was in the 1990s. Hastert and Boehner were never serious about this. George W. Bush wasn't either. Because you can always spend more than you take in, revenue is never the issue. It's always spending that is the issue.

Low taxes is really the only thing I’ve really thought modern Republicans are true-believers of...

It's the only thing that really matters, because the government doesn't do that much for the bulk of people paying the taxes.

Then they get in and borrow money to spend like drunken sailors.

They've been in power since 2010, and they have been running on continuing resolutions ever since. This is just another continuing resolution. So it is effectively Barack Obama's budget.

In recent memory it's been the Democratic presidency that have ever gotten the government into the black.

It depends upon what you mean by recent. Obama ran the largest deficits in American history and brought debt-to-gdp up to near WWII levels.

It's like how Republicans talk about what great warriors they are and haven't won a useful war since the 19th century when it was a party that had goals that Karl Marx considered great.

You're forgetting the Cold War and the Gulf War.

The problem America has is the need for cash is fairly urgent.

There is never a need for cash. They just print it whenever they want it.

The infrastructure wants to be overhauled, and you should get on with it while money is still cheap.

Infrastructure is inanimate and has no will of its own. We should have done this when Obama's "shovel-ready jobs" were a factor.

What you don't need is tax cuts. You need tax increases, esp on the uber wealthy.

We had the highest corporate tax rate among major industrialized powers. Getting our corporate tax rate into line with the rest of the world was long overdue. We are actually increasing taxes on the wealthy. SALT was a major deduction for the super rich. For example, people with $5M mortgages could write off all the interest on their loan. Now they can only write off the interest on $750k of the gross loan amount; and, they can only write off $10k per year in property and income taxes. That's why the ultra rich hate the new tax law.

And how about raising wages.

Wages are going up, because of Trump's tax reform.

By the way, what are the chief US export goods that you think are going to benefit from a cheaper dollar?

Over time? Natural gas and refined crude products. Obviously agricultural exports. Financial services. Cloud computing. Since Trump ended the war on coal, new steel production too.

[Crantag]

Over time? Natural gas and refined crude products. Obviously agricultural exports. Financial services. Cloud computing. Since Trump ended the war on coal, new steel production too.

The effect of a weakening currency is not likely to have a huge impact on energy exports. Energy has a persistent demand, and the demand for energy is not overly impacted by price fluctuations.

The only other things you mentioned that would have directly to do with the effect exerted on prices by a weakening currency is steel. It seems to me unlikely the US will attain a significant international competitive advantage on steel production by way of a weakening currency.

It is also unlikely, I think, that the US will develop an international competitive advantage in coal production. What's more, Australia has been suffering a lot of economic disruption in recent years because of their excessive reliance on coal exports as a proportion of their economy.

A weakening currency mostly benefits producers of manufactured goods. In particular, it benefits producers in highly competitive industries, where prices are actually effected by the conditions of production.

[Infidelis]

It was under Gingrich, but that was in the 1990s. Hastert and Boehner were never serious about this. George W. Bush wasn't either. Because you can always spend more than you take in, revenue is never the issue. It's always spending that is the issue.

Revenue never being the issue is the issue I brought up...

It's like a household that for whatever reason, is in financial trouble; sometimes dad has to get a second job to get shit handled.

[Torus34]

In response to the topic: there is a difference, not insignificant, between actual goals and 'talking points' designed to mollify a voter base.

They can be easily distinguished when the opportunity to actually take action directed at achieving the goal arises.

"There are some people who can be fooled all of the time. These, when kept emotionally involved, form a sturdy base upon which to build a political career." A Beginner's Guide To Government, Aloysius Goldpen.

[Rancid]

Since when has that been a republican goal? Last I remember, the last time the budget was balanced was during the Clinton years.

[Beren]

There's never been a longtime Republican goal of eliminating the deficit, but there's been a longtime Republican lie. I wonder if that lie remains and dipshits keep believing it.