Search results

Think through the logic: Why would anyone (including central banks) want to augment their holdings of the currency of a country which is racking up persistent current account deficits? Ordinarily people fly from such a currency, thus causing it to devalue, and (hopefully) thus correcting the...

You don't know what you're saying. I refer you to a recent article in BusinessWeek: "Quantitative easing" refers to the Fed printing money, which it then uses to buy Treasuries with. More here: I reiterate: try to understand what "quantitative easing" is, and why it's there. Ever...

You're answering your own question. We're talking about the dollar price of globally traded agricultural commodities like rice, wheat, and corn. Not the euro price, or the price in grams/ounces of gold. Inundating world markets with dollars (i.e., speculators using easy-to-come-by printing press...

You just don't geddit. No-one was complaining about their exchange rate when multinationals hadn't set up shop there. When multinationals set up shop to take advantage of low wages (which indirectly means a favorable exchange rate) and were instrumental in creating the trade imbalance, then the...

Lester Thurow anticipated this over fifteen years ago, if you look at his book, The Future of Capitalism. Also, at the risk of going off-topic, you might want to take the employment figures Reich quotes with a pinch of salt. Here is a piece by Roberts:

Bingo. Something like this is what I was looking for:

This is old (2000) but I am looking for something more recent:

I don't know where I read it, which is why I placed a question mark after the figure. Until I find the source, you will have to make do with a piece by Paul Craig Roberts:

Then why does the US not do what people like Pat Buchanan, Michael Hudson, and Paul Craig Roberts advocate: erect a tariff barrier? This free trade process is eviscerating US industry. It's no good if a Chinese-made DVD player can be had for $39.99 if I don't have a job to begin with. Or if I do...

I can't find anything to disagree with in your post. World population is rising. There has been bad weather. But what you're ignoring is the impact of quantitative easing, which makes it easier (and cheap) for the big players to speculate in various markets. That is the key point. We can quibble...

Ah, back to ad hominems. Congratulations. The last refuge of the retarded.

*Snort of derision* -- if you're using official US govt. stats, I don't see the point of this discussion. A recent piece in the NYT: I find this prognosis more credible: And this piece in MSNBC:

That's correct. The large financial firms have a lock on the political process. It's no longer the case that "what's good for General Motors is good for the United States." Corporate profits are in the stratosphere -- but if you look at real unemployment numbers (not the fabricated ones...

I don't know who's saying this but it isn't true. The US wants to keep running deficits and having foreigners accept paper "assets" for real goods. QE is not about balancing trade. The purported motive has been to "stimulate" the economy, which has not been happening. The real motive is probably...

"Hope" and "change." With that other bum boy, John Kerry, it was "We can do better." The two parties don't offer differing ideologies: it's the same ideology with some cosmetic differences in implementation. The two-party system is in effect a one-party system.

Squat, if you're a US citizen. I assume you've used quotation marks because you're thinking of Raymond Davis in Pakistan. The argument of "going to hell in a hand basket" can also be used for the US. All that glitters is not gold: the US is in parlous state.

He did tell some half-lies but most of the time his rhetoric was couched in vague and anodyne generalities (which is par for the course for US politicians). When pressed for concrete responses he would reluctantly state a Bush-like position. I think the issue is more a bunch of brain-dead...

Might be worth checking into. Look at this, for example: Postscript: I just found this, so I think you should be fine:

I don't think the US authorities will let him keep his US citizenship (it would be different were he an Argentinian and applying for US citizenship, in which case I think he could hold both).

Though to be fair I should say that many (US) Americans have the same attitude to migrant foreigners criticising the USA ("If you don't like it here, why do you stay here?").