King Dollar ...

ViRedd

New Member
The Restoration of King Dollar
It’s time to add some meat and muscle to the greenback.

By Larry Kudlow


Sometime in the latter half of the 1990s I coined the phrase “King Dollar.” This was back in the post-Soviet collapse period when the U.S. greenback ruled the world currency roost. As the Berlin Wall came down, taking totalitarian socialism with it, global investors and businesses sought the U.S. dollar as their currency of choice. They also chose the American model of free-market capitalism — including supply-side reductions in marginal tax rates — as their economic reform of choice.

The result was the greatest world economic boom in the history of history.

From Eastern Europe to India and China, and points in between, the world has experienced an unprecedented prosperity boom, a story best captured by the unbelievable rise in global stock markets. But along the way, as the world moved toward growth economics and away from central planning, King Dollar began to slide. Not because the U.S. was faltering (as the doom-and-gloom pessimists see it), but more because the rest of the world has been doing better. In other words, the dollar hasn’t slumped because it is necessarily weak, but because the new euro and new market economies are so strong.

However, there comes a point in this transition when the U.S. must begin to stabilize the dollar. I believe we are at that point now. It is time to think about reviving King Dollar. If we don’t, there may well be negative consequences for U.S. inflation, the stock market, and economic growth. I’m not worried about too much foreign investment, but I am concerned about too little foreign investment. I do not want to see a collapse of the worldwide demand for dollars.

Although I have never been an advocate of currency intervention by governments, there are moments in market history when unexpected interventions have worked. Clinton Treasury man Robert Rubin, a canny trader from his Wall Street days at Goldman Sachs, undertook a few interventions to buy and support the dollar in the mid 1990s. He sent a signal to currency traders, and it worked. During those years, the Greenspan Fed generally maintained firm control over the creation of new dollars. So, with a restrained money supply, the Treasury dollar-buying actions proved very effective.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is today standing at a similar crossroads. Wouldn’t this be a good time for Mr. Paulson to signal that enough is enough, and call a halt to the dollar’s decline?

Oil prices are rising. Gold prices are rising. And currency traders around the world have set up huge short-selling positions in the greenback. But a few strong words from Mr. Paulson, coupled with a few well-timed rounds of dollar-buying, could turn the U.S. currency story around.

Every time an international terrorist event occurs, like the al-Qaeda assassination attempt on former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, the dollar falls. When the Turks threaten military action in Kurdistan, Iraq, with speculation that they might march toward the Kirkuk oilfields, the dollar falls. When comrade Vladimir Putin shows up in Iran, with mischief-making statements that support trade and nuclear partnerships with that terrorist government, the dollar falls. It seems as though any nasty international event leads to a dollar decline. This is not good. The dollar needs some propping up.

Ronald Reagan stated frequently that a great country should have a reliable currency. And it was the pro-growth tax cuts and counter-inflationary money of the Reagan era that ultimately reversed a 15-year dollar decline. In President Clinton’s second term, a similar policy was undertaken, and a dollar slide that began in the late 1980s under Papa Bush was reversed.

In recent news, Treasury man Paulson has in fact taken a strong-dollar step with his proposal to slash corporate tax rates. The former Goldman head honcho is working with House Ways & Means chairman Charlie Rangel to reduce the 35 percent corporate tax rate all the way down to 25 percent. This is a terrific idea. Studies have shown that 70 percent of the benefits of a corporate tax cut would go to the American workforce, boosting jobs and wages.

Right now, Wall Street is worried about the housing recession, a subprime credit hangover, and slowing domestic profits. But a big corporate tax cut would lift the animal spirits. In fact, cutting business taxes with the potential for better wage and investment returns is a much better economic stimulant than depreciating the currency. And business tax reform would add real meat and muscle to a steadier dollar.

King Dollar just might reign again.


— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.
 

surfpunk

Active Member
Just more tricle down bullshit and another excuse to give corporations more money, I guarantee you that the middle class and the poor workers will not see a dime of this...
 

shamegame

Well-Known Member
Our government is allowing the dollar to stay weak and get weaker so that when they push the Amero on us in couple of years, the citizens are begging to trade their worthless dollars in for them.:mrgreen: How else would you get a proud country to give up it's historical currency for some new worthless brass coins?
 

ViRedd

New Member
Just more tricle down bullshit and another excuse to give corporations more money, I guarantee you that the middle class and the poor workers will not see a dime of this...
So then, can we assume that "Trickle Up" would be more to your liking? Who would be the end reciepient of the spoils in a "Trickle Up" economy?

Vi
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
So then, can we assume that "Trickle Up" would be more to your liking? Who would be the end reciepient of the spoils in a "Trickle Up" economy?

Vi
ooo, is that some Judo? i think you just defeated his argument with his argument!

i do agree with the premise of the article. government is certainly suffocating our economy with taxes but we need to drop a couple very expensive, $0 return programs that we're paying for, my friend. :)






.
 

medicineman

New Member
Studies have shown that 70 percent of the benefits of a corporate tax cut would go to the American workforce, boosting jobs and wages.
And just who did these so called studies, the CEOs of the corporations. This is pure bullshit and you know it. Larry Kudlow is a very rich and successful stock trader and advisor. I have myself watched his rants on TV. Some of the article was making sense untill he decided to give the largest money makers a tax break, whoa big guy, that money has to come from somewhere, and guess where, you and I, the middle class will get stuck with the shortfall, and the rest will be passed on to our grandkids. Larry Kudlow be damned, he wont get hurt by that tax cut, you can bet your ass that he will make big bucks from it.
 

closet.cult

New Member
a tax cut to the poor and middle class is what is needed for the health and moral of the not rich in this country. and i don't mean the $300 bush gave to us.

why is the solution to every problem: "cut rich people's taxes"?

i realize corporations and the wealthy make up a large part of the bulk of the spending power in this nation but what about the unfair burden on the middle and lower class.

i don't claim to know alot about economics. but i know the elite rulling class don't give one goddamn about the citizens of this nation...or any other for that matter.
 

surfpunk

Active Member
a tax cut to the poor and middle class is what is needed for the health and moral of the not rich in this country. and i don't mean the $300 bush gave to us.

why is the solution to every problem: "cut rich people's taxes"?

i realize corporations and the wealthy make up a large part of the bulk of the spending power in this nation but what about the unfair burden on the middle and lower class.

i don't claim to know alot about economics. but i know the elite rulling class don't give one goddamn about the citizens of this nation...or any other for that matter.
coldnt pout it better my self, here is another idea ,double the pay for our millitary men and wemen, god knows they badly need it and thanks to the current administration they sacrifice more than anyone...all for a bellow poverty wages.The raise will not only help them but the money they will spent will help the whole economy...how is that for trickle up?
 

dankie

Well-Known Member
coldnt pout it better my self, here is another idea ,double the pay for our millitary men and wemen, god knows they badly need it and thanks to the current administration they sacrifice more than anyone...all for a bellow poverty wages.The raise will not only help them but the money they will spent will help the whole economy...how is that for trickle up?
Doubling the military men and womens pay would not really help the US economy since most of them are out of the country, and they would only be helping the economies of the nations they are stationed in. Not only that, in the military you have your basic pay rate and 37 modifiers that add to that rate. Most military men and women make above the poverty line when they are assigned to their first active duty post.

 

surfpunk

Active Member
Still the pay is not the greatest and most of the money will be spent in the us since the familyes of those who serve are here...It might be not the perfect solution ,but it beats another corporate tax cut, dont you think?
 

medicineman

New Member
corporate tax cuts and welfare are the job of the current government. When the government is ruled by corporations, that is the agenda, that and no-bid contracts.
 

Chrisuperfly

Well-Known Member
Doubling the military men and womens pay would not really help the US economy since most of them are out of the country, and they would only be helping the economies of the nations they are stationed in. Not only that, in the military you have your basic pay rate and 37 modifiers that add to that rate. Most military men and women make above the poverty line when they are assigned to their first active duty post.


Military pay goes up every year, for the most part. The basic pay is just that basic. I remember after BAH and BAQ were added in I think I brought home a little over $ 1200.00 a paycheck. That was while you are in garrison. There are a couple more adders when deployed ie hazard, seps, sea, etc.. You also have to remember that most of the places, California being the exception, where bases are, have a pretty low cost of living rate. BAH is determined by zip code so that can go up and down. Just using Jacksonville North Carolina as an example, the town died out once the war started up and goes through booms every year or so when soldiers come back and spend the cash they have been banking while overseas, I remember you could always tell who just came back or came back recently because they would have a new car in the driveway lol:blsmoke:
 

dankie

Well-Known Member
Still the pay is not the greatest and most of the money will be spent in the us since the familyes of those who serve are here...It might be not the perfect solution ,but it beats another corporate tax cut, dont you think?
It is not the greatest, but when you think the average enlisted man only has a high school education, the only other jobs they are qualified for don't pay much more. Also remember, a larger percentage of jobs in the military are now in the W scale of pay. These are still non degreed individuals doing a tech job in the service.

I agree that much of that money would come home to families for deployed military, but the largest part of our military is garrisoned around the world and generally have their families with them.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Eighteen countries have replaced their income tax with a consumption tax. They have also reduced the tax rates on their corporations. The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate on the planet.

Would one of you naysayers tell us why raising taxes is a good thing? What does raising taxes do for the economy? How do poor people benefit from tax increases on corporations and the "rich?" Please ... explain all of this, if you can.

Vi
 

Wavels

Well-Known Member
Raising taxes is almost always a "bad thing"....
The Supply-Side Solution
[FONT=Garamond, Times]If tax-cut strategies don't work, why are they so popular abroad?[/FONT]

BY STEPHEN MOORE
Friday, November 9, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

I recently spoke with Mart Laar, the former prime minister of Estonia and the godfather of that nation's flat tax. The major opposition to his tax reform, he explained, was not the citizenry; rather it came from the economists and the other Wise Men of government.
"I was told, 'We cannot do a flat tax. It is untested. It will not work. It will cause budget deficits," Mr. Laar recalls. However, he believed it would work because of what he'd read about it in Milton Friedman's classic, "Free to Choose." And so, in 1994, Mr. Laar ignored the economic pundits and snapped into place a 23% flat tax. Estonia has since experienced one of the most rapid growth spurts of any nation in the world.
There's a lesson here for our country: Revolutionary ideas in economics, especially if they don't leverage the power of the state, are often resisted by the intellectual elite. Ronald Reagan discovered this in 1980 when he was ridiculed by the establishment for proposing cuts in marginal tax rates as a cure for the high inflation and economic malaise of the 1970s.
Gardner Ackley, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, famously told Congress that it would be "a miracle" if the tax cuts worked to reduce inflation and increased growth. But reduced inflation (with an assist from Fed Chairman Paul Volcker) and increased growth is what happened in the 1980s.
Here we are 27 years later--with 40 million more jobs and a nearly $50 trillion higher net worth--yet the left intelligentsia is still obsessed with discrediting supply-side economics. In recent weeks, the New York Times, the New Yorker, the New Republic and many other liberal publications have devoted great space and attention to attacking the entire theory that lower tax rates can increase incentives for investment, saving and work.
The original champions of these ideas, men such as Arthur Laffer and George Gilder, are not just misguided, they are, according to the New Republic, "deranged," "crackpots," and even "possibly insane." James Surowiecki complains in the New Yorker that supply-side tax prescriptions for the economy are the equivalent of "saying that the best way to treat sick people is to bleed them to let out the evil spirits."


The quality of this discourse rarely rises above the level of trash talk. Nevertheless, some arguments are repeated with such regularity that they need to be addressed. One is that supply-siders dishonestly claim that tax rate cuts increase tax revenues. Now, we can argue forever whether tax revenues would have been higher or lower without the Bush 2003 tax cuts. But one stubborn fact remains: Tax receipts are up, not down, by $745 billion in four years since the 2003 tax cuts.

It's one thing for the supply-side critics to have predicted four years ago that the Bush tax cuts would increase the budget deficit. But Mr. Surowiecki tells us, today, that "myriad studies" find that the Bush tax cuts "led to bigger budget deficits."
Bigger deficits? After the second Bush tax cut of 2003, the budget deficit tumbled to $163 billion in FY 2007 from $401 billion in FY 2003.
Supply-side economics is also denounced as a flim-flam whose sole purpose is to give jumbo-sized tax handouts to corporations and high-income earners. Since so many upper-income and wealthy Americans are Democrats, however, it's not clear why Republicans would be so preoccupied with helping them.
In any case, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% and 5% income earners has consistently risen from 1980 through 2007, even as tax rates declined. Today the highest income tax rate is half what it was in the 1970s. Yet the share of taxes paid by the top 1% of income earners is twice (39%) today what it was then (19%).
Regardless of what one believes about the distributional effects of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, there's no expunging the reality that the economic growth rate surged after each of these changes--just as they did in the 1960s after President Kennedy's tax rate cuts. Robert Rubin and others reply that the economy boomed in the 1990s too, after Bill Clinton raised taxes. But supply-siders never argued that only tax cuts matter. Trade matters. Sound money matters. Regulations matter. In the 1990s, monetary, trade and spending policies were all leaning in a pro-growth direction, possibly offsetting the negative impact of the Clinton tax rate hikes.
What the critics have no plausible answer for is this: If the supply-side tax rate reduction model is truly so abhorrent, why are so many nations around the world latching on to it? What explains the Irish Miracle? Why are Germany, France and the U.K. slashing their corporate tax rates? Why are there 18 countries with flat taxes? Are their leaders deranged, or been bamboozled by crackpots? Perhaps a better explanation is that they know intuitively what a new National Bureau of Economic Research study has found: Nations with low tax rates on business have statistically significant higher rates of new business formation, investment and income.
History is clearly not on the side of the antisupply-side attack dogs, and they're losing the policy debate every day in political capitals around the world. Poland just announced it wants to implement a 15% flat tax by 2009. But the American left's obsession with the notion that tax rates don't matter tells us something important about the future. They are preparing the ground for massive tax increases if and when they capture control of the presidency.
I asked Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, a leading economic policy maker in the GOP, how many of the Democrats he works with buy into these screeds against supply-side economics. "Are you, kidding?" he replied. "Every one of the Democrats who sits in the front row of the Ways and Means Committee does. They've already got Charlie Rangel's tax increase baked into the cake." Estonia, anyone:mrgreen:
OpinionJournal - Extra
 

tahoe58

Well-Known Member
I dunnno...I'm not an economist but it is my view that this whole discussion is off base. The original paper at the beginning of the thread started off talking about the troubled economy and the devalued dollar. A statement is made that the currency in itself nor the economy are not weak, but only in relation to the strength of the other economies globally. The paper further states that intervention has worked in the past in a money constrained environment.

The US economy and its currency are responding directly to the circumstances created by (1) the debasing of the dollar by Nixon in 1971, (2) to the unfettered action by the central bank to print dollars upon dollar upon dollars - they stopped measuring real money supply years ago - in the last two weeks alone more than $20B has been upumped into the markets to stabilize them (3) unrealistically low interest rates when "real" inflation has been running at >10% for years (4) predatory lending practices (5) greedy merchant banks packaging up debt into collatoralized debt obligations and Speciality Investment Vehicles that have been leveraged to the tune of 100:1 and the result is what some people have estimated as approximately $600T (yes that is trillion) in debt that has no where to go. There simply is not that much money in the world to accomodate the debt. The world has gone through a spending spree in the last ten years like no other, and it has finally caught up to us. The world is broke, dead broke, and there is going to be a huge correction in the world order of financial powers. Japan is already buying their oil in Euros. Saudi Arabia is already talking the same. The reality is oil is not really going up....the Canadian Dollar or Euro or Yen or Australian Dollar or the Swedish Kroner...gold etc. they are all going up because what used to be the world currency the greenback has been diluted to the point of having no value. Taxes, currency intervention anything that has worked before is not going to work. This is a correction and change in the world financial order that must occur and will occur regardless of what government, corporations or anyone does to stop it.
 

tahoe58

Well-Known Member
This is not my writing...but someone that has more insight than I do and I thought it might be valuable to share:

"I don't think the worst is over. We are coming off the greatest lending bubble .…
not housing bubble! ... in U.S. history. We will feel its impact for a very long time."


Robert Arnott, CEO Research Affiliates.

To get some idea of the extent of the "lending bubble" that has developed over recent decades let's compare it to two previous notable credit expansions. In the 1890's the ratio of credit growth to Gross Domestic Product jumped from 25% to almost 75% of GDP. While in the Roaring Twenties the best the credit cycle could manage was to approach 50% of GDP.
These figures are totally overshadowed by the present credit expansion which has occurred in the world's leading fifteen industrialized countries. Credit has leapt from 25% of GDP in the mid-1960's, to around 60% of GDP in the mid-1970's, to a staggering 135% of GDP in 2007 (Australia has the dubious distinction of being top of the group at more than 150% of GDP).
A credit expansion of this length and magnitude is unprecedented. Moreover, of greater concern this time around is the disturbing fact that unlike in the past (where business borrowing accounted for the lion's share of the credit growth), 85% of the rise in credit ratio to GDP over the past fifteen years has been in household credit accounts.
What is different this time is that the financial deregulation which began in the 1980's has increased the ability to borrow and coaxed households away from a situation of being very lowly geared and owning much of their assets outright, to the current situation where many are cash poor and reliant on inflated property and equity prices and low interest rates to carry the extra debt. Such a household balance sheet is a gamble and a disaster waiting to happen should the world economy suddenly turn down into recession and financial shocks cause asset prices to fall or interest rates to rise.
And we all know that the two previous credit expansions ended very badly indeed. They ended in the devastating global depressions of the 1890s and 1930s that saw property and equity prices decimated and unemployment soar to thirty per cent in some regions.
The view of economic heavy weight Stephen Roach (Chairman Morgan Stanley Asia) is that "After nearly five fat years, the global economy is headed for trouble….The subprime fiasco is the tip of a much larger iceberg … an asset-dependent American consumer who has gone on the biggest spending binge in the modern history of the global economy….post-bubble adjustments seem likely to hit US consumption, which at 72% of GDP, is more than five times the share the capital spending sector was seven years ago. …A capitulation of the American consumer spells considerable difficulty for the global economy…In an increasingly globalized world…Asia will be hit hard… As always, the cycle of risk and greed went to excess."
 
Top