Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: chart of the week - US Dollar Index

  1. #51
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: chart of the week - US Dollar Index


  2. #52
    Banned
    Joined
    Sep 2008
    Location
    With the luggage NJ
    Posts
    2,995
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 115 Times in 98 Posts

    Default Re: chart of the week - US Dollar Index

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    The top 5% have 58.9% of the wealth, the top 10% have 72.3% of the wealth and the top 60% have 99.8% of the wealth. Do you really think there will be anything left of American if the right wing conspiracy gets their way?

  3. #53
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: chart of the week - US Dollar Index

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    I have degrees in Applied Mathematics and Economics from a top school. How about you?
    President Obama's economic advisers have advanced degrees in fields such as Economics and Finance, and in addition have worked in their fields for many years. How are you more qualified than they in determining what the best economic policies are to fight the recession?

    I have a Business Degree from a top school.

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    This mess was dug by both parties. The Republicans' responsibility lies in the fact that they abandoned conservative principles. The Democrats have controlled Congress since '06 and for the majority of the last 50 years.
    The mess was dug primarily by the Republican Party, although a number of Democrats went along with them. The Republicans controlled the White House for 20 of the past 28 years. They controlled Congress for 14 of the last 16 years before the crisis occurred.

    The main problem was the Republicans followed conservative principles. They passed massive tax cuts geared primarily towards the wealthiest Americans, resulting in deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars and a national debt of $11 trillion. The Republicans were the ones that pushed much of the financial deregulation through that caused the crisis.

    Please tell me which conservative principles the Republicans abandoned. If you're going to repeat the standard conservative line, that they didn't cut spending enough, please tell me where you would have cut three to four hundred billion dollars from the budget. President Reagan slashed spending on programs for the poor to the bare minimum. Would you have made dramatic cuts in defense spending at the height of the Cold War? Would you have reduced spending on homeland security after the worst attack on American soil in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    This administration is using a "hair of the dog that bit you" approach to the financial mess. When you dig yourself into a hole, you don't get out by continuing to dig. The defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
    The administration has been doing what has been shown to work in the past. It was government spending which stimulated the economy when we were in a major Depression, especially after we started preparing for war. In China, a massive government stimulus program brought their economic growth back to 8% a year, like it was before the crisis occurred.

    Conservatives are the ones who want to the same thing over and over again and expect different results. They're making their same calls for more tax cuts and deregulation that have failed so badly in the past.


    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    And creating the nanny state has done wonders for poor people in general and the African-American community specifically.
    It has. The percentage of Americans living below the poverty level has decreased significantly since the 1950's. The number of Americans going without enough to eat has also decreased significantly since the 1950's.

    Quote Originally Posted by bem401 View Post
    So true, and now that they are waking up and starting to see what Obama is doing and proposing to do, they are coming to their senses and opposing him and his policies in ever-increasing numbers.
    Recent polls show his approval rating has gone up approximately 5% over the past month.

  4. #54
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: chart of the week - US Dollar Index

    Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner with a Ph.D and he's as intellectually dishonest and hypocritical as they come.

    I've lost count on how many times I have agreed with you about Republican responsibility for this mess. A LOT of the ill advised deregulation was pushed by BOTH Republicans and Democrats. But let's recall that Chris Dodd, Barney Fwank, Maxine Waters, Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, Bob Rubin etc. etc. are all Democrats. The Dems didn't listen to their Byron Dorgans and Kent Conrads and the Republicans didn't listen to their Ron Pauls.

    I have repeatedly demonstrated that tax cuts had nothing to do with creating this mess. It was unregulated speculation, naked short selling, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and inadequate regulation of mortgage lending , CDO's, CDS's and investment banking as a whole.

    Social spending on the poor went UP under Reagan. The spending problem really got going under Bush "43" with his NCLB, Medicare Drug benefit and his failure to restrain Tom De Lay and his fellow Congressional spendthrifts. Karl Rove pushed the idea that the Federal budget should be an adjunct campaign coffer to help the Republicans "buy" continual reelection. One reason the country and the Republicans are in the mess they are, is because they did not listen to real conservatives.

    You're letting your wishes father your thoughts as to the effectiveness of Obama's programs. As I have repeatedly demonstrated, his stimulus program is no more effective than FDR's. No new jobs have been created. We have lost jobs. No "Green" jobs have been created. In Michigan they have lost more than two existing jobs for every so called "green " job.

    You are correct when you say that poverty has been reduced. The primary cause of poverty reduction has been economic growth, not government spending. The root causes of poverty now are the same as they were 50 years ago : lack of education , illegitimacy and failure to stay out of jail. In fact the drop out rate and illegitimacy have either not gotten better or have even gotten worse among Blacks and Latinos.

    Obama's approval numbers are down about 50% since his Inauguration. He is still personally popular and why not ? He's a likeable guy with a nice family. His job approval rating, on the other hand, has been taking a beating.

    Eagle- I understand your anger about our current mess and the Republicans certainly bear a healthy share of the blame. Republicans; not necessarily conservatives. If you read Matt Taibi's last three major pieces in Rolling Stone on AIG; Goldman Sachs and his latest on how naked short selling amounting to outright counterfeiting and fraud destroyed Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and most of all, Lehman Brothers and if you watch Michael Moore's latest movie 'Capitalism- A Love Story" you will see that there are plenty of Dems who deserve plenty of blame. I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore. I think he's both ignorant of basic economics and intellectually dishonest BUT he makes entertaining movies and his last is actually his best imho. For the most part he gets it right; at least as far as how the current mess was created . Clearly this mess was created of , for and by Wall Street and their enablers in government. For every Republican pushing for deregulation a la Phil Gramm there was a Dem "Friend of Angelo" or ACORN supporter wanting Fannie and Freddie to keep on keeping on a la Fwank and Waters. Goldman Sachs which engineered and benefitted from a lot of the chicanery is a hotbed of DEMOCRAT supporters, campaign contributors and is the main source of talent for Treasury and finacial regulatory bodies under Obama. Paulson was the one who along with Geithner decided to let Lehman Brothers go belly up. The Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts had NOTHING to do with it.

    When the CEO of Overstock.com went to Congress to complain about naked short selling and warned about its potential to create disaster both Republicans and Democrats turned a deaf ear. He was quite the Cassandra when the sharks went after Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, AIG and then Lehman Brothers. Why don't you re-check what happened to their stock prices and how and why that happened ? It wasn't tax cuts that caused them to go from leverage ratios of 12 to 1 to 33 to 1. it was just shortsighted stupidity and greed.

    It might seem hypocritical for Republicans to be wailing about deficits now when they were hardly paragons of fiscal reponsibility. But most of the worst perpetrators of earmarks and the like are now OUT of the Congress. More importantly, Obama's deficits have dwarfed anything the Republicans ran up. Worse yet, the out year deficits promise to rival what FDR ran up during W.W. II.

    Do you seriously contend that tax increases will help to clean up the current mess and prevent a recurrence ?
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 10-09-2009 at 07:29 AM.

  5. #55
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: chart of the week - US Dollar Index

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner with a Ph.D and he's as intellectually dishonest and hypocritical as they come.

    I've lost count on how many times I have agreed with you about Republican responsibility for this mess. A LOT of the ill advised deregulation was pushed by BOTH Republicans and Democrats. But let's recall that Chris Dodd, Barney Fwank, Maxine Waters, Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, Bob Rubin etc. etc. are all Democrats. The Dems didn't listen to their Byron Dorgans and Kent Conrads and the Republicans didn't listen to their Ron Pauls.
    and I said that a number of Democrats went along with them. It doesn't change the fact that the Republicans were in control of Congress since 1994 and were the ones who were ultimately responsible for the legislation that went through.

    Barney Frank's biggest crime is being a homosexual. That has made him a favorite scapegoat and a lightning rod for conservatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    I have repeatedly demonstrated that tax cuts had nothing to do with creating this mess. It was unregulated speculation, naked short selling, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and inadequate regulation of mortgage lending , CDO's, CDS's and investment banking as a whole.
    Tax cuts did have everything to do with the $11 trillion national debt we now have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Social spending on the poor went UP under Reagan. The spending problem really got going under Bush "43" with his NCLB, Medicare Drug benefit and his failure to restrain Tom De Lay and his fellow Congressional spendthrifts. Karl Rove pushed the idea that the Federal budget should be an adjunct campaign coffer to help the Republicans "buy" continual reelection. One reason the country and the Republicans are in the mess they are, is because they did not listen to real conservatives.
    No, Ronald Reagan greatly reduced spending on social programs.

    http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Ken...ic-policy.html

    (snip)
    The administration increased the already tight spending restrictions on Medicaid, the major program of medical assistance for the poor, which the federal government financed jointly with the states. It reduced federal subsidies for low-income housing, cut spending on food stamps, reduced federal aid to education and federal contributions to state governments, and placed new restrictions on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (the principal program of direct assistance to the poor). It also substantially reduced spending on government itself—forcing staff and service cuts in almost all departments and agencies.
    (snip)

    The spending increases under Bush didn't come anywhere near the hundreds of billions of dollars deficits he was running up. Medicare is funded outside of the federal budget. We still would have had major deficits without everything you mentioned. In the past, when we went to war, government raised taxes to pay for the war. Bush was the first president to cut taxes during wartime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    You're letting your wishes father your thoughts as to the effectiveness of Obama's programs. As I have repeatedly demonstrated, his stimulus program is no more effective than FDR's. No new jobs have been created. We have lost jobs. No "Green" jobs have been created. In Michigan they have lost more than two existing jobs for every so called "green " job.
    FDR's stimulus program was effective. As I mentioned before, the economy grew significantly during the 1930's after FDR became President and the unemployment rate fell from 25% to 14%.

    The economy would be worse off without Obama's stimulus and other government intervention in the economy.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

    (snip)
    Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

    Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago.
    (snip)


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    You are correct when you say that poverty has been reduced. The primary cause of poverty reduction has been economic growth, not government spending. The root causes of poverty now are the same as they were 50 years ago : lack of education , illegitimacy and failure to stay out of jail. In fact the drop out rate and illegitimacy have either not gotten better or have even gotten worse among Blacks and Latinos.
    Government programs have greatly reduced poverty. 50 years ago, senior citizens had the highest poverty rate. Now thanks to government programs like Social Security and Medicare, the poverty rate for senior citizens has fallen dramatically.

    The poverty rates for African Americans has fallen dramatically as well. In 1959, the poverty rate for African Americans was 55%. By 2000, it fell to 22.5%.

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...v/hstpov2.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Obama's approval numbers are down about 50% since his Inauguration. He is still personally popular and why not ? He's a likeable guy with a nice family. His job approval rating, on the other hand, has been taking a beating.
    I doubt anyone else would have much higher approval ratings with this economy and I doubt anyone could have done much more to improve the economy considering the state it was in when Obama took over. The economic mess Obama inherited is not something that can be turned around over night.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Eagle- I understand your anger about our current mess and the Republicans certainly bear a healthy share of the blame. Republicans; not necessarily conservatives. If you read Matt Taibi's last three major pieces in Rolling Stone on AIG; Goldman Sachs and his latest on how naked short selling amounting to outright counterfeiting and fraud destroyed Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and most of all, Lehman Brothers and if you watch Michael Moore's latest movie 'Capitalism- A Love Story" you will see that there are plenty of Dems who deserve plenty of blame. I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore. I think he's both ignorant of basic economics and intellectually dishonest BUT he makes entertaining movies and his last is actually his best imho. For the most part he gets it right; at least as far as how the current mess was created . Clearly this mess was created of , for and by Wall Street and their enablers in government. For every Republican pushing for deregulation a la Phil Gramm there was a Dem "Friend of Angelo" or ACORN supporter wanting Fannie and Freddie to keep on keeping on a la Fwank and Waters. Goldman Sachs which engineered and benefitted from a lot of the chicanery is a hotbed of DEMOCRAT supporters, campaign contributors and is the main source of talent for Treasury and finacial regulatory bodies under Obama. Paulson was the one who along with Geithner decided to let Lehman Brothers go belly up. The Reagan, Clinton and Bush tax cuts had NOTHING to do with it.

    When the CEO of Overstock.com went to Congress to complain about naked short selling and warning about its potential to create disaster both Republicans and Democrats turned a deaf ear. He was quite the Cassandra when the sharks went after Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, AIG and then Lehman Brothers. What don't you re-check what happened to their stock prices and how and why that happened. It wasn't tax cuts that caused them to go from leverage ratios of 12 to 1 to 33 to 1. it was just shortsighted stupidity and greed.
    I agree that there are some Democrats who went along with the Republicans, but the Republicans were the ones in power.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    It might seem hypocritical for Republicans to be wailing about deficits now when they were hardly paragons of fiscal reponsibility. But most of the worst perpetrators of earmarks and the like are now OUT of the Congress. More importantly, Obama's deficits have dwarfed anything the Republicans ran up. Worse yet, the out year deficits promise to rival what FDR ran up during W.W. II.

    Do you seriously contend that tax increases will help to clean up the current mess and prevent a recurrence ?
    I don't think that right now is a good time to raise taxes with the economy in the state it is in. When the economy has recovered, I do think raising taxes, especially on the wealthiest Americans, would reduce or eliminate the deficit. To avoid a repeat of the disaster we went through, we need much tighter financial regulations.

  6. #56
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: chart of the week - US Dollar Index

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    and I said that a number of Democrats went along with them. It doesn't change the fact that the Republicans were in control of Congress since 1994 and were the ones who were ultimately responsible for the legislation that went through.

    Barney Frank's biggest crime is being a homosexual. That has made him a favorite scapegoat and a lightning rod for conservatives.


    Tax cuts did have everything to do with the $11 trillion national debt we now have.


    No, Ronald Reagan greatly reduced spending on social programs.

    http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Ken...ic-policy.html

    (snip)
    The administration increased the already tight spending restrictions on Medicaid, the major program of medical assistance for the poor, which the federal government financed jointly with the states. It reduced federal subsidies for low-income housing, cut spending on food stamps, reduced federal aid to education and federal contributions to state governments, and placed new restrictions on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (the principal program of direct assistance to the poor). It also substantially reduced spending on government itself—forcing staff and service cuts in almost all departments and agencies.
    (snip)

    The spending increases under Bush didn't come anywhere near the hundreds of billions of dollars deficits he was running up. Medicare is funded outside of the federal budget. We still would have had major deficits without everything you mentioned. In the past, when we went to war, government raised taxes to pay for the war. Bush was the first president to cut taxes during wartime.


    FDR's stimulus program was effective. As I mentioned before, the economy grew significantly during the 1930's after FDR became President and the unemployment rate fell from 25% to 14%.

    The economy would be worse off without Obama's stimulus and other government intervention in the economy.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

    (snip)
    Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

    Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago.
    (snip)



    Government programs have greatly reduced poverty. 50 years ago, senior citizens had the highest poverty rate. Now thanks to government programs like Social Security and Medicare, the poverty rate for senior citizens has fallen dramatically.

    The poverty rates for African Americans has fallen dramatically as well. In 1959, the poverty rate for African Americans was 55%. By 2000, it fell to 22.5%.

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...v/hstpov2.html



    I doubt anyone else would have much higher approval ratings with this economy and I doubt anyone could have done much more to improve the economy considering the state it was in when Obama took over. The economic mess Obama inherited is not something that can be turned around over night.




    I agree that there are some Democrats who went along with the Republicans, but the Republicans were the ones in power.




    I don't think that right now is a good time to raise taxes with the economy in the state it is in. When the economy has recovered, I do think raising taxes, especially on the wealthiest Americans, would reduce or eliminate the deficit. To avoid a repeat of the disaster we went through, we need much tighter financial regulations.
    Who was President from 1995 to 2000 ? That's when derivatives were deregulated. Who was President when banks were pressured to increase sub-prime lending ? C L I N T O N !

    I'm a little surprised that you're fixated on blaming Republicans instead of recognizing that BOTH parties enabled the entire system to rot. How many Dems voted against Gramm's bill to deregulate investment banking and repeal Glass - Steagall ? Not only did both parties work together to see that Wall Street was underregulated but when Republicans warned about the overleveraging of Fannie and Freddie and tried to rein them in, the Dems stopped them.

    I couldn't care less that Barney Fwank takes it up the ass. I support gay marriage and there is nobody I'd rather see become a hen-pecked spouse than Mr. Fwank. I have documented Barney's repeated failures while serving on the House Financial Services Committee. What galls more than anything are his lame attempts to deny his own remarks and rewrite history. He was in charge for 14 months before the Bear Stearns fiasco and for 20 before the Lehman Brothers Crash. Name one thing he did in all that time to sound the alarm, let alone actually DO anything. Same thing for Dodd in the Senate. The Dems were asleep at the switch just as much as the Republicans.

    If we'd retained Clinton's tax rates we would not have had the economic growth that we did. If we spent as we have, we'd still have huge deficits and a huge national debt. Look up the numbers and please stop substituting your wishes for the actual facts. Revenue went down and then went way UP !after Bush's tax cuts took effect.

    You point to Reagan's first budget which restrained the increases in Federal spending. By the end of his eight years, social spending had gone way up. Besides you insist on characterizing reduced increases as "cuts". Poverty declined under Reagan because poor people got jobs. African Americans did as well as they did under Clinton partly because of Welfare Reform. They had to get jobs and did better employed than on the dole.

    Deficits under Bush "43", while too high, were declining up to 2008.

    FDR's programs had very limited success in reducing unemployment. And his tax increases in his second term were a disaster. Hoover had raised the top tax rate from 25% to 63%. the lowest rate went from .5% to 4%. By 1932, state and local taxes rose from 7.2% of GDP to 12.3%. In his first term FDR raised estate and gift taxes and increased corporate taxes from 13.75% to 15 % with a surtax on profits of 27%.
    In 1936 FDR raised taxes again with the highest rate going to 79% and an additional tax of 2% on all wages up to $3,000 to fund Social Security. In addition, FDR forced all holders of gold and gold certificates to turn them in at $20.67 an ounce. After glomming as much gold as he could FDR raised the price to $35 an ounce thus devaluing the dollar. Another whopping tax. That grew the money supply by 60% from 1933 to 1937. The monetary base grew by 35% and adjusted reserves grew by 100%.
    The CPI from '33 to '37 grew 15% despite double digit unemployment. This caused another deep recession so that by 1938 unemployment had climbed back to 18% and we had almost two years of negative economic growth.

    The irony is that BEFORE the Fed got involved, the Stock Market and the economy were actually recovering. Coupled with Hoover's tax increases plus Smoot-Hawley plus the Fed. raising interest rates turned a burst bubble and a recession into a Depression. All of FDR's "alphabet soup" reduced unemployment by only a few percentage points. Another irony is that the economy was again starting to recover on its own before FDR's ruinous tax increases took effect.

    How do you know things would be worse without Obama's ineffective programs ? Not a single new job has been created. Unemployment keeps going up. Everyone is waiting with baited breath for the 3rd Quarter numbers. The problem is: then what ? Even if we get 3 or 4 % growth that is NOT enough to create new jobs. We need 5% to create new jobs and NOBODY is predicting that or anything close.

    Poverty among the elderly has been reduced primarily thanks to Social Security and Medicare . Point being ? Poverty among African Americans fell as you say,but it did so for everyone else and in far greater measure. The reasons why the poverty rate is so much higher for African Americans than for whites, or Asians or Caribbean blacks are still : illegitimacy; dropping out of school and going to jail. Even for blacks, and despite whatever residual racism may be in effect, the easiest way to avoid a life of poverty is to: 1. not get married before age 21; 2. don't have illegitimate children;3. finish high school and 4. stay out of jail. Government has little to nothing to do with any of those factors. There was more confirmation of this by a Northeastern University study reported on in today's New York Times. Proving once again that American sociologists do little more than state the obvious, they found that 1 in 4 young black males is in jail or juvenile detention; that 23% of blacks in prison are high school dropouts and nationwide 10% of all prisoners and juvenile detainees dropped out of high school.

    I really don't care about Obama's approval ratings or his unmerited winning of the Nobel Peace Prize. He does. The fact remains that if he'd slashed corporate and capital gains taxes instead of trying a diet of pork, we'd be well on our way to recovery. His stimulus package was nothing more than an AFSCME Relief Act. GM and Chrysler look even more terminal now than they did before Obama bailed them out. After "Cash for Clunkers" expired, car sales wentr even lower than they were BEFORE the program. Does anyone expect "Dollars for Dishwashers" to work any better ?

    You must know something I don't if you seriously think that raising taxes on "wealthy" Americans will do more than put a slight dent in deficits approaching two trillion dollars. Even with a top rate of 90% you'd only increase revenues by a few hundred billion.

    Here's the real kicker. You and I agree about the need for increased regulation. Apparently Obama does not. Except for worrying about what executives get paid, Obama has not instituted major Wall Street and banking reform. Inter alia, that would mean reining in and maybe investigating Goldman Sachs. A major Dem cash cow. There is still a lot of underreporting on the Wall Street Meltdown. One fascinating tid bit is :Who was it that laid down huge short sell bets on the demise of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers ? To date, the biggest naked short sellers have not been identified. What was discussed at that famous meeting of Bernanke, Paulson and the heads of Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Chase and Citigroup ? Notorious by its absence was Bear Stearns which by an amazing coincidence was swallowed up at TWO dollars a share shortly thereafter.
    Why did Paulson decide to let Lehman brothers go bankrupt ? He's another Goldman "Sacker" you know. Isn't it odd that one of the two "last men standing" on Wall Street is Goldman Sachs ? Who does Tim Geithner talk to over there and about what ? No less than 80 phone calls between him and Goldman Sachs have been logged since he was sworn in. Are you as remotely curious about any of this,and a lot more, as I am ?
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 10-09-2009 at 12:21 PM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 02:17 PM
  2. chart of the week - US Dollar Getting Destroyed
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 01:26 AM
  3. chart of the week - US Dollar M2 'money supply'
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-25-2011, 05:55 AM
  4. chart of the week - the Dollar Index
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-06-2010, 02:13 AM
  5. chart of the week ... Consumer Sentiment Index
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-18-2007, 08:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •