hummermania00 said:

DieCommie said:

Good luck keeping your blue collar jobs. Having a strong dollar is a mixed blessing.

---

You are off track about the mixed blessing. As a Canadian, I see no blessing at all. I fail to understand all the hurrah about US / Canada dollar parity. (I suspect it is a misguided sense of nationalistic pride, not at all dissimilar to that which is expressed by Americans in subsequent posts of this thread.)
Also, the Canadian economy is by no means any great well oiled machine. The par dollar is really only a function of the US money supply, coupled with the bad debt problem, affecting confidence in the ability to repay. This is something virtually all of the Canadian investment community avoided because the risk factors do not fit the relative conservative Canadian mindset on investment.

The negative effects to Canada far outweigh any perceived benefit.

For example:
All our exports are worth about 30% less than they were 3 years ago. No manufacturers can realize that amount in efficiency gains, to maintain the margins that were realized prior to parity. Therefore, business will shut down, the economy will slip.

Canadian shoppers will (are) run (ning) to the US for purchases because the same item in the same chain of stores costs 30% more in Canada even though the dollar is at par. Canadian retailers are not smart enough to realize they are screwing their customers.

Net result is that this economy will slip, the US may or may not gain; that remains the topic of much debate and speculation throughout the world.

---

LunarEclipse said:

Quote:

The par dollar is really only a function of the US money supply, coupled with the bad debt problem, affecting confidence in the ability to repay.

---

Another reason the Canadian dollar keeps getting stronger relative to the U.S. dollar is because Canada has tremendous natural resources. Oil, timber, water, it's like money in the bank.

The question is when will the "bigger bank" decide that those resources would look nice on the their balance sheet (and when they can get away with it). The more the U.S. dollar drops against the Canadian dollar the more likely a "merger" with Canada and the U.S. (and Mexico) becomes. www.spp.gov

---

hummermania00 said:

Canadian shoppers will (are) run (ning) to the US for purchases because the same item in the same chain of stores costs 30% more in Canada even though the dollar is at par. Canadian retailers are not smart enough to realize they are screwing their customers.

Net result is that this economy will slip, the US may or may not gain; that remains the topic of much debate and speculation throughout the world.

---

Well I booked my flight nice and cheap a while back, doing my Christmas shopping in New York. Planning a holiday in the new year in Florida, and ordered a really nice Tenecor aquarium to be shipped over from Phoenix. So Uncle Sam is doing OK out of this Limey

--
Politicians are like nappies. Both should be changed regularly, and for the same reason.

PsychedelicPhish said:

YEAH!!! with all the money are government has we can afford to blow the shit out of any country, since we cant win in iraq were gonna achieve a more accomplish able goal

---

LunarEclipse said:

Quote:

Personally, I believe the US dollar will rise again over the next 2 years. It would shift very quickly with a pull out of US forces from the Middle East. It should also turn around some what as the primarys end and the election nears - depending on who is considered the frontrunner - and depending on who wins the election.
But this is just my opinion.

---

The "pull out" of US forces from the Middle East over the next 2 years seems highly unlikely. As to the next president, if it is a republican the pullout over the following four years also seems highly unlikely. If it is a leading democrat, it also seems highly unlikely and they even admitted to this at the recent debate.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RTOBOG0.html

Dems Can't Make Guarantee on Iraq Troops
Sep 27, 6:26 AM (ET)
By BETH FOUHY

HANOVER, N.H. (AP) - The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.

"I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.

(middle portion deleted for space considerations)

With the primary season approaching, all eight have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters likely to provide money and organizing muscle as the campaign progresses.

Edwards said his position on Iraq was different from Obama and Clinton, adding he would "immediately drawn down 40,000 to 50,000 troops." That's roughly half the 100,000 that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has indicated could be stationed there when President Bush's term ends in January 2009.

Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and Clinton's, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq.

"I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq," he said.

Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.

Asked whether they were prepared to use force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, several of the hopefuls sidestepped. Instead, they said, all diplomacy must be exhausted in the effort.

Moderator Tim Russert of NBC News asked about Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani's pledge to set back Iran by eight to 10 years if it tries to gain nuclear standing.

Biden flashed anger at the mention of the former New York mayor. "Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about," said Delaware senator, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"He's the most uninformed person on foreign policy that's now running for president."

The debate unfolded in the state that has held the first presidential primary in every campaign for generations.

The contest is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 22, but that is expected to change as other states maneuver for early voting position in the campaign calendar.

The debate was broadcast on MSNBC, New Hampshire Public Radio and New England Cable News.


You also state that you think the U.S. dollar will rise depending on who wins the election but you didn't elaborate which party or cantidate will make the difference.

---

LunarEclipse said:

Quote:

Well, first off, I expressed an opinion that the US dollar would rise very quickly with a pull out of forces from Iraq. Whether this is reality, or likely, or even remotely possible I don't know. I'm saying if it did happen now, the dollar would increase in value.

Also, at this point the winner and that effect on the financial markets (dollar included) is entirely speculative. People will express confidence in the financial sector based on financial guru projections and media spin. it would have nothing to do with what or who I think about the US election.

---

As to Iraq there will NEVER be an entire pullout of US troops there IMO so the effect on the dollar from a troop pullout is a moot point.

The winner of the presidency will affect the value of the dollar to the extent that they can get the US budget and trade deficit under control without starting a trade war or another real war.

It seems to me the financial markets have never been more speculative and leveraged. Tons of worthless mortgage paper packaged in with other commercial paper making valuation impossible (like financial hamburger with E-coli contaminations) Trillions and trillions in derivatives on big banks books creating huge leverage and resultant increase in potential for and larger size of failures. The smart MBAs designing the hedging programs are turning out to not be perfect.

You raise a good point about the spin of financial gurus such as Alan Greenspan and media spin from the likes of Jim Cramer having an effect on people and markets. Buy buy buy. Cults never end well...

---