The US Dollar Turns 100 Years Old

[Roush]

It's like this, who would have ever dreamed 30 20 years ago that we would now have a Euro?

Well, the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992, so...yeah. Since then, it's been peaks, and valleys -- ok, mostly valleys. I reckon the Euro is a wee bit of a catastrophe in hindsight.

[AdriftatSea]

Congratulations America, I hope you get a letter from The Queen.

Why is your Queen going to write us?

If you reach your 100th birthday, British people relieve a letter from The Queen, probably congratulating you and thanking you for ypur loyalty to breathing.

(I think these days you have to apply for one, but nevertheless, it's yours).

We have a weather man on TV that does that!

[downzy]

If you don't agree with me you're a crazy conspiracy theorist = most mygnrforum political discussion

Gets rather old, don't it?

No, what gets old are people who post articles who then are unwilling discuss them and put forward their own opinions on the matter.

[Ace Nova]

The U.S. Dollar is the strongest it's been in four years and continues to get stronger.....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/29/investing/us-dollar-strong-four-year-high/

Investors are pledging allegiance to the dollar.

The U.S. Dollar Index, which measures the value of the greenback against a basket of foreign currencies, has climbed to its highest level in over four years.

"The momentum of the dollar's advance is unprecedented," said analysts at Société Générale in a note Monday morning.

The dollar has long been the world's top business currency and viewed as a "safe bet" among investors. But the recent run up is partly because traders believe the American economy is improving, especially relative to other parts of the world. This will compel the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, which is generally seen as a good thing for a country's currency.

At the same time, things aren't looking too good in Europe, so the European Central Bank is starting to do some stimulating of its own. Those measures have resulted in a weaker Euro. The Japanese Yen has also struggled because of the country's ongoing economic problems.

Related: Ruble's headlong plunge shows Russia hurting

The dollar trend is likely to continue, economists from Capital Economics claim. They expect the dollar "to appreciate further as the monetary policy of the Fed diverges from that of central banks elsewhere."

They predict that one euro will be worth $1.15 by the end of 2016, compared with around $1.27 now. The dollar has already gained more than 8% against the Euro in the past six months.

So what does a stronger dollar mean for the average American? That depends. Here's what to watch for:

Feeling buff: Americans can take comfort in the fact that a strong dollar is a sign of confidence in the U.S. economy. It means foreign investors are figuring that the country is a good place to park some money for the foreseeable future.

Related: Mohamed El-Erian says take some money out of stocks

A vigorous currency also makes it cheaper for companies to import goods from abroad. In other words, consumers stand to benefit from lower prices. That phenomenon could also help keep inflation in check and allow the Fed to hold interest rates down as long as necessary to keep stimulating the economy.

And if you're planning a vacation abroad, be sure to do a little shopping, since a favorable exchange rate should give you a little more bang for your buck. If you're eying those Italian leather shoes, now is a good time to buy them.

[Roush]

Nonsense.

According to my journalistically reputable, and unbiased source (endofworldblog.org for those that are curious) the USD is at its weakest, and destined to fall any day now.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Roush

[magisme]

If you don't agree with me you're a crazy conspiracy theorist = most mygnrforum political discussion

Gets rather old, don't it?

No, what gets old are people who post articles who then are unwilling discuss them and put forward their own opinions on the matter.

And when did I do that?

[downzy]

If you don't agree with me you're a crazy conspiracy theorist = most mygnrforum political discussion

Gets rather old, don't it?

No, what gets old are people who post articles who then are unwilling discuss them and put forward their own opinions on the matter.

And when did I do that?

Sorry, thought it was obvious that my reply wasn't directed towards you.

[Roush]

If you don't agree with me you're a crazy conspiracy theorist = most mygnrforum political discussion

Gets rather old, don't it?

No, what gets old are people who post articles who then are unwilling discuss them and put forward their own opinions on the matter.

IDK, it's more like the "Harassment" thread. By all means, do have a different opinion. But don't get upset when people ask you to defend your post.

Info Wars, viral YouTube videos, and Alex Jones' podcasts are entertainment vessels -- not evidence to support an argument.

[Facekicker]

If you don't agree with me you're a crazy conspiracy theorist = most mygnrforum political discussion

Gets rather old, don't it?

No, what gets old are people who post articles who then are unwilling discuss them and put forward their own opinions on the matter.

IDK, it's more like the "Harassment" thread. By all means, do have a different opinion. But don't get upset when people ask you to defend your post.

Info Wars, viral YouTube videos, and Alex Jones' podcasts are entertainment vessels -- not evidence to support an argument.

Much like the regular "news" these days.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, it's just something I see a lot online. People deriding alternative sources whilst offering up the likes of Fox News or CNBC as "FACT".

Which is bullshit.

The biggest problem these days is that the likes of CNN, FOX, BBC, NEW YORK TIMES etc are parroting propaganda in such a blanket consensus fashion that people would literally have you believe that UP is DOWN.

[downzy]

If you don't agree with me you're a crazy conspiracy theorist = most mygnrforum political discussion

Gets rather old, don't it?

No, what gets old are people who post articles who then are unwilling discuss them and put forward their own opinions on the matter.

IDK, it's more like the "Harassment" thread. By all means, do have a different opinion. But don't get upset when people ask you to defend your post.

Info Wars, viral YouTube videos, and Alex Jones' podcasts are entertainment vessels -- not evidence to support an argument.

Much like the regular "news" these days.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, it's just something I see a lot online. People deriding alternative sources whilst offering up the likes of Fox News or CNBC as "FACT".

Which is bullshit.

The biggest problem these days is that the likes of CNN, FOX, BBC, NEW YORK TIMES etc are parroting propaganda in such a blanket consensus fashion that people would literally have you believe that UP is DOWN.

Except many "alternate" sources are not held to the kind of standards that many mainstream publications are held to. Unlike Info Wars, The New York times actually cares what people think about it's ability to report the news factually. If it makes a mistake or erroneously publishes a false story it calls into question their ability to do their jobs. Entertainment sites like Info Wars don't care if any of its information is accurate or factually untrue. All that matters is that people are giving it attention. It's all about generating news for its own purposes than making factual reports.

Not saying that you're saying this, but the suggestion many mainstream publications are no different than web-based "news" organizations like informers is a false equivalency. That's not to suggest that all net-based news organizations are full of shit. There are several online publications that publish opinions and reports that attempt to keep their feet on reality. I really like Quartz as they attempt to support their articles with graphs, stats, and scrutinized evidence. And if they make a mistake, they'll at least acknowledge the mistake. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still have yet to hear Alex Jones retract his comment that the U.S. government was weaponizing the weather or that the Boston bombing and the Newtown shootings were "false flags."

[Roush]

I wonder why people like Edward Snowden went to journalists associated with The Washington Post or The New York Times. And not...

[DieselDaisy]

People masturbating about their currency!

[Facekicker]

If you don't agree with me you're a crazy conspiracy theorist = most mygnrforum political discussion

Gets rather old, don't it?

No, what gets old are people who post articles who then are unwilling discuss them and put forward their own opinions on the matter.

IDK, it's more like the "Harassment" thread. By all means, do have a different opinion. But don't get upset when people ask you to defend your post.

Info Wars, viral YouTube videos, and Alex Jones' podcasts are entertainment vessels -- not evidence to support an argument.

Much like the regular "news" these days.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, it's just something I see a lot online. People deriding alternative sources whilst offering up the likes of Fox News or CNBC as "FACT".

Which is bullshit.

The biggest problem these days is that the likes of CNN, FOX, BBC, NEW YORK TIMES etc are parroting propaganda in such a blanket consensus fashion that people would literally have you believe that UP is DOWN.

Except many "alternate" sources are not held to the kind of standards that many mainstream publications are held to. Unlike Info Wars, The New York times actually cares what people think about it's ability to report the news factually. If it makes a mistake or erroneously publishes a false story it calls into question their ability to do their jobs. Entertainment sites like Info Wars don't care if any of its information is accurate or factually untrue. All that matters is that people are giving it attention. It's all about generating news for its own purposes than making factual reports.

Not saying that you're saying this, but the suggestion many mainstream publications are no different than web-based "news" organizations like informers is a false equivalency. That's not to suggest that all net-based news organizations are full of shit. There are several online publications that publish opinions and reports that attempt to keep their feet on reality. I really like Quartz as they attempt to support their articles with graphs, stats, and scrutinized evidence. And if they make a mistake, they'll at least acknowledge the mistake. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still have yet to hear Alex Jones retract his comment that the U.S. government was weaponizing the weather or that the Boston bombing and the Newtown shootings were "false flags."

Just to be clear. I have never once visited Info.Wars or Alex Jones sites. I'm talking about the people who parrot talking points from the likes of Fox or CNBC without even stopping to think about the legitimacy of their claims. For the record The New York Times has been caught out majorly on more than one occasion for publishing false or doctored evidence concerning Ukraine.

Mark my words - when the shit hits the fan again concerning the US getting into another "hot" war on the other side of the world, based on lies and propaganda, the public will scratch their heads once more wondering where it all went wrong and will tune into the usual media outlets for answers. The very outlets that fed them bullshit stories to whip up a patriotic fervor and "us versus them, good vs bad" narrative to begin with.

People need to wake the fuck up.

[Snake-Pit]

So what did they have in 1913?

Gold?

[Roush]

If you don't agree with me you're a crazy conspiracy theorist = most mygnrforum political discussion

Gets rather old, don't it?

No, what gets old are people who post articles who then are unwilling discuss them and put forward their own opinions on the matter.

IDK, it's more like the "Harassment" thread. By all means, do have a different opinion. But don't get upset when people ask you to defend your post.

Info Wars, viral YouTube videos, and Alex Jones' podcasts are entertainment vessels -- not evidence to support an argument.

Much like the regular "news" these days.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, it's just something I see a lot online. People deriding alternative sources whilst offering up the likes of Fox News or CNBC as "FACT".

Which is bullshit.

The biggest problem these days is that the likes of CNN, FOX, BBC, NEW YORK TIMES etc are parroting propaganda in such a blanket consensus fashion that people would literally have you believe that UP is DOWN.

Except many "alternate" sources are not held to the kind of standards that many mainstream publications are held to. Unlike Info Wars, The New York times actually cares what people think about it's ability to report the news factually. If it makes a mistake or erroneously publishes a false story it calls into question their ability to do their jobs. Entertainment sites like Info Wars don't care if any of its information is accurate or factually untrue. All that matters is that people are giving it attention. It's all about generating news for its own purposes than making factual reports.

Not saying that you're saying this, but the suggestion many mainstream publications are no different than web-based "news" organizations like informers is a false equivalency. That's not to suggest that all net-based news organizations are full of shit. There are several online publications that publish opinions and reports that attempt to keep their feet on reality. I really like Quartz as they attempt to support their articles with graphs, stats, and scrutinized evidence. And if they make a mistake, they'll at least acknowledge the mistake. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still have yet to hear Alex Jones retract his comment that the U.S. government was weaponizing the weather or that the Boston bombing and the Newtown shootings were "false flags."

Just to be clear. I have never once visited Info.Wars or Alex Jones sites. I'm talking about the people who parrot talking points from the likes of Fox or CNBC without even stopping to think about the legitimacy of their claims. For the record The New York Times has been caught out majorly on more than one occasion for publishing false or doctored evidence concerning Ukraine.

Mark my words - when the shit hits the fan again concerning the US getting into another "hot" war on the other side of the world, based on lies and propaganda, the public will scratch their heads once more wondering where it all went wrong and will tune into the usual media outlets for answers. The very outlets that fed them bullshit stories to whip up a patriotic fervor and "us versus them, good vs bad" narrative to begin with.

People need to wake the fuck up.

Ah, never heard that one before. Which specific site do you endorse?