Bush benefits from weak dollar

[Drocket]

Everyone from Nobel Prize laureates to the world's biggest bond investor says the Bush administration has reason to cheer the dollar's slide to historic lows.

The currency has lost 13.2 percent since January 2001, when George W. Bush took office, the most under any president since at least Gerald Ford, who left the White House in 1977. That's based on a Federal Reserve index that tracks the dollar against the currencies of 38 U.S. trading partners, including Germany, Japan and Canada.

A weaker dollar is helping the economy and may bolster voters' confidence in the Republican party as the U.S. heads into a presidential election year. Rather than causing foreigners to flee U.S. securities, the depreciating currency is making American goods less expensive abroad and helping offset the worst housing recession in 16 years. Exports reached an all- time high of $132 billion in May, the government said this month.

Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAvJcDT9u8NU&refer=home)


We're in a race to the bottom...

[Marley]

I disagree.

We've been on a serious, steady, deliberate course to tune in the global economy. Closed isolationist economies are simply dinosaurs, they will not, and cannot any longer exist.

[Mayberry]

Closed isolationist economies are simply dinosaurs, they will not, and cannot any longer exist. That sir, is a complete load of horse puckey. There is no reason whatsoever why America could not have a "closed isolationist economy".

[Drocket]

That sir, is a complete load of horse puckey. There is no reason whatsoever why America could not have a "closed isolationist economy".

You mean OTHER than running out of gasoline and the entire system grinding to a halt?

[Mayberry]

Drocket, I live in Texas. There are oil wells all over the place. You can see pump jacks everywhere. You know what those pump jacks are doing? Nothing. Just sitting there. If we would increase our domestic production, develop new wells, and drill in ANWR, Florida, and the West Coast, we would be fine for a while. During that time we need to develop alternative energy sources, as well as build new nuclear power plants. We could then tell OPEC to f_ck off. Also, If we'd get rid of the Game Boys, X boxes, hell, the TV too, we'd cut our consumption a bunch. If Americans really want energy independence, it's ours for the taking, but it will take some sacrifices. As a side note, I believe there are some alternative technologies out there, but they have been squashed by "big oil". There has always been an "urban legend" about a carburetor that will give 60 MPG, etc. Also, myself being a "self taught" engineer (meaning an observant mechanic :P), automotive engine efficiency could be increased dramatically by combining outboard boat engine technology with NASCAR. Automotive engines use split shell bearings using an "oil wedge" as the anti friction component. Outboards use roller bearings throughout, which is a big reason why you get so much horsepower from such a small package. NASCAR utilizes a "dry sump" oiling system on their engines, which means that oil is supplied to the engine from a remote reservoir, then scavenged off by a pump, and returned to the remote reservoir. Cars today have a "wet sump" oiling system where oil is contained in the oil pan, pumped through the system, and drains back through the engine by gravity to the oil pan. There is a power loss due to the rotating assembly having to spin through this oil falling through the engine, and the oil contained in the pan. There are also losses through "oil wedge" bearings due to friction. Roller bearings, combined with a "dry sump" oiling system would not only extend engine life significantly, but would increase fuel economy by a significant factor, and thereby reduce exhaust emissions by an equal amount. Consider this: a V6 outboard displacing only 158 Cubic inches can acheive 175 horsepower.

[Drocket]

Drocket, I live in Texas. There are oil wells all over the place. You can see pump jacks everywhere. You know what those pump jacks are doing? Nothing. Just sitting there.

Pretty much the entire cost of drilling a well is in the actual drilling. Once you have a well drilled, the rest is just gravy. If there are pumps sitting there not operating, it means the well is empty.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm with Drocket, here Mayberry. On top of it being an impossibility for America to sustain itself with no imports [or little imports], it would also be a grave injustice to the American consumer.

-NC

[Mayberry]

If there are pumps sitting there not operating, it means the well is empty. Negative. It means they're sitting on the oil until the price goes up to their liking. Having a pump jack in place is a liability. It costs money to have it there. When a well is used up, the pump jack is removed and sold. Nope. These wells have plenty of oil. The owners are just sitting on it. On top of it being an impossibility for America to sustain itself with no imports [or little imports], it would also be a grave injustice to the American consumer.

How do you figure? I's rather pay$4 a gallon for gas produced domestically than $2.69 going to OPEC. I maintain that we're using up middle east oil first, and saving ours for later. Ever since the "oil bust" of the mid '80s, we've just been sitting on a lot of our oil. There are offshore wells that haven't flowed since the mid '80s, but they're still there, still maintained. Why would you maintain a "dry" production platform? It costs a lot of money to do so, as well as to maintain a pump jack. I see some pump jacks running one week, idle the next. It's in relation to oil prices.

[NortheastCynic]

I mean just that Mayberry. When you interfere with free trade the consumer has less choices. Personally, I'd pay $2.67 to OPEC before 5 to the US...Oil is their comparative advantage and good for them. Interfering with the market, again interferes with consumer freedom. Essentially, you can still feel free to "shop American" in an open market without forcing me to do so against my will.

-NC

[Mayberry]

Well, that's your perogative I guess, but I say f_ck OPEC, Chavez, and that whole gang of hoodlums. I'd rather walk than give them a nickle. They're a lousy price gouging band of sons of bitches and I wouldn't piss in their ears if their heads were on fire. Put on of them in front of me right now, and I'd drop him like a hot potato. People screwing with my way of life piss me off, and I'd drop 'em in a heartbeat, crack a cold beer, and sleep like a baby. I'd never shed a tear. And that goes for the thieves at Exxon, Chevron, or whoever else as well. And all the traders who use "fears" of this and "fears" of that to artificially raise fuel prices whenever they feel like it. The whole lot should be skinned alive and dunked in acid. F_ck 'em all says I.

[firefox]

Mayberry, we can agree that a big hindrance to US production (which would be good) is domestic regulation. Some of the old refineries are going back on-line after repairs, but there still need to be more of them, and the small producer is locked out of the market by pro big business subsidies and rules, thus driving up prices. Justice for all, special privileges for none! Remember, you can't screw with the market unless you control a huge portion of it, with the help of government force in one form or another.

[Mayberry]

Remember, you can't screw with the market unless you control a huge portion of it, with the help of government force in one form or another.
Exxon Mobile. we can agree that a big hindrance to US production (which would be good) is domestic regulation. What is good, hindrance to US production, or domestic regulation? I figured you would be against domestic regulation. Oh nevermind. US production would be good. I get it.