What a weak dollar really does...

[Lukey]

Hmm so in the US Economy you don't have domestic sources???? sorry you do. For almost every product. Which means even if you choose to buy BMW trucks as your fleet vehicles, you are competing against other vendors who chose Freightliners or Kenworths - and thus you have to eat the cost difference or do less volume of business (simply supply/demand cost point)

Yes somethings don't have "substitute products" (oil) but in the US economy, most things do. And that does not require a "closed economy" in any way. So in fact most customers won't see much inflation except in some minor sectors. In fact if you look at domestic inflation rates vs. Dollar strength - there is very little correlation http://one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.htm much less causation.

You keep using Gold as a measure of inflation but gold buggery - as I have demonstrated in the divergence of gold from other species commodities - obviates that as a useful measure.



Notice how you left out the crucial DOMESTIC productivity and how you conflate inflation with a weak dollar (which there is little correlation between). Once again you are arguing a strawman that isn't worth answering.

I think you already know the absurdity of your first question so, moving on, I use gold because it is a widely recognized store of value that acts like a currency that governments can't "print." That makes it a nice counter measure to currencies over time. And I don't use it as a measure of "inflation" - I use it as a measure of dollar debasement which is what causes most of our inflation. As for gold "buggery" that might cause some noise in the price curve but not enough to make gold useless as a long term store of value (any more than speculation "drives" oil price moves). I see you sidestepped my question on productivity entirely. The "domestic" was implied (because we were talking about a currency's effect on it). So I guess my observations were spot on.

 

[degsme]

It is none of that. It is a specie that is unmoored from most financial basics and is driven mostly by emotion rather than underlying economic values. You use it because you have an irrational predeliction for specie based currencies. But that does not make gold even a good basis for such a currency.

Its disconnect from economic fundamentals (outside emotional fears) makes it useless as a measure of anything

IOW Gold buggery is the primary driver of Gold costs, not just a noise function

As for the rest of it - bascally your assertion about how Inflation - which is not inherently tied to either dollar devaluation or gold buggery - is NECESSARILY driven by a weak dollar has been refuted by the charts I've offered earlier.

So which of your claims are we running away from the facts at this point on?

 

[degsme]

You used Decimate in a manner that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of its meaning and history. Its poor word choice and would get you a failing grade in Freshman English.

And since the US Dollar is tied to the Renmimbi - there is no differentiation based on that currency.

As for the Euro - no - because as the chart I provided showed, EU Gas prices have fluctuated lock step with US Prices since about 2001.

The Yen? Yes it is strong - and that is currently hurting the Japanese economy http://www.financeasia.com/News/287310,strong-yen-hampering-japans-post-earthquake-recovery.aspx

And the Swiss Franc? That's the only major EuroZone nation who's growth rate during the early 2000s was AS BAD AS THE USA's. Hardly a nation who's fiscal policies we want to emulate

 

[Lukey]

It is none of that. It is a specie that is unmoored from most financial basics and is driven mostly by emotion rather than underlying economic values. You use it because you have an irrational predeliction for specie based currencies. But that does not make gold even a good basis for such a currency.

Its disconnect from economic fundamentals (outside emotional fears) makes it useless as a measure of anything

IOW Gold buggery is the primary driver of Gold costs, not just a noise function

As for the rest of it - bascally your assertion about how Inflation - which is not inherently tied to either dollar devaluation or gold buggery - is NECESSARILY driven by a weak dollar has been refuted by the charts I've offered earlier.

So which of your claims are we running away from the facts at this point on?

Oh really? Is that why gold has for centuries been worth roughly the value of a fine mens suit? Sure sometimes one or the other will take the lead for a while but sooner or later they have always re-synced. So, are you suggesting "fine suit buggery" just so happens to parallel "gold buggery?" Or are you just spouting nonsense here? You appear to be the one running away from the facts here...

 

[degsme]

Oh really? Is that why gold has for centuries been worth roughly the value of a fine mens suit?

First off - "for centuries" is a cherry pick. Since Gold WAS CURRENCY for centuries and GDP growth in specie currency economies is invariably quite sluggsh.

Secondly, even the notion of a "fine men's suit" doesn't have a multi-century history so you are making shiit up again.

Thirdly - it is a luxoury good. Luxoury goods are highly inflation resistant.


So lets try again.


Pick a measuer that isn't driven mostly by emotions.

 

[Lukey]

First off - "for centuries" is a cherry pick. Since Gold WAS CURRENCY for centuries and GDP growth in specie currency economies is invariably quite sluggsh.

Secondly, even the notion of a "fine men's suit" doesn't have a multi-century history so you are making shiit up again.

Thirdly - it is a luxoury good. Luxoury goods are highly inflation resistant.


So lets try again.


Pick a measuer that isn't driven mostly by emotions.

So gold WAS currency for eons but now it's crazy to consider it as a proxy for money even though hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people still consider it to be currency, if I understand you correctly, simply because YOU say it isn't a form of currency now? Who's being "emotional" here now?

 

[degsme]

So gold WAS currency for eons but now it's crazy to consider it as a proxy for money even though hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people still consider it to be currency,

Correct. Hundreds of millions of adult Americans barely have a HS education. That hardly speaks to their ability to make well reasoned economic analysis.

It is "crazy" (your word not mine - mine is "meaningless") to use Gold because Gold is a specie that specifically is driven by the EMOTIONAL responses of hundreds of millions of people who are worse than clueless about economics.

if I understand you correctly, simply because YOU say it isn't a form of currency now? Who's being "emotional" here now?

Gold is a currency in some nations. It is not in any modern industrialized nation. nothing emotional in that statement.

 

[degsme]

No, according to MY "logic" I used decimate correctly because on-line dictionaries list my usage as being correct,

You didn't even know the historic etymology of the word. Word meanings are more than what an online dictionary gives you. And the "google search" did not actually kick out a "myriad of examples"... because you did not constrain the search to actually directly match your claim. Instead you ran a search that had EITHER Decimate AND/OR Currency AND/OR etc etc.

Which does not represent the example you claimed it did. Nor did ANY of your hits come from Scholarly Journals AS YOU CLAIMED. Whereas an properly constrained google search for the phrase you claimed was popular turned up zero hits meanwhile as a further example of how meaningless it is to use a Google Search as proof of proper usage - "irregardless" turned up 2 million Google hits.

What this demonstrates is that You seem unable to distinguish ACTUAL search criteria and LEGITIMATE constraints from ones that are overly broad and DO NOT RETURN what you want them to.

So why should anyone be induced to accept your regular rejection of everything else I have ever posted as "counter-factual"

Because I offer supportable links from independently verifiable sources and VALID LOGIC to demonstrate the counterfactual nature of your claims. You don't you use echo-chamber sources, most of them opinion pieces rather than actual evidence. And then extrapolate invalid logic from them (conflating Weak Dollar with Gold Prices and Gold Prices with inflation for example).

Which is exactly why I find so little motivation to (seriously) address your posts that are long on jargon and made up "facts" (i.e. resultant from biased studies that only accept and, in fact, feature left wing theoretical DNA)

Ah yes its all a conspiracy.... And actual precise terms that pin you down on the verifiability of facts are bad bad bad...

RIGHT...

No the reason you don't use actual economic terms precisely - I suspect is because you don't actually understand them. And when you do - they tell a factual and logical story far different than your BELIEFS... and for you BELIEF comes ahead of observable and verifiable fact.

 

[Lukey]

You didn't even know the historic etymology of the word. Word meanings are more than what an online dictionary gives you. And the "google search" did not actually kick out a "myriad of examples"... because you did not constrain the search to actually directly match your claim. Instead you ran a search that had EITHER Decimate AND/OR Currency AND/OR etc etc.

Which does not represent the example you claimed it did. Nor did ANY of your hits come from Scholarly Journals AS YOU CLAIMED. Whereas an properly constrained google search for the phrase you claimed was popular turned up zero hits meanwhile as a further example of how meaningless it is to use a Google Search as proof of proper usage - "irregardless" turned up 2 million Google hits.

What this demonstrates is that You seem unable to distinguish ACTUAL search criteria and LEGITIMATE constraints from ones that are overly broad and DO NOT RETURN what you want them to.


Because I offer supportable links from independently verifiable sources and VALID LOGIC to demonstrate the counterfactual nature of your claims. You don't you use echo-chamber sources, most of them opinion pieces rather than actual evidence. And then extrapolate invalid logic from them (conflating Weak Dollar with Gold Prices and Gold Prices with inflation for example).


Ah yes its all a conspiracy.... And actual precise terms that pin you down on the verifiability of facts are bad bad bad...

RIGHT...

No the reason you don't use actual economic terms precisely - I suspect is because you don't actually understand them. And when you do - they tell a factual and logical story far different than your BELIEFS... and for you BELIEF comes ahead of observable and verifiable fact.

Again, thanks for the laugh. "Word meanings are more than what an online dictionary gives you?" WTF is THAT? You kill me with the level of smug arrogance you prance around here with and then try to support with crap like that. I present facts and you say sh*t like "word meanings are more than what an online dictionary gives you." I'll tell you what I DO understand - and that is you are selling snake oil around here. Your convoluted logic (word meanings are more than what an online dictionary gives you) and left wing theories parading as "facts" are just not worth the effort to try and get into enough to respond to them. Stimulus is deficit spending - period! Bush was no supply sider - period! At a certain point the level of debt begins to inhibit economic growth - period! Prices of commodities tend to move inverse to the value of the currency you are pricing them in - period! Obama's big government economic policies are crowding out the private sector and prolonging the recovery - period! And no one needs a PhD to understand the logic behind any of these positions. Get back to me when you have something that makes forthright, visceral sense. Until then, stop insinuating that you are the arbiter of the English language and not Merriam Webster - it really just makes you look out of touch.

 

[Lukey]

You used Decimate in a manner that demonstrates a lack of knowledge of its meaning and history. Its poor word choice and would get you a failing grade in Freshman English.

And since the US Dollar is tied to the Renmimbi - there is no differentiation based on that currency.

As for the Euro - no - because as the chart I provided showed, EU Gas prices have fluctuated lock step with US Prices since about 2001.

The Yen? Yes it is strong - and that is currently hurting the Japanese economy http://www.financeasia.com/News/287310,strong-yen-hampering-japans-post-earthquake-recovery.aspx

And the Swiss Franc? That's the only major EuroZone nation who's growth rate during the early 2000s was AS BAD AS THE USA's. Hardly a nation who's fiscal policies we want to emulate

The meaning of "decimate" is what the DICTIONARY says it is, not what YOU say it is, okay? That's a fact whether you like it or not. Lets face it, if you had a source to support your position you'd have posted it. And people use the word precisely the way I did BECAUSE THE DICTIONARY SAYS THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS! Okay? And again, gasoline prices are up and the dollar value is down. That's a simple, straightforward truism. That's the way commodity pricing tends to work. The Yen is strong and priced in Yen, oil has not increased anywhere NEAR as much as it has in dollars. That, again, is a fact, whether you like it or not. Again, if your had sources to support your position, you'd have posted them. Just because it doesn't comport with your left wing desire to debase the currency and undermine capitalism doesn't make your theories on currencies and commodities facts - it just makes them out of the mainstream theories, okay? Are we clear on this? You can't prove that currency values do not affect commodity prices because the data doesn't support that - and that, again, is a fact.

Oh, yes, and it's "whose" not "who's" fiscal policies we want to emulate. Go get yourself a dictionary...

 

[Lukey]

Correct. Hundreds of millions of adult Americans barely have a HS education. That hardly speaks to their ability to make well reasoned economic analysis.

It is "crazy" (your word not mine - mine is "meaningless") to use Gold because Gold is a specie that specifically is driven by the EMOTIONAL responses of hundreds of millions of people who are worse than clueless about economics.



Gold is a currency in some nations. It is not in any modern industrialized nation. nothing emotional in that statement.

Again, ahem, LOL! I have a news flash for you. It's the hundreds of millions of Americans whose emotional responses drive the economy. So, economics is the study of how they drive the economy, not the other way around. And when people see better value in owning gold (rather than dollars) they will do so. That's the very definition of "rational." And, trust me, I am sure you don't like the idea...

 

[degsme]

Again, ahem, LOL! I have a news flash for you. It's the hundreds of millions of Americans whose emotional responses drive the economy

Again, hundreds of millions of Americans means at least 2/3rds of the country

But only 1/3 even thinks gold is a GOOD long term investment - and not all of them will be in the market holding gold at any point. So your claim here is once again,.... made up shiit
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149195/Americans-Choose-Gold-Best-Long-Term-Investment.aspx

So, economics is the study of how they drive the economy, not the other way around.

And therein lies your problem. You have an arbitrarily narrow view of how economies work:

• All functions are linear
• Psychology DRIVES the economy but is not affected by the economy
• there are no underlying mathematical or mechanical principles in effect
• Money can only be spent once per year (no Velocity of Money because there are no Fiscal Multipliers)
• Government spending is always "waste and fraud"
• There never is too little demand

etc etc.

Try again.

 

[Sgt Staples]

Actually since the price of oil is about average relative to historic prices - this isn't going to drive inflation. And the price increase we are seeing is LESS THAN 5% change in the annual middle-class budget.

Let me make it real simple.

Gas prices aren't rising.

The dollar is falling.

Let me explain that.

Oil is priced in dollars.

Dollars are getting cheaper.

It takes more of them to buy oil.

So oil gets more expensive.

Gas gets more expensive.

 

[degsme]

Let me make it real simple.

Gas prices aren't rising.

The dollar is falling.

Wrong. Simply wrong

Oil is priced in dollars.

Dollars are getting cheaper.

It takes more of them to buy oil.

So oil gets more expensive.

Gas gets more expensive.

If that were true - then nations who's currency is doing well relative to the US Dollar WOULD NOT SEE THE PRICE RISE.... Because the US Dollar's devaluation would mean their currency (the Euro, the Yen) would be able to buy more US Dollars and thus more oil.

IOW if the Dollar falls 10% relative to the Yen - and oil prices go up 10% - then Japan should see zero change in their oil prices based on Yen.


Except as the chart I showed demonstrates... THIS IS NOT HAPPENING.... Instead the price of oil is

1) going up faster than the dollar is devaluating
2) going up for ALL industrialized nations - including the ones who's currency is getting stronger WRT the dollar.

So your explanation simply does NOT WORK.

 

[Lukey]

Wrong. Simply wrong




If that were true - then nations who's currency is doing well relative to the US Dollar WOULD NOT SEE THE PRICE RISE.... Because the US Dollar's devaluation would mean their currency (the Euro, the Yen) would be able to buy more US Dollars and thus more oil.

IOW if the Dollar falls 10% relative to the Yen - and oil prices go up 10% - then Japan should see zero change in their oil prices based on Yen.


Except as the chart I showed demonstrates... THIS IS NOT HAPPENING.... Instead the price of oil is

1) going up faster than the dollar is devaluating
2) going up for ALL industrialized nations - including the ones who's currency is getting stronger WRT the dollar.

So your explanation simply does NOT WORK.

Redo your math. Those currencies can (and most are as developed nations print money furiously to prop up their "decimated" welfare state economies) also be declining against gold, just at varying rates of decline. I had already pointed that out to you but you must have forgotten in your zeal to suggest that gold isn't money and doesn't store value...

 

[degsme]

Redo your math. Those currencies can (and most are as developed nations print money furiously to prop up their "decimated" welfare state economies) also be declining against gold, just at varying rates of decline.

If they decline against gold along with the dollar, then BY DEFINITION the dollar isn't weakening WRT those currencies. And if the price of oil is going up FASTER than the rate at which the dollar is weakening against those currencies (which the data says is happening) - then the Price of oil is only being driven IN PART by the weakinging of the dollar.

And if the price of oil increase LAGS the weakening of the dollar (which again the data says is happening) - then again, there isn't even correlation, much less causation.


Yet you claim both.

FACTS MATTER
yes - do redo your math

 

[Lukey]

If they decline against gold along with the dollar, then BY DEFINITION the dollar isn't weakening WRT those currencies. And if the price of oil is going up FASTER than the rate at which the dollar is weakening against those currencies (which the data says is happening) - then the Price of oil is only being driven IN PART by the weakinging of the dollar.

And if the price of oil increase LAGS the weakening of the dollar (which again the data says is happening) - then again, there isn't even correlation, much less causation.


Yet you claim both.

FACTS MATTER
yes - do redo your math

Yes, well - as you probably already know, your logic is faulty because, as I said, if they are all declining over time against gold (and they are), but at varying rates, then they will be moving more or less in tandem but at any given time, they are also weakening and strengthening against each other.

To see more clearly how the price of the dollar has changed, it helps to view price changes over a 10 year period. Since 2002, the price of a barrel of oil has increased four-fold, to $107 last Friday from $26 in 2002. To suggest that oil companies had enough power to impose such a price increase, or that speculators are responsible for a quadrupling of the price of oil is, on its face, preposterous. Instead, the price of oil and gasoline are up because the Federal Reserve has driven the value of the dollar down.

For example, if the dollar since 2002 had been as good as the:

• Chinese yuan, the price of oil today would be $82 and a gallon of regular gas would cost about $3.10;

• Euro, the price of oil today would be $77 and regular gas would cost about $2.90;

• Japanese yen, the price of oil today would be $71 and regular gas would cost about $2.75;

• Swiss Franc, the price of oil today would be $63 and regular gas would cost about $2.50.

Even these results miss the full decline in the dollar’s value because the value of all of these currencies, too, have fallen over the past decade. If the dollar had been as good as gold, the price of oil today would be about $20 a barrel, and the price of gasoline would be down near $1 a gallon. That’s right, the lower prices produced by the increase in oil and natural gas production have been disguised by the fall in the value of the dollar.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/03/19/the-rising-price-of-the-falling-dollar/

 

[degsme]

Yes, well - as you probably already know, your logic is faulty because, as I said, if they are all declining over time against gold (and they are), but at varying rates, then they will be moving more or less in tandem but at any given time, they are also weakening and strengthening against each other.

HUH??? This doesn't enen parse.

EITHER the US Dollar is weakening... and this is defined by its ability to purchase overseas goods ie the exchange rates - not any particular specie pricing
OR it is NOT Weakening.


If the dollar is Weakening (which no-one disputes) then FOREIGN currencies would necessarily be paying LESS for Dollar Denominated commodities (like Oil). Consider the extreme example: The Euro gains 10x vs. the US Dollar. That means that Every Euro would convert to $10. So E$10 would convert to $100 or 1 BBl oil. Since Oil WAS trading at E$80/bbl http://economy.hidepark21.org/Oil.htm that would mean the price of oil in Euros would DROP by $70/bbl..

Now since Dec we have seen a 3cents/76cents decline in Dollar/Euro value http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=qkchart&symbol=FX^USDEUR - or about a 4% dollar value drop.

And the price of oil has gone $101 to $107 in the same time period http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/?anticache=1332441260

Using your logic about the weakening dollar, The Dollar equivilent in Euros should be about $102.72/bbl of crude which after the conversion rate is E$78/bbl

Yet in March the Euro crude price is http://economy.hidepark21.org/Oil.htm E$92/bbl. Or 20% above what a weak dollar slide would predict.


So explain how a "weak dollar" that is "losing value" against other trading currencies, is a better means of purchasing Oil than the currencies it is "sliding" against?

There is a simple answer to this... the change in the price of oil HAS ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DOLLAR VALUATION SLIDE.


Now we have already addressed the bogousity of this particular piece of Forbes Bloggery (its a blog piece not journalism). The very notion that a currency tied to the US Dollar changes in its purchsing price of oil WRT the Dollar is itself ludicrous. Yet that is what your little article claims


GO DO THE MATH YOURSELF. stop regurgitating echo chamber received wisdom.


To see more clearly how the price of the dollar has changed, it helps to view price changes over a 10 year period. Since 2002, the price of a barrel of oil has increased four-fold, to $107 last Friday from $26 in 2002. To suggest that oil companies had enough power to impose such a price increase, or that speculators are responsible for a quadrupling of the price of oil is, on its face, preposterous. Instead, the price of oil and gasoline are up because the Federal Reserve has driven the value of the dollar down.

For example, if the dollar since 2002 had been as good as the:

• Chinese yuan, the price of oil today would be $82 and a gallon of regular gas would cost about $3.10;

• Euro, the price of oil today would be $77 and regular gas would cost about $2.90;

• Japanese yen, the price of oil today would be $71 and regular gas would cost about $2.75;

• Swiss Franc, the price of oil today would be $63 and regular gas would cost about $2.50.

Even these results miss the full decline in the dollar’s value because the value of all of these currencies, too, have fallen over the past decade. If the dollar had been as good as gold, the price of oil today would be about $20 a barrel, and the price of gasoline would be down near $1 a gallon. That’s right, the lower prices produced by the increase in oil and natural gas production have been disguised by the fall in the value of the dollar.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/03/19/the-rising-price-of-the-falling-dollar/[/QUOTE]

 

[Lukey]

HUH??? This doesn't enen parse.

EITHER the US Dollar is weakening... and this is defined by its ability to purchase overseas goods ie the exchange rates - not any particular specie pricing
OR it is NOT Weakening.


If the dollar is Weakening (which no-one disputes) then FOREIGN currencies would necessarily be paying LESS for Dollar Denominated commodities (like Oil). Consider the extreme example: The Euro gains 10x vs. the US Dollar. That means that Every Euro would convert to $10. So E$10 would convert to $100 or 1 BBl oil. Since Oil WAS trading at E$80/bbl http://economy.hidepark21.org/Oil.htm that would mean the price of oil in Euros would DROP by $70/bbl..

Now since Dec we have seen a 3cents/76cents decline in Dollar/Euro value http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=qkchart&symbol=FX^USDEUR - or about a 4% dollar value drop.

And the price of oil has gone $101 to $107 in the same time period http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/?anticache=1332441260

Using your logic about the weakening dollar, The Dollar equivilent in Euros should be about $102.72/bbl of crude which after the conversion rate is E$78/bbl

Yet in March the Euro crude price is http://economy.hidepark21.org/Oil.htm E$92/bbl. Or 20% above what a weak dollar slide would predict.


So explain how a "weak dollar" that is "losing value" against other trading currencies, is a better means of purchasing Oil than the currencies it is "sliding" against?

There is a simple answer to this... the change in the price of oil HAS ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DOLLAR VALUATION SLIDE.


Now we have already addressed the bogousity of this particular piece of Forbes Bloggery (its a blog piece not journalism). The very notion that a currency tied to the US Dollar changes in its purchsing price of oil WRT the Dollar is itself ludicrous. Yet that is what your little article claims


GO DO THE MATH YOURSELF. stop regurgitating echo chamber received wisdom.


To see more clearly how the price of the dollar has changed, it helps to view price changes over a 10 year period. Since 2002, the price of a barrel of oil has increased four-fold, to $107 last Friday from $26 in 2002. To suggest that oil companies had enough power to impose such a price increase, or that speculators are responsible for a quadrupling of the price of oil is, on its face, preposterous. Instead, the price of oil and gasoline are up because the Federal Reserve has driven the value of the dollar down.

For example, if the dollar since 2002 had been as good as the:

• Chinese yuan, the price of oil today would be $82 and a gallon of regular gas would cost about $3.10;

• Euro, the price of oil today would be $77 and regular gas would cost about $2.90;

• Japanese yen, the price of oil today would be $71 and regular gas would cost about $2.75;

• Swiss Franc, the price of oil today would be $63 and regular gas would cost about $2.50.

Even these results miss the full decline in the dollar’s value because the value of all of these currencies, too, have fallen over the past decade. If the dollar had been as good as gold, the price of oil today would be about $20 a barrel, and the price of gasoline would be down near $1 a gallon. That’s right, the lower prices produced by the increase in oil and natural gas production have been disguised by the fall in the value of the dollar.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/03/19/the-rising-price-of-the-falling-dollar/

[/QUOTE]

We're talking about markets, not a swiss watch or one of your neat little Keynesian economic models running on a super computer. You are trying to use run of the mill market "noise" to refute the obvious macro trends. That's like trying to use tides to prove there are no water levels. It's absurd!

 

[degsme]

We're talking about markets,

Yup - that's why I cited MARKET DATA. Data that refutes your MODELS... models for which you have NO DATA to support.

You are trying to use run of the mill market "noise" to refute the obvious macro trends.

What "obvious macro trends"? Such as the dollar GAINING VALUE against the Euro over the last year from 68 cents to 76 cents? That sort of Macro Trend where a 3 cent drop IS NOISE

http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=qkchart&symbol=FX^USDEUR


FACTS MATTER
DATA MATTERS
got any to support your claims?