I think you are absolutely correct. At least part of the reason is to clobber the China economy and force them to stop pegging the Yuan to the Dollar. Another is to keep the economy propped up while Obama implements all his anti-capitalist policies.
It invariably takes more words to SUBSTANTIATE something than to make it up out of whole cloth.
Hmm - and can you demonstrate that "the sky is blue"? Because the latter statement is accurate ALL THE TIME... the former statement depends on
Um " the value of the currency" gets 480 million. IOW 65% understand your usage is wrong.
you need to stop listening to Glenn Beck on economics..... The logic doesn't hold any more than the economic crash we had was a way of sucking back some of the trade deficit with the PRC and reducing the value of its biggest earners. Its idiotic. literally.
Want some oats with that straw? Who said it wasn't?
I already did.
Since The PRC doesn't run on the Yuan - this is absolutely a perfect illustration of the level of understanding you have here.....
BS Degs! "The value of the currency" has a completely different (and more prevalent) conceptual framework. I proved my usage was acceptable and that your criticism was a complete sham. "Decimating" the value of a currency has a widely recognized meaning that conforms with EXACTLY how I used it. You lose!
No you showed there were 170 million hits on The Value of the Currency ...... and a relative association with "decimation".... that just means that "decimation" shows up SOMEWHERE in the relevant page or document. You didn't show that its usage is proper or etymologically informed.
I showed it was widely used terminology in the context in which I used it. Even if less than one percent of those links use the word as I did (and over the first few pages almost every link does), it is clearly an established part of the economic journalistic lexicon. You, on the other hand, decided that it (only) means what it meant in the days of the Roman Empire. It's like your tortured parsing of Marxist theory that holds the label can only refer to those who openly advocate "worker ownership of the means of production." That is absurd as there is a whole host of Marxist teaching surrounding how you get there that is not (openly) consistent with "worker ownership of the means of production." And there is a clear history of Marxists working surreptitiously to set up the conditions for the final revolutionary "fundamental transformation" to communism so being "open" about what (exactly) they are advocating is rarely a feature of that particular movement. So just who is playing the fool here? I'd say it is anyone who is buying your lame act.
No because that's not what the Google Algorithm does to use it that way your search has to put quotes around the phrase http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&cp=37&gs_id=40&xhr=t&q="decimation+of+the+value+of+currency"&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq="decimation+of+the+value+of+currency"&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ce76e0bba54de561&biw=1600&bih=1094
No you didn't show that either. To do so you would have had to search scholar.google.com which you did not. Here's what that turns up http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=decimation+of+the+value+of+currency&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1,48&as_sdtp=on
No that is the clear meaning in economic terms of Marxism... again since we are talking economics here that's all that matters. The rest of the "teachings" are not relevant
22% year on year growth sorry IS A DRAMATIC increase, particularly when you go from an Year on Year DECREASE. What matters in large systems is the RATE OF CHANGE as well. And in this case the RATE OF CHANGE is much higher than 22%.
You've not shown any "opposite of the trend".. What your two links show is a low level of Entrepreneurial startups. That's very different than whether or not penalizing savings increases the level of investment in equity capital.
[/QUOTE]
Well you are partly right. The real problem in 2008 was too much free money (Fed easing). And the reason all the economic activity was (and still is) centered on Wall Street is because all the progressive regulation and anti-capitalist economic policy has made Finance the best place to place one's entreprenurial zeal, as you don't have to employ people, you don't have to pay inflated costs for material and you don't have to worry about environmental issues. It's one of the few places left where a bright capitalist can make a good buck with little risk. Focusing on the symptom (Wall Street excess) without acknowledging the disease (bad progressive anti-capitalist economic policy) is a recipe for continued economic decline. And, as for the left, all they seek is to kill this last bastion of capitalist (or capitalism like) activity without fixing the problems with the US economic system (too much communist central planning and entitlements).
No data supports this. No major economist supports this. The REAL problem was deregulation of Wall Street in both major legislative avenues (Gramm-Leach-Bliley, CMFA) and administrative (evisceration of the SEC's investigatory and enforcement arms, waivers for reserve requirements).
Hint, the yuan is not the PRC's currency...
