"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

another couple hundred million from the meltdown. The head of Goldman
Sachs bought a bunch of shares in GS when he found out about the AIG
bailout. A lot of insider trading? Kashkari was named to lead the
Bush $700 billion bailout (that did not seem to help much). Another GS
exec. GS is one of the architects of the meltdown and Derivitives.
Paulson came from GS. So we have put the people who made a fortune off
the bubble in charge of fixing the popping of the bubble. They should
have been banned from the Securities industry, not rewarded.

Ok, let's assume that all you've said is factually accurate. You can't
seriously think that causes a world-wide financial meltdown is the right
course of action. That's what was about to happen. As much as I was
distrustful of Paulson (in a large measure of the Bush company he was
keeping), he, Geitner, Bernanke, and Summers acted to restore
confidence. As someone said in a previous thread, in essence the
financial system is a confidence game. I'm not disputing that, but it is
also the grease that keeps things moving. You can't have a complex and
robust financial system without having confidence in it. The debt is
large and growing larger. No doubt. But you can't cut off your nose to
spite your face. Debt can be paid back, reduced, mitigated, but people's
lives and their survival (which is ultimately what was at stake) can't
be put back together so easily.

You're right. Some of the people who caused the crisis or allowed it to
happen are around. In some respects they're the ones who have to fix it.
I'm certainly not qualified, and I doubt you are (or anyone else in this
forum). They're making their best efforts for the most part to fix
things. We need to get things stablized and we need business to start
hiring. That's the bottom line.

--
Nom=de=Plume


He has not inspired confidence in the dollar. And that is what you say
is required. Just look at Gold, oil and all other dollar denominated
commodities. They have soared in price. A direct result of the
overspending without real merit.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/s...?Symbol=/EURUS chart of
the euro vs. $.

The relative price of the dollar isn't the issue.

Sometimes a weak dollar is good, for example for tourism or for selling
goods in foreign markets. Sometimes a weak dollar is bad, for example
foreign investment in the US. If it were get really out of wack down, then
there might be a problem with our largest foreign creditors, since they
might decide to pull their funds. (This is unlikely if we're working on
the problem, since they would take a huge loss if they removed their funds
precipitously).

Sometimes a strong dollar is good, for example for our tourism abroad or
for buying imported items. Sometimes a strong dollar is bad, for example
foreigners travelling here are discouraged.

It's always a double-edged sword with respect to the strength of the
dollar.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Is not the strenth of the dollar presently but why is the dollar falling and
dollar denominated commodities rising.