"Euros Accepted" signs pop up in New York City

[freddyv]

thank heavens for the FED



"Euros Accepted" signs pop up in New York City
Wed Feb 6, 2008 4:09pm EST
NEW YORK (Reuters) - In the latest example that the U.S. dollar just ain't what it used to be, some shops in New York City have begun accepting euros and other foreign currency as payment for merchandise.

"We had decided that money is money and we'll take it and just do the exchange whenever we can with our bank," Robert Chu, owner of East Village Wines, told Reuters television.

The increasingly weak U.S. dollar, once considered the king among currencies, has brought waves of European tourists to New York with money to burn and looking to take advantage of hugely favorable exchange rates.

"We didn't realize we would take so much in and there were that many people traveling or having euros to bring in. But some days, you'd be surprised at how many euros you get," Chu said.

"Now we have to get familiar with other currencies and the (British) pound and the Canadian dollars we take," he said.

While shops in many U.S. towns on the Canadian border have long accepted Canadian currency and some stores on the Texas-Mexico border take pesos, the acceptance of foreign money in Manhattan was unheard of until recently.

Not far from Chu's downtown wine emporium, Billy Leroy of Billy's Antiques & Props said the vast numbers of Europeans shopping in the neighborhood got him thinking, "My God, I should take euros in at the store."

Leroy doesn't even bother to exchange them.

"I'm happy if I take in 200 euros, because what I do is keep them," he said. "So when I go back to Paris, I don't have to go through the nightmare of going to an exchange place."

(Reporting by Angela Moore, writing by Bill Berkrot; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

[freddyv]

Here's an interesting article from the wall street journal regarding the dollar crisis.

Every year, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is briefed by the chief of U.S. intelligence on potential threats to the nation. The list is sobering, but usually predictable and typically includes global terrorism, nuclear proliferation and regional conflicts.

But this year, there was a surprising potential foe: the falling dollar. In his report to Congress last week, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell went beyond the conventional world of spycraft. Mr. McConnell specifically acknowledged "concerns about the financial capabilities of Russia, China, and OPEC countries and the potential use of their market access to exert financial leverage to achieve political ends." He noted, in particular, the impact a weak dollar can have on national security: "As the dollar has weakened this year, some oil producers -- such as Syria, Iran, and Libya -- have asked to be paid in currencies other than the dollar while others -- such as Kuwait -- are delinking their currency pegs to the dollar."

online.wsj.com/article/SB120303537586270097.html?mod=article-outset-box

Also, a little bit of information that I wasn't aware of:

If gold and foreign currency reserves were the only prerequisite for harboring global ambitions in the monetary arena, China could make impressive claims of its own with $1.7 trillion as of December 2007, the world's highest level. Japan comes in second at $973 billion. If you add together the gold and foreign currency reserves of EU member states that have adopted the euro, including those of the European Central Bank, the total amount in the EU is $511 billion.

Russia is close behind at $484 billion.

The Euro is at $1.50 now. Not good news for our economy.

[freddyv]

Apparently Ron Paul wrote a letter to the editor regarding the above article that appeared in today's wallstreet journal:

The Dollar is a Big Element of U.S. Security
I was delighted to read in Judy Shelton's op-ed, "Security and the Falling Dollar" (Feb. 15), that at long last the security implications of the dollar's collapse have made their way into the mainstream media. The dollar's strength (or lack thereof) has been of paramount concern to me, and the subject of many of my statements over the past several years. Decades of manipulation by the Federal Reserve have benefited the government and certain politically-connected firms, while gradually destroying the purchasing power of middle-class Americans. Despite numerous warnings in the past, it is only now at a point of acute crisis that Washington insiders are beginning to awaken to the reality of the end of dollar hegemony.

While I desire reform of our current monetary system, my own proposals have not been as all-encompassing as Ms. Shelton's suggestion to return to a Bretton Woods-style system. Her recommendation, though, that gold backing should make up a component of a future monetary system, is one that we would all do well to heed. My own legislative proposals focus around eliminating the taxes and laws that dissuade individuals and institutions from using gold as currency or as a backing for currency. By allowing market processes to determine the issuance of currency, we can allow individuals to decide for themselves what currency they wish to use. This would lead to a gradual reintroduction of sound money and avoid the market shocks that occur when monetary decisions are mandated by government fiat.

Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas)
Washington

online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html?mod=2_0048

[freddyv]

encouraging? not so much...

AP
Gold at $1,000 on Weak Dollar, High Oil
Thursday March 13, 11:02 am ET
By Lauren Shepherd, AP Business Writer
Gold Futures Hit $1,000 Per Ounce Benchmark on Falling Dollar, Rising Oil Prices

NEW YORK (AP) -- Gold futures hit $1,000 an ounce for the first time Thursday, pushed past the benchmark by the sinking dollar and record crude oil prices.
The dollar fell below 100 yen during Asian trading Thursday, its weakest level against the Japanese currency in 12 years. The dollar also dropped to all-time lows against the euro.

After reaching $1,001 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, gold for April delivery dropped slightly to $999.70 by midmorning Thursday.

The price still doesn't match the all-time high of $850 in 1980, if that price is adjusted for inflation. An $850 ounce of gold then would be worth $2,177 in today's dollars.

The $1,000 an ounce price, though, is still a milestone and a telling sign that investors are continuing to abandon the dollar.

Gold has been pushing up against the $1,000 an ounce mark for weeks, mainly because of the weaker dollar. Interest rate cuts -- and the prospect of more on the way -- have weakened the currency so much that foreign investors can buy dollar-based commodities like gold and oil more cheaply.

Crude oil futures hit a record high above $110 a barrel Thursday, after first crossing that level Wednesday, also due to investors abandoning the weak dollar.

Investors have been expecting gold futures to rise to $1,000 as they watched the dollar spiral lower, said Scott Meyers, senior trading analyst with Pioneer Futures, a division of MF Global. Gold has been steadily creeping closer to the record after rising nearly 32 percent in 2007.

The dollar's decline and the boost in the price of oil price merely added the extra push.

"We're getting a scenario where commodities are the place to be today," Meyers said. "With the weak dollar, it's hard to be against them."

Meyers declined to speculate on how high gold could go, saying, "to pick a top is a foolish game to play at this juncture."

The Federal Reserve's meeting next week could provide more encouragement for gold prices since the Fed is widely believed to be considering cutting interest rates again. Another rate cut could reduce the dollar's value further, making gold an even better investment.

[freddyv]

March 26, 2008 10:37AM
Time to Listen to Ron Paul?
By Elizabeth MacDonald

Time to listen to Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the lone voice of reason in Congress today who’s got to feel like he’s shouting into a field of cotton with his repeated warnings about the dangers of a collapsing dollar, while the administration goes AWOL on the problem.

The dollar just hit a record intraday low against the euro on reports that consumer confidence levels have dropped to levels not seen since the post-Watergate era. It is down 7% year to date against the Chinese renminbi, it’s weaker than the Japanese yen and the Canadian loonie.

The joke is the greenback is now only stronger than the Mexican pesos and the Zimbabwe dollar, an overstatement for dramatic effect, to be sure.But since hitting a peak in 2002, the dollar has lost about a quarter of its value against a trade weighted basket of currencies.

A weak dollar acts as an anvil around the neck of the US economy and consumers. Rising inflation is essentially a tax on consumers, so are rising energy prices, and that double whammy threatens to undermine the purchasing power of the rebate checks due out in May–backed by printing even more dollars.

A bellwether event of significant import to our nation’s finances happened this past January 1 with little notice. That’s the day the first baby boomer was allowed to retire. A new federal report wearily warns once again for the umpteenth time that the nation faces some $60t in Social Security and Medicare unfunded liabilities alone.

We’ve heard time and again conservatives say deficits don’t matter. To say that deficits don’t matter is like saying ketchup is a vegetable or trees cause pollution.

The $406b we pay annually in interest on the $9t in federal debt alone would rank as the world’s 30th biggest economy.

That annual interest cost surpasses the gross domestic product of Belgium, and is bigger than the GDP of Denmark and Hungary combined. The $406b would cover the annual cost of investigating Medicare fraud.

Stack all those one dollar bills making up our $9t deficit (and that doesn’t include the $60t in unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security) and you would reach the moon and back. “Printing money cannot create wealth, if it could counterfeiting would be legal,” economist Brian Wesbury has said.

Even Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and a forceful advocate for laissez-faire economics, got so sick of the way central bankers were willy nilly printing money in the ‘70s, he advocated that the government should replace the Federal Reserve with a computer. “Money is too important to be left to central bankers,” he quipped.

Broad zoom: The US economy has spent all of a year and four months in a downturn over the last two and a half decades. During that time we’ve seen a market crash of 22% in 1987, the S&L crisis, four wars, three financial crises (Mexico, Asian flu and Russian debt crises), the blow up of the hedge fund Long Term Capital, two asset bubbles (dot com and telecom). Since the Bush tax cuts of 2003, the US economy added the equivalent of China’s GDP–and government spending has boomed.

Now Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has both cut rates at a breakneck speed and pumped a massive amount of monetary stimulus into the markets to cure the credit crisis. I still think he is doing his level best to fix a crisis not entirely of his own making. The question now is, will Bernanke yank the liquidity punch bowl when the economy returns to trend growth in 2010 or 2011 as the central bank projects?

Let’s hope so, because the case for a weak dollar is, to me, well, weak. Namely, that a lame greenback softens the housing and credit crises as it fuels profits at US exporters whose goods are now dirt cheap in the eyes of foreign customers. Strong foreign sales at places like Boeing and Caterpillar reportedly added 1.4% to US growth in the second quarter of 2007. But exports make up just 13% of GDP. Consumers make up a larger 70%.

It’s no surprise consumer confidence is as weak as it was in the ’70s. LBJ had promised this country it could have both guns and butter in the ‘60s, so the Federal Reserve gunned the printing presses to pay for spending on entitlement programs and for the Vietnam war. For the first time, too, politicians got their mitts on taxpayers’ Social Security funds, after Democrats passed a so-called “unified budget” in the late ‘60s.

All that spending caused the dollar to nosedive in the 1970s amidst an oil embargo that sent oil costs, priced in dollars, soaring. Paul Volcker, then Fed chairman, enacted rapid rate hikes hitting 21% by 1979, and the Treasury went so far as to sell $6.4b in “Carter bonds,” largely denominated in Deutschemarks, to prop up the dollar. Gold got ripped off its mooring of an average $35 an ounce in the ‘70s, and in 1980 it hit a record $835 an ounce, around $2,250 in today’s prices.

Gold acts as a dew line for inflation. We essentially have a good handle on how much gold there is in the world and potentially below ground. When gold rises in price, it signals we are printing too many dollars, which indicates a concurrent drop in the greenback’s value. Over the last seven years, gold and oil prices have risen in lockstep, up 239% and 267% respectively. If the dollar had also risen in value at the same rate, oil would be selling at about $30 a barrel.

But now central bankers say that because of the weak dollar, they’ve seen capital losses carved out of an estimated $12t worth of dollars they hold in foreign currency reserves. The fear is they may unload their $12t in greenbacks en masse to cut their losses and run–which would really tip the US into a protracted recession. Already reports out of China show government officials there willing to rotate future planned investments out of US treasurys into other investments.

Countries pegged to the dollar are rightly saying, too, that we are exporting inflation to their shores. Saudi Arabia is a land that has had nearly zero inflation since 1998, but recently inflation soared to 7% annually, despite the fact the country is flush with petrodollars.

Congressman Paul rightfully warns us when he says the US government has “systematically undermined” the US dollar by expanding “the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating the economy with little resistance from Congress–while benefiting the special interests that influence government.”

It’s not just the US gunning the mints. Goldman Sachs figures that three-fifths of the world’s broad money supply growth came from emerging economies over the past year or so. Three-fifths. That’s gigantic.

Goldman Sachs says the growth in Russia’s M3 measure of broad money grew 51% over the last year or so, India by 24%, and by 20% in China, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Brazil. That’s three times as fast as the US and the rest of the developed world, and it’s faster than their GDP growth rates. It’s the fastest pace in decades.

All that loose money is pouring into commodities, stock exchanges around the planet as well as bond markets–it’s largely why our long-term bond yields have been historically low, spurring a dramatic increase in mortgage borrowing, as mortgage rates typically track the 10-year Treasury note.

Watch out here–emerging economies are just as susceptible to minting lots of money due to political pressures, including things like paying for wars, or calming local populations clamoring for higher pay and more jobs.

What can be done stateside?

The administration needs to state more emphatically that it supports a strong dollar. A stronger dollar would draw liquidity back into the credit markets, lower inflation risks, cut oil prices and restart economic growth, notes Bear Stearns economist David Malpass.

Presidential candidates vilify NAFTA and free trade, when the weak dollar is partly to blame for problems like jobs lost to overseas operations, Malpass adds.

“Empires fail because they run out of money, or more accurately, run out of the ability to spend or inflate,” Congressman Paul warns. “We need to control spending, immediately, before it is too late.”