FYI, I live here. Family is Cajun from new Iberia.
You don't know anymore about Louisiana than you do Ukraine or Russia.
Or even middle America for that matter
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Russia begins invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter Fifap94
- Start date
FYI, I live here. Family is Cajun from new Iberia.
You don't know anymore about Louisiana than you do Ukraine or Russia.
Or even middle America for that matter
An interesting thread here on the US dollar.
Most of the facts are direct contradictions of that idiot @hometeam
View: https://twitter.com/HumbleBitcoiner/status/1640178410746966016?t=AFZZ1ksd_RUXEUGWh8sGHA&s=19
Most of the facts are direct contradictions of that idiot @hometeam
View: https://twitter.com/HumbleBitcoiner/status/1640178410746966016?t=AFZZ1ksd_RUXEUGWh8sGHA&s=19
More on the dollar that idiot @hometeam lied about
View: https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1640143338299969538?t=znQcIYX6yYmXV_1jhUEZdw&s=19
View: https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1640143338299969538?t=znQcIYX6yYmXV_1jhUEZdw&s=19
Forbes take on it.
Again nothing like that idiot
"Washington will bankrupt Russia with sanctions" - the idiot
"Our dollar is backed by the US military" - the idiot
"No matter how strong the US military is foreign markets are leaving the dollar to avoid inflation and US financial manipulation" - Forbes
www.forbes.com
Again nothing like that idiot
"Washington will bankrupt Russia with sanctions" - the idiot
"Our dollar is backed by the US military" - the idiot
"No matter how strong the US military is foreign markets are leaving the dollar to avoid inflation and US financial manipulation" - Forbes
BRICS In The New World Energy Order: Hedging In Oil Geopolitics
For many developing countries critically dependent on imports of the 3Fs – fuels, food and fertilizers — membership of the BRICS group may well turn out to be the best geopolitical hedge in a world forever changed by the US-led financial sanctions on Russia.
www.forbes.com
I've said what I wanted . I won't go on and on and on month after month, spouting the same horse shit like a bitch that isn't getting fucked.
Until next time mother fucker.
Michael Pettis is a Finance Professor at Peking University’s Guanghua School of Management, where he specializes in the Chinese economy and Chinese financial markets.
View: https://twitter.com/michaelxpettis/status/1640209357488140289
He goes on to say:
Almost everything Zakaria says here is wrong, and unanchored in any understanding of how the global balance of payments actually works. Like many people in Washington, Zakaria assumes (perhaps without realizing it) that the only things that should matter to the US are US geopolitical power and the dominance of Wall Street. He is ignoring the needs of American workers, farmers, producers, and the economy more generally. That is why a diminished role for the US dollar is something that he and many others find so frightening.
He complains that both US debt and US deficits have surged in recent years, and he argues that these can only be sustained by the global dominance of the dollar, but he fails to see that he has it backwards.
It is because of the dominance of the US dollar that foreigners must acquire massive amounts of US assets to balance weakness in their domestic demand, which means that the US must run massive deficits to accommodate these inflows.
Zakaria also doesn’t understand that in an economy in which investment is constrained by weak demand, and not by scarce savings, foreign inflows (like the rise in domestic inequality, which has the same impact) cannot be absorbed by more investment.
That is why it must be absorbed by changes in the US economy that force down savings elsewhere. Foreign inflows, like domestic inequality, must be resolved in the form either of higher US unemployment or (more likely) higher household and fiscal debt.
He says that thanks to USD dominance, “Washington can spend freely, certain that it’s debt will be bought up by the rest of the world.” This is simply not true, and is yet another example of why thinking incrementally about the economy rather than systematically leads to so many mistakes. As long as foreign demand for US debt does not cause US investment to rise, it must cause US savings to fall by an equivalent amount, and so foreign savings do not supplement US savings. They replace US savings. This may seem incredibly counterintuitive at first, but it is the inevitable outcome of the arithmetic of the balance of payments.
The U.S. Trade Deficit Isn’t Caused by Low American Savings
A recent article by Joseph Stiglitz suggests that the United States runs a current account deficit because its people save too little to fund domestic investment. In fact, he may have it backwards: Americans may save too little precisely because the United States runs a current account deficit.
He comes close to recognizing the costs of a having globally important currency when he talks about China, and why it is not taking the required steps to increase the global use of the RMB.
He says: “If Xi Jinping wanted to cause the greatest pain to America, he would liberalize his financial sector and make the RMB a true competitor to USD”.
Will the Chinese renminbi replace the US dollar?
This article makes three related points. First, for China to upend the dominance of the US dollar and replace it, even partially, with the renminbi would require major – and probably disruptive – changes in China’s financial markets and monetary policies. Second, the end of US-dollar dominance...
But Beijing won't, not because it wants to be kind to the US but rather because doing so would force China to absorb demand weaknesses from the rest of the world rather than use the USD to export its own demand weakness. Beijing knows this would be terrible for its economy.
The global dominance of USD is great for Wall Street and great for US geopolitical dominance, but it comes at a high and rising cost to the US economy – more household and fiscal debt, a declining American share of global manufacturing, worsening income inequality, etc.
But the great strength of the US has always been its economy. It seems incredibly short-sighted to sacrifice the needs of the economy for the ability of Washington to impose financial sanctions on other countries.
For Zakaria to suggest that the erosion of the dominance of the global role of USD is one of the greatest threats facing the US is absurd. Not only is it not happening, but it would be better for the US if it did.
Then we've got Dean Baker, who is actually my favorite economist because he (and Robert Shiller of Yale) predicted the '08 recession back when all the others were dismissing the possibility.
He wrote this back in '09:
foreignpolicy.com
Debunking the Dumping-the-Dollar Conspiracy
On Monday, the Independent reported that a number of countries are conspiring to dump the dollar as the primary oil trade currency, spelling disaster for the U.S. economy. But the United States wouldn't need to fear -- even if it were true.
I'll quote just part of it:
This raises a more serious issue affecting the demand for dollars, which is the dollar’s status as an international reserve currency. Currently the dollar is by far the preferred currency, but others, notably the euro, are gaining ground. A switch away from the dollar will lower its value, but this is hardly anything to fear: In actuality, it was and is an official policy goal of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.
Both administrations are on record complaining about China’s “manipulation” of its currency. China does this by buying up vast amounts of dollars to hold as foreign reserves, suppressing the value of the yuan against the dollar. This, in turn, makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and bolsters China’s exports.
To summarize, the dollars needed to finance the international oil trade are trivial compared with other sources of demand for dollars. The currency chosen for foreign reserve holdings can have an impact on demand for dollars, but this has nothing to do with the currency chosen to conduct the oil trade. If Saudi Arabia wanted to hold euros rather than dollars, it could almost instantly offload as many dollars as it desired. Plus, the White House wants the dollar to decline anyway because it would improve the United States’ trade balance.
It's funny that what was said back in 2009 holds true today.
He wrote this back in '09:
Debunking the Dumping-the-Dollar Conspiracy
On Monday, the Independent reported that a number of countries are conspiring to dump the dollar as the primary oil trade currency, spelling disaster for…
foreignpolicy.com
On Monday, the Independent reported that a number of countries are conspiring to dump the dollar as the primary oil trade currency, spelling disaster for the U.S. economy. But the United States wouldn't need to fear -- even if it were true.
I'll quote just part of it:
This raises a more serious issue affecting the demand for dollars, which is the dollar’s status as an international reserve currency. Currently the dollar is by far the preferred currency, but others, notably the euro, are gaining ground. A switch away from the dollar will lower its value, but this is hardly anything to fear: In actuality, it was and is an official policy goal of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.
Both administrations are on record complaining about China’s “manipulation” of its currency. China does this by buying up vast amounts of dollars to hold as foreign reserves, suppressing the value of the yuan against the dollar. This, in turn, makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and bolsters China’s exports.
To summarize, the dollars needed to finance the international oil trade are trivial compared with other sources of demand for dollars. The currency chosen for foreign reserve holdings can have an impact on demand for dollars, but this has nothing to do with the currency chosen to conduct the oil trade. If Saudi Arabia wanted to hold euros rather than dollars, it could almost instantly offload as many dollars as it desired. Plus, the White House wants the dollar to decline anyway because it would improve the United States’ trade balance.
It's funny that what was said back in 2009 holds true today.
Last edited:
Then we've got Dean Baker, who is actually my favorite economist because he (and Robert Shiller of Yale) predicted the '08 recession back when all the others were dismissing the possibility.
He wrote this back in '09:
Debunking the Dumping-the-Dollar ConspiracyDebunking the Dumping-the-Dollar Conspiracy
On Monday, the Independent reported that a number of countries are conspiring to dump the dollar as the primary oil trade currency, spelling disaster for…
On Monday, the Independent reported that a number of countries are conspiring to dump the dollar as the primary oil trade currency, spelling disaster for the U.S. economy. But the United States wouldn't need to fear -- even if it were true.
I'll quote just part of it:
This raises a more serious issue affecting the demand for dollars, which is the dollar’s status as an international reserve currency. Currently the dollar is by far the preferred currency, but others, notably the euro, are gaining ground. A switch away from the dollar will lower its value, but this is hardly anything to fear: In actuality, it was and is an official policy goal of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.
Both administrations are on record complaining about China’s “manipulation” of its currency. China does this by buying up vast amounts of dollars to hold as foreign reserves, suppressing the value of the yuan against the dollar. This, in turn, makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and bolsters China’s exports.
To summarize, the dollars needed to finance the international oil trade are trivial compared with other sources of demand for dollars. The currency chosen for foreign reserve holdings can have an impact on demand for dollars, but this has nothing to do with the currency chosen to conduct the oil trade. If Saudi Arabia wanted to hold euros rather than dollars, it could almost instantly offload as many dollars as it desired. Plus, the White House wants the dollar to decline anyway because it would improve the United States’ trade balance.
Except those people are known liars and have been wrong about almost everything from the 2008 housing crash to the idea the Biden administration sanctions would bankrupt Russia.
On the collapse of the dollar
View: https://youtu.be/FzI0oyxQ218
Michael Pettis is a Finance Professor at Peking University’s Guanghua School of Management, where he specializes in the Chinese economy and Chinese financial markets.
View: https://twitter.com/michaelxpettis/status/1640209357488140289
He goes on to say:
Almost everything Zakaria says here is wrong, and unanchored in any understanding of how the global balance of payments actually works. Like many people in Washington, Zakaria assumes (perhaps without realizing it) that the only things that should matter to the US are US geopolitical power and the dominance of Wall Street. He is ignoring the needs of American workers, farmers, producers, and the economy more generally. That is why a diminished role for the US dollar is something that he and many others find so frightening.
He complains that both US debt and US deficits have surged in recent years, and he argues that these can only be sustained by the global dominance of the dollar, but he fails to see that he has it backwards.
It is because of the dominance of the US dollar that foreigners must acquire massive amounts of US assets to balance weakness in their domestic demand, which means that the US must run massive deficits to accommodate these inflows.
Zakaria also doesn’t understand that in an economy in which investment is constrained by weak demand, and not by scarce savings, foreign inflows (like the rise in domestic inequality, which has the same impact) cannot be absorbed by more investment.
That is why it must be absorbed by changes in the US economy that force down savings elsewhere. Foreign inflows, like domestic inequality, must be resolved in the form either of higher US unemployment or (more likely) higher household and fiscal debt.
He says that thanks to USD dominance, “Washington can spend freely, certain that it’s debt will be bought up by the rest of the world.” This is simply not true, and is yet another example of why thinking incrementally about the economy rather than systematically leads to so many mistakes. As long as foreign demand for US debt does not cause US investment to rise, it must cause US savings to fall by an equivalent amount, and so foreign savings do not supplement US savings. They replace US savings. This may seem incredibly counterintuitive at first, but it is the inevitable outcome of the arithmetic of the balance of payments.
The U.S. Trade Deficit Isn’t Caused by Low American Savings
A recent article by Joseph Stiglitz suggests that the United States runs a current account deficit because its people save too little to fund domestic investment. In fact, he may have it backwards: Americans may save too little precisely because the United States runs a current account deficit.carnegieendowment.org
He comes close to recognizing the costs of a having globally important currency when he talks about China, and why it is not taking the required steps to increase the global use of the RMB.
He says: “If Xi Jinping wanted to cause the greatest pain to America, he would liberalize his financial sector and make the RMB a true competitor to USD”.
Will the Chinese renminbi replace the US dollar?
This article makes three related points. First, for China to upend the dominance of the US dollar and replace it, even partially, with the renminbi would require major – and probably disruptive – changes in China’s financial markets and monetary policies. Second, the end of US-dollar dominance...t.co
But Beijing won't, not because it wants to be kind to the US but rather because doing so would force China to absorb demand weaknesses from the rest of the world rather than use the USD to export its own demand weakness. Beijing knows this would be terrible for its economy.
The global dominance of USD is great for Wall Street and great for US geopolitical dominance, but it comes at a high and rising cost to the US economy – more household and fiscal debt, a declining American share of global manufacturing, worsening income inequality, etc.
Bunch of horseshit ^
Not worth a response
That economy is based on credit.
Our leadership has sold off our manufacturing base to make itself a quick buck and now the dollar is based on nothing but military and credit.
There's nobody left to plunder. Russia has stopped it dead in it's tracks
Washington sanctions obviously don't have the strength they used to.
Lmfao.
Look around you. It's happening now
Actually Baker was the one telling the truth then, along with Shiller and Roubini (but Roubini is nicknamed Dr Doom, it's not unusual for him to be forecasting bad things.) Why do you keep pulling stuff out of your ass without looking it up?
This is from Wikipedia:
2007–08 United States housing bubble
In 2006 Baker predicted that "plunging housing investment will likely push the economy into recession."[10] That year he published "Recession Looms for the U.S. Economy in 2007", in which he predicted that weakness in the US housing market was likely in 2007 to push the US economy into a recession.[10]Baker won the Revere Award, along with Steve Keen and Nouriel Roubini, for predicting the crash of the United States housing bubble and the resulting recession, which occurred from 2007 to 2008.[11][12] He warned about the coming crisis and the related government policies in multiple articles, op-eds and interviews from 2002 to 2005.[13] Basing his outlook on housing price data sets produced by the U.S. government, Baker asserted that there was a bubble in the US housing market in August 2002,[14] well before its peak,[15] and predicted that the bubble's collapse would lead to recession. His prediction for when the recession would start was off by only one quarter.[16][17][18][19][20]
Regarding the housing bubble, Baker was critical of Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan.[21][22][23] He has also been critical of the regulatory framework of the real estate and financial industries, the use of financial instruments like collateralized debt obligation, and U.S. politicians and regulators' performance and conflicts of interest.[24]
Dean Baker - Wikipedia
Last edited:
You can't debate me anyway Paul.
We found that out years ago.
It's not because I'm smarter than you, because I'm not.
It's because you live in a blue bubble of bullshit where keeping a bad orange Boogeyman out of the Whitehouse is more important than keeping the bastards responsible for the rot and degeneracy away from power.
Actually Baker was the one telling the truth then, along with Shiller and Roubini (but Roubini is nicknamed Dr Doom, it's not unusual for him to be forecasting bad things.)
This is from Wikipedia:
2007–08 United States housing bubble[edit]
In 2006 Baker predicted that "plunging housing investment will likely push the economy into recession."[10] That year he published "Recession Looms for the U.S. Economy in 2007", in which he predicted that weakness in the US housing market was likely in 2007 to push the US economy into a recession.[10]
Baker won the Revere Award, along with Steve Keen and Nouriel Roubini, for predicting the crash of the United States housing bubble and the resulting recession, which occurred from 2007 to 2008.[11][12] He warned about the coming crisis and the related government policies in multiple articles, op-eds and interviews from 2002 to 2005.[13] Basing his outlook on housing price data sets produced by the U.S. government, Baker asserted that there was a bubble in the US housing market in August 2002,[14] well before its peak,[15] and predicted that the bubble's collapse would lead to recession. His prediction for when the recession would start was off by only one quarter.[16][17][18][19][20]
Regarding the housing bubble, Baker was critical of Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan.[21][22][23] He has also been critical of the regulatory framework of the real estate and financial industries, the use of financial instruments like collateralized debt obligation, and U.S. politicians and regulators' performance and conflicts of interest.[24]
Dean Baker - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Lmfao
"No matter how strong the US military is foreign markets are leaving the dollar to avoid inflation and US financial manipulation" - Forbes
The economy is based on the world's largest GDP, and we're the 2nd largest exporter. Until Apple stops making $500 on every iPhone and Tesla stops making $10,000 on every electric car sold (not to mention Microsoft, Google, GM, Pfizer, Philips, Lockheed Martin, etc), there's no currency scheme that can tank our economy. Any economist will tell you that, even Roubini. It's just angry Russian revanchist fantasy.
Last edited:
A country such as Russia with a GDP of $1.4 trillion simply isn't going to tank the $21 trillion US economy or $16 trillion EU economy. Let's say the US dollar suddenly becomes the #2 reserve currency or #3 reserve currency (which Chinese finance professor Pettis says above won't be happening and would be good for the US if it did) then what? You think suddenly we can't get a loan? The UK with their pound, Germany with their euro, Japanese with their Yen, Canadians etc have no problem getting a loan and it would be good to balance our budget anyway.
Last edited:
Everything else you posted is horseshit.
So I'll only address this.
GDP is trading in and out for profit.
Washington has sold out it's domestic manufacturing base to make itself money in the short term.
The US imports far more than it manufacturers.
Meaning whatever horseshit your selling is meaningless because we're trading at a deficit.
And have been for many years
They didn't "sell out" our manufacturing base, no expert says that - only you. It's just that labor is cheaper elsewhere. And weakening the dollar would bring some of our manufacturing base back. Here's Dean Baker again, the guy who told the truth about the '08 recession since you're so interested in truthtellers:
The Strong Dollar is Hurting U.S. Manufacturing. There’s a Lesson in There for the TPP.
Jared Bernstein and Dean BakerThe Washington Post, May 11, 2015
cepr.net
As Politico put it, “The rising dollar—lifted by stronger U.S. growth and weakness in Europe and elsewhere—makes domestic products more expensive abroad and limits the need for U.S. manufacturers to hire more workers to make more products.”
So other countries can try to weaken the dollar at their own peril, it would just hurt their own manufacturing base - the one thing China has going for them. Meanwhile we'll still sell iPhones.
Last edited:
Your numbers are basically bullshit. Your projections are horseshit and your assertions are built on propoganda and not reality
Because the US dollar is not based the economic output of the united states, but upon it's perceived credit line because we consistently trade at a deficit.
You're a stupid bitch talking about "loans" and "budget's". But your gods are already in debt to most of the most of the world, and haven't traded at a profit for decades.
You're gods are in so much debt that they cannot even pay the interest, much less the principal. And there's nobody left to plunder because other countries like Russia have cut you off.
No more stealing to pay bills bitch. You've fucked over your allies. And the people you could count on to fight your wars to erase your debt won't fight for you anymore.
The party is over. The tab is is due for payment.
As it turns out, killing hundreds of thousands of people to fly the rainbow flag over Kabul with aspirations of Tehran didn't work out. Now the party has to paid for. And you're broke.
You're a stupid person. Led by stupid people
They didn't "sell out" our manufacturing base, no expert says that - only you. It's just that labor is cheaper elsewhere. And weakening the dollar would bring some of our manufacturing base back. Here's Dean Baker again, the guy who told the truth about the '08 recession since you're so interested in truthtellers:
The Strong Dollar is Hurting U.S. Manufacturing. There’s a Lesson in There for the TPP.
Jared Bernstein and Dean BakerThe Washington Post, May 11, 2015
As Politico put it, “The rising dollar—lifted by stronger U.S. growth and weakness in Europe and elsewhere—makes domestic products more expensive abroad and limits the need for U.S. manufacturers to hire more workers to make more products.”
Oh yes they did "sell out" our manufacturing base. For cheap labor and corporate profits.
It benefitted politicians like Joe Biden and corporations like Amazon.
But it did jack shit for American working class people and the American economy.
It's like fucking yourself with the intent of fucking other's.
Washington has the biggest and richest government in human history.
But the people, the manpower, the trading, producing and manufacturing capabilities are gone.
Sold off for a buck in the pockets of the people who don't give a shit about this country or it's people.
The same people you cheer on and shill for
Lets go to Dean Baker again, the guy who told the truth about the '08 recession and criticized Washington, literally has a website called "Beat the Press" criticizing the media, since you're so interested in truthtellers:
"Last year, we paid $338 billion in interest, this year we are projected to pay $290 billion. Measured as a share of GDP, last year our interest payments came to around 1.6 percent, this year’s payments are projected at 1.4 percent. By comparison, in the early and mid-1990s (a very prosperous decade) our interest burden was over 3.0 percent of GDP.
But even the 1.6 percent figure overstates the actual burden. The Federal Reserve Board currently holds trillions of dollars of government debt. The interest paid on the debt held by the Fed is refunded right back to the Treasury. Last year the Fed paid $88.5 billion to the Treasury, reducing the true interest burden by 0.4 percentage points, which leaves the interest burden at only slightly above 1.0 percentage point of GDP."
Debt and Deficits, Yet Again
cepr.net
Paying 1% of our GDP on debt interest is very affordable. It used to be 3%.
Also, 7 Things You Need to Know About the National Debt, Deficits, and the Dollar:
Point two is especially something you should read.
1) The national debt is not literally a generational transfer.
This is easy to see because everyone who holds the debt (government bonds) today will eventually be dead, leaving the possession of the bonds to their children and grandchildren. In other words, the interest on the debt will be paid from some members of future generations to other members of future generations. (We will deal with issues created by foreign ownership below.) The debt can involve a generational transfer only insofar as it slows the economy’s growth, so that it produces less in the future.
2) The high dollar (not the budget deficit) is what causes the trade deficit and therefore leads the United States to borrow from foreigners.
No one buys foreign made goods at Wal-Mart because the government is running a budget deficit. They buy foreign made goods because a high dollar has made foreign goods cheaper than comparable U.S.-made goods. The high dollar also makes U.S. exports more expensive for people living in other countries.
3) A large trade deficit requires that we either have a very large budget deficit or extremely low private savings or some combination. This is an accounting identity.
If we are borrowers internationally then we must have very low domestic savings. And we are borrowers internationally because we have an over-valued dollar. In other words, the high dollar requires us to either have large budget deficits or to have low private savings.
4) The stock and housing bubbles led to an enormous reduction in private saving through the wealth effect.
Research shows that $100 in additional stock wealth will lead to $3 to $4 of additional consumption, meaning that saving drops by this amount. The housing wealth effect is estimated to be $5 to $7 of additional consumption for every $100 of housing wealth. This means that a $10 trillion stock bubble would be expected to reduce annual saving by $300 billion to $400 billion. An $8 trillion housing bubble would be expected to reduce annual saving by between $400 billion and $560 billion. These bubbles have been the main cause of the low savings rate in the United States over the last 15 years.
5) During times of economic weakness, deficit spending actually helps the economy to grow.
In such times deficit spending is also likely to increase investment. In this case, deficit spending makes our children and grandchildren richer than if we did not have deficit spending.
6) High and rising private sector health care costs in the United States are responsible for the bulk of the federal budget deficit problem.
(Government health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid pay for health care provided by the private sector.) If health care costs are not contained, then the economy will be devastated regardless of what we do with the federal budget. If they are contained, then there is no budget problem.
7) Social Security has a dedicated stream of financing that keeps it fully funded until 2036 according to the most recent projections.
Given this stream of funding, it would be no more justifiable to cut back benefits in the near future than to default on the federal debt.
Last edited:
There was no selling it off. China didn't write us a check to manufacture goods over there; just another one of your paranoid conspiracies.
There was a 1969-1989 Sino-Soviet split, brought about by (of course) a border war at the Soviet/Chinese border in '69 which pushed Chinese relations away from the Soviets. Nixon encouraged warm relations with China and over the years capitalism grew in China.
Clinton normalized trade with China mistakenly believing we would be selling our goods to a billion Chinese -- it turned out they couldn't afford our stuff but they could manufacture stuff there cheaper. But Europe was going to normalize trade with China anyway, generous trade with China was preferred over cold relations, and what you don't understand is labor is oftentimes just a small part of what goes into a product. The iPhone is made in China but Apple still makes $500 on each phone. Nike shoes are made in Vietnam but they still make $20 on each $100 pair sold.
So we've moved on to a more sophisticated economy where products are dreamt up and designed here, and the unskilled hard labor is done cheaply somewhere else. But a weaker dollar would allow us to sell more American-made goods overseas and bring back some of our manufacturing to the US.
