Loonie reaches parity with U.S. dollar
CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, September 20, 2007
TORONTO — The Canadian dollar rose as high as $1.0001 cents US just before 11 a.m. on Thursday, something that hasn't happened since Nov. 25, 1976.
The dollar ultimately fell back a few hundredths of a cent. It was trading at around 99.85 cents at 11:15 a.m.
The greenback sunk to a record low against the euro, a signal of the U.S. currency's weakness around the world. Gold hit a record high of US$730.25 an ounce, also due to weakness in the U.S. dollar. Gold is bought and sold in U.S. dollars, so a weaker dollar makes bullion cheaper for foreign investors.
One cause of the greenback's drop appears to be concern over remarks by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, in an address a U.S. congressional committee on Thursday morning.
In a prepared text of his remarks made available on the U.S. Federal Reserve website, Bernanke said that subprime mortgage losses have triggered uncertainty in broader financial markets, raising concern about the consequences for economic activity.
The U.S. Fed cut its benchmark federal funds rate by 50 basis points on Tuesday to 4.75 per cent to help forestall some of the adverse effects on the broader economy that might arise from subprime crisis, Bernanke's prepared remarks state.
"Recent developments in financial markets have increased the uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook," the prepared text states. "The committee will continue to assess the effects of these and other developments on economic prospects and will act as needed to foster price stability and sustainable economic growth."
The dollar opened the week at $0.97 US and shot up almost three cents versus the greenback, a rise economists attribute to surging commodity prices, especially for oil.
"This gravitational pull towards parity has really picked up some steam this morning," said Jack Spitz, director of foreign exchange at National Bank, in a phone interview. "From a day trading perspective, sure, (parity) is in the cards."
One of the factors affecting how high the dollar rises is the market's expectation of what the Bank of Canada will do at its monetary policy meeting in October, Spitz said. The loonie is already above the central bank's own target level, he added.
© Financial Post 2007
Source (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ea11e66d-a1e7-4cb3-9848-e879453b65f6&k=74340)
Bloomberg article (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=awhVMIymbX0w&refer=canada)
This is the weakest the U.S. dollar has been against the Canadian dollar in 30 years.
The U.S. dollar is really hurting internationally. It now takes $1.40 to get 1.00€.
I get paid in U.S. $, but I pay my rent in €. When I moved into this house in April 2000, Germany was using the DM and the exchange rate was 2DM - $1. My rent was 1,400DM, or $700 per month. My landlord has never raised may rent in these 7 years, but, in terms of dollars, my rent has almost doubled. I am now paying 950€ or $1,330 per month.
For five years I have watched the value of the dollar steadily drop. Who's been in charge of the U.S. for the past five years?
Quotea signal of the U.S. currency's weakness around the world.
Then why are all those illegal aliens sending money home to their countries? :laughhard:
Woohooo! lol - I changed my money over to American for General Conference.. lol - I'm loving it being on par.
If FDR hadn't taken us off the gold standard, we might not be in this problem.
The Australian dollar is now at a 23 year high, thanks to how low the American dollar is!! When I went to the US in around 2000ish, we were at a 20 year low or something, and one Australian dollar bought $0.45 - $0.50. Now it buys $0.90 - DOUBLE what it bought just 7 years ago!! It's great for Australians!!
I have a feeling certain politicals who are trying to divide our country may be responsible for the lack of dollar value.
Quote from: M‡¢ĦÆŁ Ҝ on September 21, 2007, 04:35:27 AM
For five years I have watched the value of the dollar steadily drop. Who's been in charge of the U.S. for the past five years?
If that's an attempted shot at Bush, then you aren't really up to date on how the economy works.
It's funny how everytime someone can point to a negative trend that has taken place sometime within the last seven years, they always link it to Bush.
Yeah, the economy in Australia is great, but we still have a moron for a prime minister ;)
QuoteYeah, the economy in Australia is great, but we still have a moron for a prime minister
Precisely. Not that your prime minister is a moron (maybe he is, I dunno) but the value of currency isn't some kind of measuring stick for the efficiency of a President or Prime minister. Especially here in the States where the Fed has more power over the economy than policy makers do.
Plus - I think that just about the ONLY reason why the economy in Australia is good is that the economy in the US is SOOOOOO bad - if it wasn't for that, we'd be just about "same old same old".
Quote from: bishopnl on October 09, 2007, 09:39:32 PMIf that's an attempted shot at Bush, then you aren't really up to date on how the economy works.
It's a question.
Quote from: M‡¢ĦÆŁ Ҝ on October 11, 2007, 04:11:51 AM
It's a question.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
rhetorical question
–noun
a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply, as "What is so rare as a day in June?"Yours was a rhetorical question, which as the definition above shows are always made with a specific, predetermined, and deliberate insinuation (assertion) in mind.
So what was yours?
:grin:
Quote from: jdcord on October 11, 2007, 10:07:26 AMYours was a rhetorical question, which as the definition above shows are always made with a specific, predetermined, and deliberate insinuation (assertion) in mind.
So what was yours?
Any "specific, predetermined, and deliberate insinuation" is simply the assumption of the reader.
Quote from: M‡¢ĦÆŁ Ҝ on October 11, 2007, 03:00:03 PM
Quote from: jdcord on October 11, 2007, 10:07:26 AMYours was a rhetorical question, which as the definition above shows are always made with a specific, predetermined, and deliberate insinuation (assertion) in mind.
So what was yours?
Any "specific, predetermined, and deliberate insinuation" is simply the assumption of the reader.
:laughhard:
So Michael,
Are you saying that yours was NOT a rhetorical question? ..... that you actually have no idea who the president of the U.S. has been for the last 5 years?? ..... that you - who are active duty military - have no clue who your own "Commander in Chief" has been for the last five years??
Because otherwise, your question was rhetorical, which means that you made it solely to "produce an effect or to make an assertion". ....... so, barring your being a complete ignoramus (in charge of million-dollar deadly equipment, no less), what was your intended assertion? (which, BTW, is also a rhetorical question. ;) )
^ Is Bush the sole person in charge?
Quote from: M‡¢ĦÆŁ Ҝ on October 12, 2007, 11:46:14 PM
^ Is Bush the sole person in charge?
Aha! So you think it's all the fault of the Republicans as a whole, then!
........ but how can that be seeing as Congress has been in the hands of the Democrats for the last year? Shouldn't the Democrats, then, have some blame in this as well?
Quote from: jdcord on October 12, 2007, 11:55:58 PMAha! So you think it's all the fault of the Republicans as a whole, then!
Has in been only Republicans in charge for the past five years?
Quote from: M‡¢ĦÆŁ Ҝ on October 13, 2007, 08:33:08 AM
Has in been only Republicans in charge for the past five years?
I don't know. Has it?
*L*
* Bump *
I wonder, ........ :eyebrow: ..... since last October, has the value of the dollar gone up?, or has it gone down? And whatever it has done, what mysterious person or persons is really "in charge"?, and are they really and truly the ones who are responsible for that difference in the value of the dollar?
jd, do you think that funding a war has not taken toll on our economy?
Quote from: Chérie on April 04, 2008, 03:44:06 PM
jd, do you think that funding a war has not taken toll on our economy?
Danielle,
There's a certain amount of substative proof that funding a war actually boosts an economy. Just look at WWII.
I doubt that any economist out there would argue that the war is the reason for the "devaluing" of the dollar.
Here (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/Story?id=3630951&page=1) is an article from ABC about the weak dollar. It also includes the fact that a weak dollar, while certaintly having a lot of negative effects, can have some positive benefits too.
Quote from: bishopnl on April 04, 2008, 04:12:25 PM
There's a certain amount of substative proof that funding a war actually boosts an economy. Just look at WWII.
I am aware of that Nate. There is a slight difference in WWII and Desert Storm II. With the second World War, there was an end in sight.
Quote from: jdcord on April 04, 2008, 07:12:06 AM..... since last October, has the value of the dollar gone up?, or has it gone down?
The value of the dollar against the Euro has gone down. In the past month alone, the dollar set record lows eight times.
Quote from: Chérie on April 04, 2008, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: bishopnl on April 04, 2008, 04:12:25 PM
There's a certain amount of substative proof that funding a war actually boosts an economy. Just look at WWII.
I am aware of that Nate. There is a slight difference in WWII and Desert Storm II. With the second World War, there was an end in sight.
First, it depends on what point of WWII you were talking about. There wasn't always an "end in sight" in that war either. Prior to Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there was no indication that Japan was going to accept the terms of the Potsdam declaration, and they had given every indication that they would fight to the last man.
Either way, it doesn't negate positive economic benefits during wartime. Jobs are created and certain businesses grow during war time.
I've yet to see one economist declaring that the war is the cause for the deflation of the dollar.
Perhaps all the America bashing has something to do with it? If our leaders hate us, what faith can the rest of the world have?
We were doing well during Vietnam, too. The economy went bonkers when all the guys came flooding back into the marketplace.
Quote from: bishopnl on April 04, 2008, 05:00:23 PM
Quote from: Chérie on April 04, 2008, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: bishopnl on April 04, 2008, 04:12:25 PM
There's a certain amount of substative proof that funding a war actually boosts an economy. Just look at WWII.
I am aware of that Nate. There is a slight difference in WWII and Desert Storm II. With the second World War, there was an end in sight.
First, it depends on what point of WWII you were talking about. There wasn't always an "end in sight" in that war either. Prior to Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there was no indication that Japan was going to accept the terms of the Potsdam declaration, and they had given every indication that they would fight to the last man.
Either way, it doesn't negate positive economic benefits during wartime. Jobs are created and certain businesses grow during war time.
I've yet to see one economist declaring that the war is the cause for the deflation of the dollar.
We shouldn't base our hopes of a good economy on war though.
To me that doesn't make for a stable economy...
QuoteWe shouldn't base our hopes of a good economy on war though.
To me that doesn't make for a stable economy...
No, I agree..but actually, until recently, the economy has been pretty strong (despite the perceptions of most Americans).
But I'm not advocating war as a means to boost the economy...just saying that I don't really think it's effects are always economically negative, either.
Yeah, nor did I think you would believe that the loss of lives would be more worth it for the good of the economy. ;)
Quote from: bishopnl on April 04, 2008, 06:34:33 PM
..but actually, until recently, the economy has been pretty strong (despite the perceptions of most Americans).
In relation to other currencies, the dollar has been on a fairly steady decline for almost a decade with a sharp decrease in the past year. Here is what I have personally experienced in exchange rates against other currencies.
Between March 1998 and March 2000 I saw the U.S. Dollar gain strength against the Portuguese Escudo. In '98 it was $1.00 = 200$00. By '00 it was $1.00 = 250$00 (numbers are rounded).
Then in March 2000, I moved to Germany and initially saw a strong dollar against the Deutsch Mark with $1.00 = 2.25DM. The Dollar stayed strong for most of my first year in Germany, with a sharp drop at the beginning of 2001. A year after moving to Germany, the Dollar had dropped to around $1.00 = 1.90DM. By December 2001, it had dropped even more with $1.00 = 1.60DM.
In January 2002, Europe switched to the Euro. It started off around $1.00 = 1.25€. Within six months the exchange rate dropped to making $1.00 = 1.00€. Now the exchange rate is $1.00 = 0.62€.
While the decrease of the U.S. Dollar has been more drastic in the last eight months, it has been decreasing for seven years.
In terms of dollars, my rent has gone from $700 in April 2000 to $1,532 in April 2008 without my landlord ever raising my rent.
Michael,
I wasn't speaking of the value of the dollar...I was speaking of the economy as a whole.
Until the last six to eight months, most economists were saying that the economy as a whole was quite strong.
Michael is the military compensating you for your loss?
If they aren't, do you forsee having to move back to the base?
Quote from: Chérie on April 04, 2008, 09:22:57 PM
Michael is the military compensating you for your loss?
If they aren't, do you forsee having to move back to the base?
I do get a housing allowance and a cost of living allowance. Those help, but they don't cover everything. I have to convert Dollars to Euros to pay for things such as water, heating oil, electricity, phone, etc. which all add up pretty fast. If I wasn't moving back to the U.S. in July, I would probably move on base to save money. As it is, the AF won't let me move on base with less than 12 months remaining. Not only that, but base housing has less than half the living space my current house has (base housing is apartment style units).
I received the following in an e-mail a few days ago and thought it pertinent to this thread.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it.
A little over 2 yrs ago:
- Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 yr high...
- Regular unleaded gasoline sold for $2.19/gallon...
- The unemployment rate was 4.5%...
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006, we have seen:
- Consumer confidence plummet...
- The cost of regular unleaded gasoline soar to an average of $3.28/gallon (an increase of $.583 from 1 yr ago)...
- Unemployment has risen to over 5% (a 10% increase)...
- American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses)...
- Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion...
- 1% of all American homeowners are in foreclosure...
Americans voted for change...and they got it.
BenJammin
Obviously we can point fingers and blame, at each other all day long. I don't think thats the solution either.
Not to veer too far off course, or anything, but the whole "wars help stimulate an economy" thing has been soundly debunked (with facts and statistics) by many economists over the years. Just like this current war, wars slow an economy down, they don't stimulate it.
QuoteNot to veer too far off course, or anything, but the whole "wars help stimulate an economy" thing has been soundly debunked (with facts and statistics) by many economists over the years. Just like this current war, wars slow an economy down, they don't stimulate it.
Jd,
I'm going to have to disagree with you. My wife is an econ major at Washington University here in St. Louis....one of her papers just last year dealt with war and technology...she had multiple sources from various economists, and several of them agreed that war does help, in several ways, to boost the economy. So I don't think that has been "debunked."