Washington – December 20: US President George W. Bush answers questions during a press conference … more
The presidents get the dollar they want, and George W. Bush wanted a weaker one. Bush’s departure from the Reagan/Clinton era of a largely powerful, stable dollar as a measure of constant fair value was one of his worst policy decisions and is the one who has no president to be reversed.
When Bush entered the White House in January 2001, a dollar is worth 1/260th of a golden ounce. When he left in January 2009, a dollar bought 1/874th of a golden ounce.
To be clear, gold itself does not move as much as the coins in which it is measured. Gold stability explains why it has long been used to determine money. Against the dollar, gold increased over 230 % during Bush’s presidency.
This Bush failed financially as the president comes to life by the decline of the dollar. Investments lead to economic growth and when money trusts, there is a greater motivation to work to seek to discover new forms of wealth. If new ideas are reached, investors are rewarded with dollars exceeding the initial dollars committed.
This explains why a weak dollar is so impossible for economic growth. Just because investors are looking for dollars, there is a reduced incentive for wealth work, as returns to dollars will exchange less and less goods. That is why the periods of underestimation of coins (in other words, inflation) coincide with slower growth: Instead of setting money to work for the pursuit of wealth that does not exist yet, investors compensate for the reduction of money by consuming harsh assets: Earth, housing etc.
Wall Street was developed in the 80s and 1990s, as investors match money with talent on the road to huge jumps of investment, mergers and mergers, IPO, etc. Yes, a strong, stable dollar was associated with wealth. Under Bush, a falling dollar coincided with a significant decline in investment, as valuable capital fell to existing wealth. By the time Bush left the post, big banks and investment banks struggled to remain alive and that were only those who did not die in 2008.
It is not surprising the decline of the dollar under Bush is that the Republicans were silent about it then. It’s still silent about it. This is noteworthy, taking into account how Republicans became obsessed with “inflation” under Joe Biden and worse, redefined inflation as increasing values (which is as if they say Suntans cause the sun). However, the dollar was largely stable against gold when Biden was in the office and increased against foreign coins. It is unknown the reason why the Democrats acknowledged inflation that was not, while remaining quiet for the collapse of the dollar under Bush.
Fortunately an economist from the left named Rebecca Patterson he writes What is true, between 2001 and 2008, the dollar “lost 40 % compared to its big peers”. In the case of Patterson, the economist by means means that she does not want to add that a 40 % reduction in the dollar against the pound, the euro, the yen and other important coins has covered the fact that everyone was falling with the dollar, not so much. See the previous discussion of gold.
This brings us to Donald Trump. Although the small championship compared to Bush on the Front of Defense (Inflation), since the beginning of the second term of gold is already 23 % against the dollar. This is the Trump plan to revitalize the US industry by destroying the dollar. In addition to investment it revives industry.
Oh well, readers take it as close to Trump. It is unknown whether those close to Trump and who take it willing to risk their attitude with the president, warning him in the fire that Bush started, that no one fell to Bush and that Trump raises the flames.
