[patientrenter]

Depends on purpose:

1. For daily purchases in Europe, I use cash withdrawals from European ATMs, using my US ATM card, supported by my low-fee credit union.

2. For larger deposits, I use Everbank. They have various demand and CD accounts for a few foreign currencies. US dollar-equivalent principal is insured by our own FDIC.

3. For large transactions, such as hedging my overall savings against future dollar devaluation against the euro (and to the extent that I chose to use the euro instead of the yen as a stable value currency), I use the CME futures contracts. There are lots of brokers, but I use Interactivebrokers. I know it’s a futures contract, but you can use it to effectively convert dollars to euro in a pretty efficient and convenient and reversible way.

[patientrenter]

Depends on purpose:

1. For daily purchases in Europe, I use cash withdrawals from European ATMs, using my US ATM card, supported by my low-fee credit union.

2. For larger deposits, I use Everbank. They have various demand and CD accounts for a few foreign currencies. US dollar-equivalent principal is insured by our own FDIC.

3. For large transactions, such as hedging my overall savings against future dollar devaluation against the euro (and to the extent that I chose to use the euro instead of the yen as a stable value currency), I use the CME futures contracts. There are lots of brokers, but I use Interactivebrokers. I know it’s a futures contract, but you can use it to effectively convert dollars to euro in a pretty efficient and convenient and reversible way.

[patientrenter]

Depends on purpose:

1. For daily purchases in Europe, I use cash withdrawals from European ATMs, using my US ATM card, supported by my low-fee credit union.

2. For larger deposits, I use Everbank. They have various demand and CD accounts for a few foreign currencies. US dollar-equivalent principal is insured by our own FDIC.

3. For large transactions, such as hedging my overall savings against future dollar devaluation against the euro (and to the extent that I chose to use the euro instead of the yen as a stable value currency), I use the CME futures contracts. There are lots of brokers, but I use Interactivebrokers. I know it’s a futures contract, but you can use it to effectively convert dollars to euro in a pretty efficient and convenient and reversible way.

[patientrenter]

Depends on purpose:

1. For daily purchases in Europe, I use cash withdrawals from European ATMs, using my US ATM card, supported by my low-fee credit union.

2. For larger deposits, I use Everbank. They have various demand and CD accounts for a few foreign currencies. US dollar-equivalent principal is insured by our own FDIC.

3. For large transactions, such as hedging my overall savings against future dollar devaluation against the euro (and to the extent that I chose to use the euro instead of the yen as a stable value currency), I use the CME futures contracts. There are lots of brokers, but I use Interactivebrokers. I know it’s a futures contract, but you can use it to effectively convert dollars to euro in a pretty efficient and convenient and reversible way.

[patientrenter]

partypup, you are a lawyer, so although you are not an economist, you do know how to take apart transactions.

The basic transaction in international trade that we are discussing here (I think) is the purchase by US consumers of goods made by people in other countries. In return, those people currently accept dollars. Yes, I know they may decide they want more dollars, but they still accept the dollars.

Since these people in other countries don’t consume as much as us, they don’t need to spend all the dollars at once. So they send the dollars back to the US, and buy promises from us to give them more dollars in the future (e.g. through US Treasury bonds).

With China and OPEC and Russia etc holding a few trillion of our US Treasury bonds, and bonds from GSEs like FNMA, they have NO CHOICE about accepting future dollars. They have already made the deal to accept future dollars. All the bonds issued by the US govt and the GSEs are denominated in dollars, so China etc have no options – they must accept dollar interest and principal repayments on the bonds they’ve already purchased from us. That covers everything that’s happened in the past.

Turning to the future, will these foreign exporters continue to accept promises from us of future dollars in return for sending us real goods? If they veer away from that, it will show up first as higher yields on US bonds (but Mr Bernanke will put a stop to that) or a lower foreign exchange value for the US dollar. That will continue for a while (a few years at least.) Only in extremis will it proceed to the next step, where these exporters feel the future value of the dollar is so unreliable that they will not accept ANY AMOUNT of future dollars in exchange for a real good today. Then we will have to issue Yuan-denominated US govt bonds. But that’s years away, if ever.

[patientrenter]

partypup, you are a lawyer, so although you are not an economist, you do know how to take apart transactions.

The basic transaction in international trade that we are discussing here (I think) is the purchase by US consumers of goods made by people in other countries. In return, those people currently accept dollars. Yes, I know they may decide they want more dollars, but they still accept the dollars.

Since these people in other countries don’t consume as much as us, they don’t need to spend all the dollars at once. So they send the dollars back to the US, and buy promises from us to give them more dollars in the future (e.g. through US Treasury bonds).

With China and OPEC and Russia etc holding a few trillion of our US Treasury bonds, and bonds from GSEs like FNMA, they have NO CHOICE about accepting future dollars. They have already made the deal to accept future dollars. All the bonds issued by the US govt and the GSEs are denominated in dollars, so China etc have no options – they must accept dollar interest and principal repayments on the bonds they’ve already purchased from us. That covers everything that’s happened in the past.

Turning to the future, will these foreign exporters continue to accept promises from us of future dollars in return for sending us real goods? If they veer away from that, it will show up first as higher yields on US bonds (but Mr Bernanke will put a stop to that) or a lower foreign exchange value for the US dollar. That will continue for a while (a few years at least.) Only in extremis will it proceed to the next step, where these exporters feel the future value of the dollar is so unreliable that they will not accept ANY AMOUNT of future dollars in exchange for a real good today. Then we will have to issue Yuan-denominated US govt bonds. But that’s years away, if ever.

[patientrenter]

partypup, you are a lawyer, so although you are not an economist, you do know how to take apart transactions.

The basic transaction in international trade that we are discussing here (I think) is the purchase by US consumers of goods made by people in other countries. In return, those people currently accept dollars. Yes, I know they may decide they want more dollars, but they still accept the dollars.

Since these people in other countries don’t consume as much as us, they don’t need to spend all the dollars at once. So they send the dollars back to the US, and buy promises from us to give them more dollars in the future (e.g. through US Treasury bonds).

With China and OPEC and Russia etc holding a few trillion of our US Treasury bonds, and bonds from GSEs like FNMA, they have NO CHOICE about accepting future dollars. They have already made the deal to accept future dollars. All the bonds issued by the US govt and the GSEs are denominated in dollars, so China etc have no options – they must accept dollar interest and principal repayments on the bonds they’ve already purchased from us. That covers everything that’s happened in the past.

Turning to the future, will these foreign exporters continue to accept promises from us of future dollars in return for sending us real goods? If they veer away from that, it will show up first as higher yields on US bonds (but Mr Bernanke will put a stop to that) or a lower foreign exchange value for the US dollar. That will continue for a while (a few years at least.) Only in extremis will it proceed to the next step, where these exporters feel the future value of the dollar is so unreliable that they will not accept ANY AMOUNT of future dollars in exchange for a real good today. Then we will have to issue Yuan-denominated US govt bonds. But that’s years away, if ever.

[patientrenter]

partypup, you are a lawyer, so although you are not an economist, you do know how to take apart transactions.

The basic transaction in international trade that we are discussing here (I think) is the purchase by US consumers of goods made by people in other countries. In return, those people currently accept dollars. Yes, I know they may decide they want more dollars, but they still accept the dollars.

Since these people in other countries don’t consume as much as us, they don’t need to spend all the dollars at once. So they send the dollars back to the US, and buy promises from us to give them more dollars in the future (e.g. through US Treasury bonds).

With China and OPEC and Russia etc holding a few trillion of our US Treasury bonds, and bonds from GSEs like FNMA, they have NO CHOICE about accepting future dollars. They have already made the deal to accept future dollars. All the bonds issued by the US govt and the GSEs are denominated in dollars, so China etc have no options – they must accept dollar interest and principal repayments on the bonds they’ve already purchased from us. That covers everything that’s happened in the past.

Turning to the future, will these foreign exporters continue to accept promises from us of future dollars in return for sending us real goods? If they veer away from that, it will show up first as higher yields on US bonds (but Mr Bernanke will put a stop to that) or a lower foreign exchange value for the US dollar. That will continue for a while (a few years at least.) Only in extremis will it proceed to the next step, where these exporters feel the future value of the dollar is so unreliable that they will not accept ANY AMOUNT of future dollars in exchange for a real good today. Then we will have to issue Yuan-denominated US govt bonds. But that’s years away, if ever.

[patientrenter]

partypup, you are a lawyer, so although you are not an economist, you do know how to take apart transactions.

The basic transaction in international trade that we are discussing here (I think) is the purchase by US consumers of goods made by people in other countries. In return, those people currently accept dollars. Yes, I know they may decide they want more dollars, but they still accept the dollars.

Since these people in other countries don’t consume as much as us, they don’t need to spend all the dollars at once. So they send the dollars back to the US, and buy promises from us to give them more dollars in the future (e.g. through US Treasury bonds).

With China and OPEC and Russia etc holding a few trillion of our US Treasury bonds, and bonds from GSEs like FNMA, they have NO CHOICE about accepting future dollars. They have already made the deal to accept future dollars. All the bonds issued by the US govt and the GSEs are denominated in dollars, so China etc have no options – they must accept dollar interest and principal repayments on the bonds they’ve already purchased from us. That covers everything that’s happened in the past.

Turning to the future, will these foreign exporters continue to accept promises from us of future dollars in return for sending us real goods? If they veer away from that, it will show up first as higher yields on US bonds (but Mr Bernanke will put a stop to that) or a lower foreign exchange value for the US dollar. That will continue for a while (a few years at least.) Only in extremis will it proceed to the next step, where these exporters feel the future value of the dollar is so unreliable that they will not accept ANY AMOUNT of future dollars in exchange for a real good today. Then we will have to issue Yuan-denominated US govt bonds. But that’s years away, if ever.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Dougie944]I have to call BS on this story even though I agree with the commercial property values are falling theme.

The John Hancock Tower in Boston was a very high profile auction. In 2006 it was purchased for $1.3 billion. This year it auctioned for $660 million. The article claims it sold for $20 million. I got the real price with about 1 minute of research. That is not even remotely close so I question the accuracy of the rest of the article.

A lot of these commercial real estate funds are buying up the debt in order to step in and acquire the properties when they default. I assure you nobody is acquiring 40 story skyscrapers in NYC for $100,000.[/quote]

I wonder if the ultimate purchasers really assumed the debt. If I assume a debt, then that means I have to pay it off…. whether I make money or not, whether I want to, or not. Perhaps the buyers here put down $20 million, and the intermediate corporate entity that legally purchased it for them took on the debt, with no recourse to the ultimate real buyers. If that is the case, then they really did pay only $20 million, albeit for an encumbered asset. I am getting more and more skeptical of confusion between asset prices supported by real money, and asset prices supported by monopoly money that is really non-recourse loans that will only be paid off if we have future asset price bubbles.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Dougie944]I have to call BS on this story even though I agree with the commercial property values are falling theme.

The John Hancock Tower in Boston was a very high profile auction. In 2006 it was purchased for $1.3 billion. This year it auctioned for $660 million. The article claims it sold for $20 million. I got the real price with about 1 minute of research. That is not even remotely close so I question the accuracy of the rest of the article.

A lot of these commercial real estate funds are buying up the debt in order to step in and acquire the properties when they default. I assure you nobody is acquiring 40 story skyscrapers in NYC for $100,000.[/quote]

I wonder if the ultimate purchasers really assumed the debt. If I assume a debt, then that means I have to pay it off…. whether I make money or not, whether I want to, or not. Perhaps the buyers here put down $20 million, and the intermediate corporate entity that legally purchased it for them took on the debt, with no recourse to the ultimate real buyers. If that is the case, then they really did pay only $20 million, albeit for an encumbered asset. I am getting more and more skeptical of confusion between asset prices supported by real money, and asset prices supported by monopoly money that is really non-recourse loans that will only be paid off if we have future asset price bubbles.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Dougie944]I have to call BS on this story even though I agree with the commercial property values are falling theme.

The John Hancock Tower in Boston was a very high profile auction. In 2006 it was purchased for $1.3 billion. This year it auctioned for $660 million. The article claims it sold for $20 million. I got the real price with about 1 minute of research. That is not even remotely close so I question the accuracy of the rest of the article.

A lot of these commercial real estate funds are buying up the debt in order to step in and acquire the properties when they default. I assure you nobody is acquiring 40 story skyscrapers in NYC for $100,000.[/quote]

I wonder if the ultimate purchasers really assumed the debt. If I assume a debt, then that means I have to pay it off…. whether I make money or not, whether I want to, or not. Perhaps the buyers here put down $20 million, and the intermediate corporate entity that legally purchased it for them took on the debt, with no recourse to the ultimate real buyers. If that is the case, then they really did pay only $20 million, albeit for an encumbered asset. I am getting more and more skeptical of confusion between asset prices supported by real money, and asset prices supported by monopoly money that is really non-recourse loans that will only be paid off if we have future asset price bubbles.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Dougie944]I have to call BS on this story even though I agree with the commercial property values are falling theme.

The John Hancock Tower in Boston was a very high profile auction. In 2006 it was purchased for $1.3 billion. This year it auctioned for $660 million. The article claims it sold for $20 million. I got the real price with about 1 minute of research. That is not even remotely close so I question the accuracy of the rest of the article.

A lot of these commercial real estate funds are buying up the debt in order to step in and acquire the properties when they default. I assure you nobody is acquiring 40 story skyscrapers in NYC for $100,000.[/quote]

I wonder if the ultimate purchasers really assumed the debt. If I assume a debt, then that means I have to pay it off…. whether I make money or not, whether I want to, or not. Perhaps the buyers here put down $20 million, and the intermediate corporate entity that legally purchased it for them took on the debt, with no recourse to the ultimate real buyers. If that is the case, then they really did pay only $20 million, albeit for an encumbered asset. I am getting more and more skeptical of confusion between asset prices supported by real money, and asset prices supported by monopoly money that is really non-recourse loans that will only be paid off if we have future asset price bubbles.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Dougie944]I have to call BS on this story even though I agree with the commercial property values are falling theme.

The John Hancock Tower in Boston was a very high profile auction. In 2006 it was purchased for $1.3 billion. This year it auctioned for $660 million. The article claims it sold for $20 million. I got the real price with about 1 minute of research. That is not even remotely close so I question the accuracy of the rest of the article.

A lot of these commercial real estate funds are buying up the debt in order to step in and acquire the properties when they default. I assure you nobody is acquiring 40 story skyscrapers in NYC for $100,000.[/quote]

I wonder if the ultimate purchasers really assumed the debt. If I assume a debt, then that means I have to pay it off…. whether I make money or not, whether I want to, or not. Perhaps the buyers here put down $20 million, and the intermediate corporate entity that legally purchased it for them took on the debt, with no recourse to the ultimate real buyers. If that is the case, then they really did pay only $20 million, albeit for an encumbered asset. I am getting more and more skeptical of confusion between asset prices supported by real money, and asset prices supported by monopoly money that is really non-recourse loans that will only be paid off if we have future asset price bubbles.

[patientrenter]

[quote=jficquette]Way past due for the time to privatize Education. Get the state completely out of it. Turn it over to private corporations. Take the $11,12,13k whatever it is now we spend per pupil and give it in vouchers to pay for private school.

[/quote]

You dream, jficquette. The feds will step in to allow most of the current overspending to continue. Since a minority (like a lot of us on this board) get upset by that, they will arrange for the extra federal spending to be disguised. They will do that in much the same way it was done for housing – get the overspending entities to borrow more money, and the feds guarantee future repayment.

So it still boils down to 3 outcomes:

1. Fed bailout

2. More CA taxes (mostly future, to help repay the extra borrowing)

3. Small spending cuts, designed to cattle-prod voters into agreeing to more spending

As for Obama apparently ruling out a federal bailout of CA, that is just preparation for the sleight of hand with loan guarantees. People were fooled by it on housing, so they will be fooled by it on state bailouts. Our leaders just have to stand together and be consistent in their story to the public about loan guarantees not being a bailout, and MSM will report it as a fact, and 90% of voters will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

[Author]

Posts