European Currency Close To Reaching Parity Against Dollar (bloomberg.com) 120
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Europe's common currency edged closer toward parity with the US dollar Monday as energy concerns and the risk of recession weighed on the outlook for the euro area, while risk aversion fueled a broad rally in the greenback. The euro dropped as much as 1.3% to $1.0053, eclipsing its low from last week. The last time it was this low was back in 2002. The currency's downward spiral has been swift and brutal, given it was trading around $1.15 in February. A string of increasingly-large Federal Reserve interest-rate hikes has supercharged the dollar, while Russia's invasion of Ukraine has worsened the outlook for growth in the euro zone and pushed up the cost of its energy imports.
George Saravelos, global head of FX research for Deutsche Bank, told Bloomberg Surveillance Monday he could see the euro moving under parity, especially in the scenario of a "complete gas shutoff" from the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. The bank is pricing the euro to move in between a range of 0.95 to parity against the dollar, he said. "I really wouldn't say 0.95 would be unreasonable," Saravelos said. "Even if this gas returns in terms of full flow after the maintenance period, the (risk) premium is unlikely to go away. And I think that's a critical thing that's changed over the past few weeks."
George Saravelos, global head of FX research for Deutsche Bank, told Bloomberg Surveillance Monday he could see the euro moving under parity, especially in the scenario of a "complete gas shutoff" from the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. The bank is pricing the euro to move in between a range of 0.95 to parity against the dollar, he said. "I really wouldn't say 0.95 would be unreasonable," Saravelos said. "Even if this gas returns in terms of full flow after the maintenance period, the (risk) premium is unlikely to go away. And I think that's a critical thing that's changed over the past few weeks."
Inflation - this is all you need to know: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Inflation - this is all you need to know: (Score:5, Funny)
Bah. As soon as I noticed that the "Hayek" mentioned in that PDF's title wasn't Salma, I lost interest.
Re:Inflation - this is all you need to know: (Score:5, Interesting)
An old and questionable link, but looking through it, we can see this:
"The chief cause of inflation, Hayek wrote, is governmental control of the money supply."
Interesting idea, but false. We know it's false because we've seen inflation even in money supplies that are outside of governmental control (for example, the gold standard when the cyanide purification technique was discovered, dramatically increasing the supply of gold in the world).
Empirically, inflation is governed by the equation MV = PQ [stlouisfed.org]. For small changes, this is equation is difficult to work with because measuring PQ involves a lot of rough estimates. For larger changes, that is not a problem, however. (And that is a measurement problem, not a theoretical problem).
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting idea, but false. We know it's false because we've seen inflation even in money supplies that are outside of governmental control (for example, the gold standard when the cyanide purification technique was discovered, dramatically increasing the supply of gold in the world).
I don't get it. You're attempting to debunk a one-sentence summary of a much larger argument that describes the "chief" (meaning most important) cause of inflation by pointing out one obscure and minor technological advance? You have, perhaps, shown that there is at least one example of technological driven inflation, but you have not even addressed the point that governmental control of money supply is the chief force behind inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
dude seriously? pedantic much?
Yes.
I could be equally pedantic and claim you're wrong by saying "gold" is not money.
If you're going to be pedantic, don't be a wrong. Money: a commodity accepted by general consent as a medium of economic exchange. Gold fits with that definition as well as anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Gold fits with that definition as well as anything else.
If we're being pedantic...
Gold used to fit with that definition. Good luck paying for your weekly grocery shop with a few grams of gold.
Re:Inflation - this is all you need to know: (Score:5, Insightful)
dude seriously? pedantic much? it's increasing the supply that creates inflation.
Nope. Supply is one part of a larger multi-variate problem, unable to be decoupled from other things e.g. demand. When you attribute any principle in economics to any one thing, the only thing you are confirming is that you do not understand economics.
That's not the GP being pedantic, that's you being wrong, or at the very least simplistic in your understanding to the point of irrelevance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US income tax rates and the standard deduction are indexed to inflation.
One tax that is not is the exemption for the portion of Social Security income that is subject to taxation.
A taco is not worth a house. Illegal to hire you? (Score:1)
You remind me of the idiot who proposed a law saying that pi is 3. Making a law doesn't change reality. Now I understand the following may sound uncaring. It is uncaring. Arithmetic is an asshole. Subtraction doesn't care about your feelings. It's a jerk. It is also reality.
Suppose it costs $2,000/day to keep the fast food joint open - the lease, utility bills, etc.
Suppose the food coming in the back door costs $2,000.
It sells for $5,000.
Gross profit, the value produced, is $1,000.
You assembled and sold 5%
Re:A taco is not worth a house. Illegal to hire yo (Score:5, Insightful)
So, essentially, you're saying that it would be stupid to pay more than what you earn for the privilege of working?
But you are expecting that from your workers.
So you expect your workers to be stupid enough to work for you.
Re: (Score:2)
> Your thinking is flawed as it is limited to imagining that the restaurant is entirely separate from the rest of the economic system apart from a series of defined interfaces.
The restaurant IS an entity which interacts with everyone else through defined interfaces - buying and selling. Buying and selling food, buying real estate (the lease), and buying labor.
The restaurant goes out of business next month EVEN IF you imagine that 20 years from now you will learn a productive skill. Your LSD trip doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
A person making minimum wage should be able to easily afford a 3 bedroom accommodation. If they can't, the minimum wage is too low. If a business can't afford to pay it, then that business should fail, and fail quickly.
Huh? If minimum-wage workers can afford 3 bedroom accommodation then that causes inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? If minimum-wage workers can afford 3 bedroom accommodation then that causes inflation.
Huh? That's not how inflation works. If you suddenly increase the minimum wage by a large amount, then yes, you get a sudden influx of currency and you get inflation. That's not even Economics 101. You _can_ get real wage increases (over the inflation) _IF_ businesses are given enough time to increase production, so you get more goods and thus you don't upset supply and demand. This happens through a clear government policy that makes minimum wage gains predictable and _SLOW_. It will also depend on whether
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A person making minimum wage should be able to easily afford a 3 bedroom accommodation. If they can't, the minimum wage is too low. If a business can't afford to pay it, then that business should fail, and fail quickly.
Most people working at minimum wage (assuming it's their only job and income) would be happy to afford a one bedroom accomodation. Some of my friends are artists of various kinds (musicians, actors, etc.) and work minimum wage jobs between gigs and they're all struggling just to make ends meet.
If a business can't afford to pay it, then that business should fail, and fail quickly.
The problem ist that business want to attract customers with low prices, and wages are easier to press down than, say, purchase prices.
Re: (Score:1)
If you paid those types of people more though, that wouldn't fix their first world problems though. The fact they choose to do some gig work between pursuing their passions and still don't starve to death means they are very privileged and relatively wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a non sequitor.
They are "choosing" to do gig work because that's the only option they have. They are TRYING to make a living as an artist, but it doesn't work because unless you are at the top, it's hard to just pay rent and you don't have regular income, so every month is a gamble.
A friend of mine is a musician, and he's actually quite good. He's got several albums out and has done several tours, but also makes some money on YouTube, Spotify and whatever else. And STILL he's got to do some side gigs
Re: (Score:1)
Your friend doesn't contribute anything meaningful to society and the economy at large. Entertainment is on the very last of human priorities of survival. Not getting hacked on the other hand, is meaningful and required for survival of the economy at least at your level.
Re: Inflation - this is all you need to know: (Score:3)
One issue we do have is the US has always been the conservative predictable economy. We have not in the past prioritized one industry, or created confusing rules. For instance, the radical change in taxes, the one page firm, a few years ago, created feast chaos in
Re: (Score:1)
"Reaching partiy" -- nice spin! (Score:4, Informative)
"Reaching parity" has positive connotations — what marvelous way to report the decidedly bad news. No, it is the US dollar, that's doing the "reaching", not the other way around.
Almost like Russians describing the sinking of their ship as gaining negative buoyancy — or reporting a brave retreat in the face of the cowardly enemy's advance.
Re: "Reaching partiy" -- nice spin! (Score:2)
Isn't it basically the euro going back to where it started?
Re: (Score:3)
The Euro started on Jan 1st, 1999, at $1.17 USD.
It dropped to $0.83 USD in Oct 2000, then back above $1 by the end of 2002, and then climbed to $1.60 in July 2008.
Since then, it has stayed above the greenback.
Re: (Score:2)
Edged closer is a neutral connotation. You can edge closer to a cliff, or a victory in a race.
Parity is generally regarded as good, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bloomberg story's title gets it better: Battered Euro Edges Ever Closer to Parity as Dollar Runs Rampant. No ambiguity there.
Re: (Score:2)
That sentence is constructed to evoke emotion, not convey information. That's propaganda. True, but still propaganda.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it is the US dollar, that's doing the "reaching", not the other way around.
Huh? All the Trump supporters have been telling me how the US economy is going down the toilet ever since Biden got in.
https://www.milwaukeeindepende... [milwaukeeindependent.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The economy IS in the toilet. Perhaps ask your mother how much more she spends on groceries. The thing is that the European economy is even worse off than the US right now. The only ones profiting from these Biden-made crises at this point are Russia, China, Iran and India.
Re: (Score:3)
"Reaching parity" has positive connotations — what marvelous way to report the decidedly bad news.
Bad is a matter of perspective. It is a matter of industry, it is dependent on the nature of trade and how GDP is created. One of the great things about the EU and the common monetary unit is that the largest amount of trade is done within the EU itself and therefore the movement of the euro is not quite as important as the movement of say the gilder, the mark or the schilling. And quite frankly the change in the euro has been quite minor compared to the change in some other currencies over time in countrie
Re: (Score:3)
The main reason for the change here is almost certainly because the US increased the interest rate (thus reducing the number of dollars in circulation) whereas the Euro bank did not. If this hypothesis is correct, then we should see an increase in the Euro's relative value after the ECB raises interest rates.
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason for the change here is almost certainly because the US increased the interest rate
Yeah, that must be it. It doesn't have anything to do with the war in the Ukraine causing gas supplies to critical European countries responsible for most of the bloc's GDP being cut off causing an absolute crisis at all levels of industry.
I like blaming the USA for everything any chance I get, but seriously man, the Euro has been dropping since November when a potential war with our primary energy provider was imminent. The USA's interest rate has precisely zero to do with this, and the same day the USA ra
Re: (Score:2)
"Reaching parity" has positive connotations — what marvelous way to report the decidedly bad news. No, it is the US dollar, that's doing the "reaching", not the other way around.
I know it pains you to admit that there is something right with the US today and that you somehow have to twist this into bad news... Whist the Euro is suffering a few problems due to the war in Ukraine, the US Dollar is going strong against almost all currencies, including other currencies that are strong against the Euro.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, the results of the upcoming elections already pain you, and that you somehow have to twist even the inflation into good news [cnn.com]...
But my snark was aimed at the Europeans, you idiot, not the US... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
it is the US dollar, that's doing the "reaching"
What does this mean? Both the US dollar and the Euro have high inflation right now, but this has happened because the dollar is inflating less rapidly. That isn't necessarily a bad thing for either party, but how does that translate to the dollar "doing the reaching"?
One thing is for sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: One thing is for sure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One thing is for sure (Score:5, Funny)
Take a look at Reddit, then come back and say that again with a straight face if you can.
Re:One thing is for sure (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, instructions too difficult.
Accidentally went to TikTok and learned how to make pot roast with pepperoncinis.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, that sounds good though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you only read modded up comments. They aren't an indication of being correct. But there are many commenters here who (despite all evidence from the popular nutjobs here) actually understand economics.
Re: (Score:1)
US govt working behind the scenes (Score:2)
Imho, the US Dollar is currently massively overvalued. If you look at real inflation figures over time, it ought to be worth about 80 Euro cents (that's a WAG).
Could be due to downwards pressure of the Euro due to the Ukraine war. More likely it'sdue to the US government playing political games, like pressuring European countries to buy lots of dollars.
Either way, the situation won't last forever...
Re: (Score:2)
What keeps the Dollar from being more than very coarse toilet paper is its role as a global currency. Every country holds a nontrivial amount of Dollars in their reserves, and none of them has any interest in this losing value. The US can essentially tax the world simply by printing money.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think the dollar is less inflated than the Euro?
Loss of hard currency status (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
China switched oil imports from Russia to their digital coin and India is trading rubles for rupees. The Euro is done for, perhaps even the Dollar.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This. Anyone with half a brain is reducing their Euro reserves. Some more quickly than others, but you'd have to be a complete idiot to keep them high after Europe has clearly communicated "we reserve the right to steal your money whenever we feel like it".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US can force people to accept dollars given 183 military bases around the world. EU simply doesnt have the same clout
Can you elaborate on how having a widely spread military forces the world to accept its currency? Is it because they spend a lot of money in other countries or did you mean to imply something more silly?
Re: (Score:2)
Fluctuating as always (Score:2)
A currency union, but not a fiscal union (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem for the euro has always been that it was an attempt to have a common currency without any of the state institutions which make such a thing work. They had a difficult situation. Before the euro there each of the old European states had its own currency, own central bank (still does), own tax authority. This meant separate Belgian Francs, French Francs, Dutch Guilders, Deutschmarks etc.
So it was reasonable to want to go for one currency when you were moving to a single market and customs union, in fact not to do it would have been indefensible.
The EU's aim has always been to get to being a United States of Europe. The implication of this is that the various state governments shall be reduced to having about the autonomy of US States, and there shall be a central institution with roughly the powers of the US Federal Government.
This they have not been able to do. The single currency was a step on the way to it, but political union is much, much harder, countries are unwilling to give up their power. To get a clear picture of the EU at present, you have to imagine a USA with few or no executive Federal institutions. No Department of Defense, for instance. No Federal taxes. This is how Merkel was able to invite huge numbers of immigrants into Germany, and thus the EU. No Federal legislature. Yes, a sort of Potemkin Parliament, but its nothing like Congress. There being no Federal welfare payments, there is also no mechanism for the kind of transfer payments which cushion economic disparities in performance between US states.
Now imagine in such a situation that different states have incompatible approaches to fiscal matters. So the southern states will sell bonds to finance huge deficits - as Italy does. They float them in Euros, that is all there is. The Northern ones will also sell bonds, but against a much more responsible fiscal policy. This will lead to a spread between (eg) Italian and German bonds. The central bank, the ECB, which is attempting to run monetary policy absent any effective help from Federal institutions, will buy up Italian bonds to try to minimize the spread. Why?
Because if the spread widens too far, its going to result in monetary policy having very different effects in the North and the South.
The point where all this tension can be seen building is in the Target2 balances. Its too big a subject to cover here, but look it up. Here is a starter:
https://www.eyes-on-europe.eu/... [eyes-on-europe.eu]
In the end, this is not going to work in its present form. They will have to move either to full political union, or the Euro will hit a shock which its unable to survive. For instance, an Italian default. We saw this threatened by the 2008 financial crisis, but they got by. Now, with the fallout from the Ukrainian and associated energy crisis they are facing something similar. Its not clear how they get through it in one piece, ie with the Euro intact and no drop-outs.
This is why the euro is falling against the dollar. There is a risk premium based on the gathering storm. Its going to be a very interesting winter.
This is, by the way, the reason the UK Treasury vetoed membership of the currency union. Looking like a wise decision.
Re: A currency union, but not a fiscal union (Score:3)
The *politicians* want a full political union. More power for them, at least, the ones at the top. Not many other people really want a United States of Europe.
Also worth mentioning: the US Federal government has usurped many powers that (by the Consitution) belong to the states. It has become a behemoth.
For economic matters, the common market worked pretty well for Europe. Time to go back to something similar.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed it has.
Thankfully, it appears...the recent SCOTUS rulings that an executive department was overstepping its mandated role/powers from congress might be a first step in reeling back these non-elected regulators across the executive branch.
In this SCOTUS case, it was the EPA, but this should be started to be applied across the board to these departments th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are not..they are interpreting cases presented to them, per the constitution.
IN this case, it is preventing UN-elected executive branch bureaucrats from essentially making "law'. That power is reserved to the legislative branch.
I'm disappointed that Roe was overturned myself, BUT, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg had stated that the Roe decision was based on faulty legal reasoning per the constitution.
Go back and review your civics man.
Re: (Score:3)
they are interpreting cases presented to them, per the constitution.
That's not in the constitution. That's a power that the supreme court seized by declaring that their interpretation of the constitution gave them the power to interpret the constitution. The ability of the courts to overturn laws is based entirely on precedent, and this current supreme court has openly declared that they don't give a shit about precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme courts role in US is the same as the Ayatollah's in Iran. To make sure elected officials (and their legitimate subordinates) do not step on the prer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They did establish the United State of Europe and even established sovereignty over local laws. The USE is basically the USA with unlimited federal power, but no Federal obligations (such as defense, welfare etc).
congratulations (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess congratulations are in order to the US hawks. They've finally reached so many of their goals. Weakening Europe so it's again a satellite and not a potential competitor, avoiding (for the time being) that the Euro replaces the Dollar as an international exchange currency, and dividing Russia and Europe, as has been doctrine for almost a century.
Amazing what you can accomplish when you use opportunities and the leaders of Europe are either imbeciles are well-bread US think-tank children.
Re: (Score:3)
The fall of the Euro against the US is easily explained without some kind of weird conspiracy theory.
In the aftermath of WW2, the US emerged without damage to its infrastructure and had a huge economic boost when it converted wartime production to peacetime production. In order to recover from the damage
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody sane in WESTERN Europe believes that Russia really wants to conquer us. Not ONE person I've talked to over the past months is seriously thinking that.
This might be different for EASTERN european countries, who used to be Soviet controlled. I don't know, didn't specifically speak to anyone there. If I were living in, say, Latvia, then yes, probably I'd be a bit nervous now.
But the whole "evil russians want to conquer the world" is propaganda that everyone clearly sees as the bullshit it is. Aside from
Re: (Score:2)
And why do you suppose that might be I wonder...
We're both too high IQ to play silly games, I assume. Of course they joined NATO for two obvious reasons: a) scare shitless of Russia which had oppressed them for half a century and now had a weak decade and b) joining NATO was seen as a path towards more integration into the West with its nice wealth and trade and functioning economies.
He has nothing to win from invading Ukraine either. But he did it anyway.
Totally wrong. Come on, there are now a LOT of experts who have clearly outlined the history of this war, many of them outspoken enemies of Russia or otherwise not under sus
Re: (Score:2)
The difference in your scenario. America can beat Mexico.
You're right. I should add to the scenario a decade of Russia sending their most advanced weapons and training the mexican army in using them. Still doesn't work. Imagine in that same decade the US military budget slashed by 90%. Then maybe we're talking comparable.
But perfect comparison isn't the point. The point is that the US wouldn't just let that happen, they would intervene. Maybe not with an invasion, but once you've agreed that the US would do something about it and make sure that government disappe
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the land. Sure, grab or not, who cares? It's about telling 20 times that there's a red line and then the other fucker crosses it anyway.
The west has a massive part in how this shitty situation came to be. Even Henry Kissinger agrees with that, and he's not a fan of Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you just finish explaining the land would be a net loss...
If it's not about the land. Just give it all back then.
You're intentionally dense or unintentionally? The point is not to grab land. Land grab may or may not happen as a consequence of events, but it's not the point. Like a bank robbery gone wrong: The point was to rob the bank, not to murder people. People may still die, but that wasn't what the robbers wanted to do in the beginning. More clear?
You know what's also a red line?
Genocide...
There's no genocide happening in Ukraine. Stop throwing serious words around for bullshit. We've had a couple genocides on this planet, and we know what they look like.
Re: (Score:2)
So you've changed your story now to "Russia just stumbled drunkenly into Ukraine with tens of thousands of troops by accident"
And now finds itself with tens of thousands of dead Russian troops, and a bunch of land it doesn't want.
Human communication requires an intent to understand what the other person is saying. I'm not sure you have that intent.
So one last time, for the intentionally dense: Russia was left with lots of bad choices. One was to start a war. The others were to accept an openly hostile and highly militarized country at its border, within striking distance of their capital.
Nothing accidental about it. But that doesn't mean conquering territory was the primary goal.
Which is why this war to stop NATO expanding has caused NATO to expand.
Finland is a blow, I believe, because it directly thre
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly think the US has some uber-intelligent strategy???
No. But I do believe they have a strategy or two. Maybe not intelligent, maybe not always consistent, but also not entirely random.
The fall of the Euro against the US is easily explained without some kind of weird conspiracy theory.
There's no conspiracy. Just interests of countries.
Here's a bit of insight: https://mronline.org/2022/03/3... [mronline.org]
The Euro has been hit very hard by Russia's war in Ukraine, not some imaginary group of US Hawks.
The war has ZERO effect on the Euro. It's the sanctions that do it. A lot of the european economy, especially production and export powerhouse Germany's, depends on cheap energy and raw materials, quite a bit of which is sourced from Russia.
It's basically like you decidi
Re: (Score:2)
A) As I said in my answer, the US has a much higher population than Russia and Canada and therefore has much greater economic power. Canada punches way above its weight and the US depends on its good neighbor for many things; I am insulted on Canada's behalf.
>The answer is that the US government creamed, until the 90s at least, ~10% off the top of capitalist wealth production
You are going to need to clarif
Re: (Score:2)
I actually generally agree with your post, but...
if there isn't balanced trade with the US, you cannot expect the US military to protect you or the International shipping lanes to your country
...what?
The US runs large trade deficits with Taiwan/Japan. What, exactly, do you think the 7th fleet is doing out there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Err...I kinda think that Russia starting an unprovoked war with Ukraine had at least a "teeny" bit to do with dividing themselves off from Europe and the res
Re: (Score:2)
Err...I kinda think that Russia starting an unprovoked war with Ukraine had at least a "teeny" bit to do with dividing themselves off from Europe and the rest of the world.
Oh, totally. That's the opportunity I was talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess congratulations are in order to the US hawks. They've finally reached so many of their goals. Weakening Europe so it's again a satellite and not a potential competitor,
Do you have a citation for any American ever that had that goal? It's not a very often expressed opinion in America. Milton Friedman said trade deficits are great.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a direct citation, but the fact that the US a) spies on EU political leaders, b) is actively engaged in industrial espionage against european competitors and c) is pressing for sanctions against Russia that massively damage the EU economy but have little impact on the US economy IMHO is a clear sign.
Re: (Score:2)
a) spies on EU political leaders, b) is actively engaged in industrial espionage against european competitors
Every country does this. It doesn't mean anything.
c) is pressing for sanctions against Russia that massively damage the EU economy but have little impact on the US economy
There is no way to avoid this, if you want meaningful sanctions against Russia.
There is no American who wants to weaken Europe as a potential competitor. We don't see Europe as a competitor, we see them as trading partners (although a few times when they started world wars, we saw them as dumb shits, but they felt the same when we invaded Iraq. So there's enough stupidity to go around).
Re: (Score:2)
There is no American who wants to weaken Europe as a potential competitor. We don't see Europe as a competitor, we see them as trading partners
These two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary. The US exports a lot of digital goods to Europe, such as movies, Facebook, etc. - you wouldn't want a european competitor to take that cake, right?
Three reasons. (Score:2)
-covid slowed the EU economy, putting it on a different curve.
-russian war leads to EU buying more arms from US.
-russian war leads to EU buying more LNG from US.
USD strengthens against other major currencies (Score:2)
What's actually happened in the last year is that the US dollar has strengthened against pretty much everything, to the tune of 10%-15% in most cases.
This story should be more about the USD getting stronger rather than the Euro getting weaker. I haven't cherry-picked the currency conversions below, if you know of a currency that has strengthened against the dollar in the last year I'd be interested to hear about it.
From one year ago until now:
USD - Euro
0.84 > 0.99
USD - Chinese Yuan
6.47 > 6.72
USD - Yen
Re: (Score:2)
USD - RUB went from 0.017 to 0.013
Maybe because it's probably pretty hard to buy a bunch of Rubles right now because no one wants to facilitate the transaction? I really don't know. But "strength of a currency" probably doesn't mean everything that people think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come now ... (Score:2)
... surely we red blooded Americans can trash our currency and economy harder than those anemic Euros, right?? Are you going to take this lying down?
C'mon boys! We've got more virtue to signal! What other messy commodities (besides oil) did we outsource production of abroad, that we can now dramatically refuse to buy?
Re: (Score:2)
And instead do what?
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The Eurozone has sufficient oil, gas and coal supplies within its own borders, even after Brexit, to last them 300 years. The problem is their regulations tell them they can't mine it and it's unlikely that unless the government goes the Sri Lankan way this will get any better.