Certain things in this article indicate that it was not written by a serious man. The confusion between the words 'effected' and 'affected'. The reference to

Certain things in this article indicate that it was not written by a serious man. The confusion between the words 'effected' and 'affected'. The reference to 'capitalists' as an identifiable class of people. The assumption that America lacks "the ability to produce products that the rest of the world wants to buy", apparently irrespective of their cost. Gratuitous references to 'obese' Americans. I want to make two general points in response. 1.) Many things in Economics have two sides to them, and exchange rates are one such thing. Yes, a weaker dollar means those who hold dollars are, effectively, poorer. OTOH, a weaker dollar makes our exports more attractive to the rest of the world, and will redress the trade imbalance that the professional doom-and-gloomers are always on about. If you're in business, selling to the rest of the world, a weaker dollar is _good_. See, for instance, all the whining about 'artificially' low pegs for the Yuan and Yen. 2.) The _current_ (floating) exchange rates represent the aggregate wisdom of the market on the question of _future_ exchange rates. If the dollar was "obviously" going to depreciate further, it would depreciate now, as traders looked to short it. Predicting deviations from the current market rates is simple speculation. If that's your bag, knock yourself out, but don't act like the future is transcendentally obvious. That sort of talk is simple kookery.