What does it mean for a normal citizen like me when my country's dollar value goes down?
This may make Australian exports cheaper, which can be a good thing. However it is at the expense of making imports more expensive. Look to Japan, which is devaluing their currency, and is a large importer of energy:  I wont say its bad or unnecessary to hold money in other currencies. However, keep in mind that all AUD-denominated assets will, or at least should, rise as the currency falls. If just AUD/USD falls this may not apply, but if AUD is weakened all around it should hold true. Again, look to Japan, where the Nikkei is closely correlated with the strength of the yen:  Another possibility is to buy gold which should rise in AUD terms but other forces are at work with gold price so some would not agree with this. Essentially imported goods from the country (in this case the US) that is improving against your local currency will become more expensive. For the most part, that is the only practical effect on you on an individual financial level. There are several possible effects: There isn't much you could do about it. If you had enough money to try to hedge by buying foreign securities, in theory you could be happy no matter what your dollar did: if it goes up, you have pain or gain from local effects (depending on whether imports or exports have a bigger effect on your life) and that is offset by your investment having gain or pain. Ditto if it goes down. In reality the amount you might have to invest to get to this point is probably not a realistic amount for an ordinary person to invest outside their country. I own a Canadian company that bills a number of US clients and I buy very little from the US (I'm big on local food, for example, and very frugal on the consumer-goods front.) When the Canadian dollar falls, I effectively get a raise, so I'm happy while all around me are wringing their hands. One more effect that's not yet been mentioned is that companies based in Australia and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, but which do most of their business overseas, will increase their earnings in AU$, since most of what they earn will be in foreign currencies. So their shares are likely to appreciate (in AU$).
"&gt;I expect it goes back long before Eisenhower.  I expect it goes back long before Washington.  I expect it goes back long before Julius Caesar.  &gt;That shouldn't mean I can express my disgust at it.   K but that isnt what you said earlier, which is what got us here.  &gt;I'm old enough to remember when normal companies didn't openly associate their brands with politics,   Normal companies have been openly associating their brands with politics since ""normal companies"" have existed. There just used to be more middle ground." "A $1 note and four quarters are both real money, but how (and when) they become real money is different. The important thing is that the Fed's stockpile of cash that it gets from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing isn't ""real money"" (i.e. M0) yet. That cash is only used for fulfilling withdrawals from reserve accounts. You can't use it to buy a car, or a house, or to pay Janet Yellen's salary...no one, not even Janet, can use even a single dollar to buy a Diet Coke. In other words, it's not really an asset. Or a liability. Or anything but a stack of paper in the Fed's vaults that looks astonishingly like money, but isn't. The upside to this is that when the BEP makes a delivery of fresh bills to the Fed, or when the Fed destroys old, ratty bills that aren't usable anymore, the Fed's balance sheet doesn't change. That's good! Those are practical considerations, not financial ones. The downside is that there's nothing on the asset side of the sheet to explain how the Fed's liability to a bank is reduced when the bank makes a cash withdrawal from its reserve account. So the Fed balances it's balance sheet by recording an increase in a different liability: the cash in circulation. Kinda like transferring the balance on a credit card: you're paying down one liability by increasing another one. It looks a bit silly, but less silly than recording the destruction of old bills as an ""expense"" of the face value of the bills. Coins, on the other hand, become money as soon as the Treasury gets them from the Mint. If they wanted to, they could pay their employees' salaries by ordering coins from the Mint for cheap, giving them to their employees at face value, and reaping fat profits as a result. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what they do: when someone wants quarters, the Treasury mints them at less than face value and then sells them at face value. In practice the Fed does all of this buying and then distributes the coins according to demand. The important thing is that this bunch of coins is not like the Fed's stockpile of bills. It's already real money, and therefore shows up as an asset. Not much. If the Fed bought coins at the cheaper price from the Mint instead, stockpiled them like they stockpile bills, then distributed them as usual, the extra profit just goes to the Treasury anyway, like all the Fed's profit does. However, as things are, the Fed's purchases of coins are recorded on the Fed's balance sheet at face value, which is kinda silly." Rates are a complex field. I will assume that context wise you are talking about rates for a individual saver quantities. The two rates you are asking about are personal bank saving account and exchange traded bonds. The points you want to compare between them are. In general, a bond is what we called a fixed rate instrument. This means that for the life of the product, it will yield a fixed percentage of its face value at a regular period. Baring any extreme circumstances (such as bankruptcy), no external factors will change the payment schedule on a bond. Conversely, by placing your money into a bank, you will accrue interest rate at some value related to some published interest rate. For example, if tomorrow, the Treasury decided to try to stimulate the economy, they could slash the interest rate, this would directly affect the rate at which your savings account would accrue interest. In general, a bond has a maturity date, where the capital is finally released from the bond. Until such date, you cannot access the money directly (you can however sell the bond, but it would likely be at a discounted value). Therefore, in general, you cannot get access to the money whenever you want it. As for a saving account, normally one can access the funds instantly, if not within a few days. This seems to the reason people seem to be focusing on. For each bond, the issuer of the bond is obligated to pay you the holder of the bond fixed payments at an interval, plus the capital at the maturity. However, obligation does not mean guarantee. If the issuer, is unable to make the payments, they may go into bankruptcy to avoid paying you. There are companies setup to advise people on the likelihood of each bond issuer on their ability to honour their debts. For example Standard and Poor issues a rating which goes all the way up to AAA for bonds. Recently, many sovereign countries have lost their AAA rating from S&P. Meaning that S&P feel that the possibility of these countries going bankrupt is non-zero. Conversely, banks may also be unable to give you your money when requested. In the US, the reserve requirements means that at any one time it only holds 10% of the money it owes to its customers. This can mean that if every customer turns up to the bank to demand their money, that bank would be unable to pay. This situation is called a Bank Run. During such a situation, the bank would likely collapse and default. In many modern countries, the government put into place guarantees on the first xxx amount in saving accounts, but otherwise, your savings could be lost. There are many complex reasons to choose one instrument over another (including some I have avoided), even if at the outset, they could appear to have the same rates. "Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency.  Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency.  Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand.  Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency.  Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to ""control"" the value of currencies.  For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further.  This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly." I don't even think that much is true, in a downturned market we see deflation. Things go on sale, prices drop, that's deflation. But the elephant in the room is that the gov't can't let deflation happen or their debt becomes harder to pay off. So after/during a downturn the government goes into hyperinflation mode.  To me, gold/silver aren't a hedge against the dollar they are a hedge against the inevitable decline of the dollar which isn't going to stop until we change monetary policy.  Graph the dollar's value in the past 100 years, it's the biggest crash in history. Now ask yourself if the dollar was a stock, would you want to own it with that record? 100 years of declination. Sell your dollars, find a real currency. Dollars are bits you don't control. The banking system has your bits and they can charge you more bits to move your bits around. At any point, they could freeze your accounts and suddenly you have no bits. It's all designed to make it so you can't function in society without them controlling your bits. Many of the major indices retreated   today because of this news. Why? How   do the rising budget deficits and debt   relate to the stock markets? The major reason for the market retreating is the uncertainty regarding the US Dollar. If the US credit rating drops that will have an inflationary effect on the currency (as it will push up the cost of US Treasuries and reduce confidence in the USD). If this continues the loss of USD confidence could bring an end to the USD as the world's reserve currency which could also create inflation (as world banks could reduce their USD reserves). This can make US assets appear overvalued. Why is there such a large emphasis on   the S&P rating? S&P is a large trusted rating agency so the market will respond to their analysis much like how a bank would respond to any change in your rating by Transunion (Consumer Credit Bureau) Does this have any major implications   for the US stock markets today, in the   short term and in July? If you are a day-trader I'm sure it does. There will be minor fluctuations in the market as soon as news comes out (either of its extension or any expected delays in passing that extension). What happens when the debt ceiling is   reached? Since the US is in a deficit spending situation it needs to borrow more to satisfy its existing obligations (in short it pays its debt with more debt). As a result, if the debt ceiling isn't raised then eventually the US will be unable to pay its existing obligations. We would be in a default situation which could have devastating affects on the value of the USD. How hard the hit will depend on how long the default situation lasts (the longer we go without an increased ceiling after the exhaustion point the more we default on). In reality, Congress will approve a raise, but they will drag it out to the last possible minute. They want to appear as if they are against it, but they understand the catastrophic effects of not doing so. When we speak about a product or service, we generally refer to its value. Currency, while neither a product or service, has its own value. As the value of currency goes down, the price of products bought by that currency will go up. You could consider the price of a product or service the value of the product multiplied by the value of the currency. For your first example, we compare two cars, one bought in 1990, and one bought in 2015. Each car has the same features (AC, radio, ABS, etc). We can say that, when these products were new, each had the same value. However, we can deduce that since the 1990 car cost $100, and the 2015 car cost $400, that there has been 75% inflation over 25 years. Comparing prices over time helps identify the inflation (or devaluation of currency) that an economy is experiencing. In regards to your second question, you can say that there was 7% inflation over five years (total). Keep in mind that these are absolute cumulative values. It doesn't mean that there was a 7% increase year over year (that would be 35% inflation over five years), but simply that the absolute value of the dollar has changed 7% over those five years. The sum of the percentages over those five years will be less than 7%, because inflation is measured yearly, but the total cumulative change is 7% from the original value. To put that in perspective, say that you have $100 in 2010, with an expected 7% inflation by 2015, which means that your $100 will be worth $93 in 2015. This means that the yearly inflation would be about 1.5% for five years, resulting in a total of 7% inflation over five years. Note that you still have a hundred dollar bill in your pocket that you've saved for five years, but now that money can buy less product. For example, if you say that $100 buys 50 gallons of gasoline ($2/gallon) in 2010, you will only be able to afford 46.5 gallons with that same bill in 2015 ($2.15/gallon). As you can see, the 7% inflation caused a 7% increase in gasoline prices. In other words, if the value of the car remained the same, its actual price would go up, because the value stayed the same. However, it's more likely that the car's value will decrease significantly in those five years (perhaps as much as 50% or more in some cases), but its price would be higher than it would have been without inflation. If the car's value had dropped 50% (so $50 in original year prices), then it would have a higher price (50 value * 1.07 currency ratio = $53.50). Note that even though its value has decreased by half, its price has not decreased by 50%, because it was hoisted up by inflation. For your final question, the purpose of a loan is so that the loaner will make a profit from the transaction. Consider your prior example where there was 7% inflation over five years. That means that a loan for $100 in 2010 would only be worth $93 in 2015. Interest is how loans combat this loss of value (as well as to earn some profit), so if the loaner expects 7% inflation over five years, they'll charge some higher interest (say 8-10%, or even more), so that when you pay them back on time, they'll come out ahead, or they might use more advanced schemes, like adjustable rates, etc. So, interest rates will naturally be lower when forecasted inflation is lower, and higher when forecasted inflation is higher. The best time to get a loan is when interest rates are low-- if you get locked into a high interest loan and inflation stalls, they will make more money off of you (because the currency has more value), while if inflation skyrockets, your loan will be worth less to loaner. However, they're usually really good about predicting inflation, so it would take an incredible amount of inflation to actually come out on top of a loan.