Quote Originally Posted by killersheep View Post
Quote Originally Posted by CGM View Post
Quote Originally Posted by killersheep View Post

Simply poor word choice on my part, my apologies for any confusion I have caused. As for the rest of that rambling I am hoping to verify if that is true or not and that relates to your original statement of "other things being equal scenario" and getting clarity on that. Because the logic of the meaning of this measurement differs greatly if compared to a previous US dollar OR compared to a specific foreign currency OR some other index.
OK, by the statement "other things being equal" I just meant if nothing else changed. An increase in employment in the USA might lead to an increase in the value of the US dollar, other things being equal. (if nothing else changed) But if Canada also experienced a corresponding improvement in the economy, then you would think that the exchange rate between the two countries would not change much as a result.
That still begs the question comparison to what? The example you use (Canadian Dollar) is a moving target, I would assume and probably incorrectly there is a standard or index in comparison.
I think we are not making ourselves clear. If we are talking about exchange rates then I don't see that there is some sort of fixed index. By definition, an exchange rate is relative to some other currency. So things fluctuate.

The original comment in the article you posted was something about increased employment having a positive effect on the country's "currency" If he wasn't talking about exchange rates, then what was he talking about? Some sort of benchmark of the US dollar? Purchasing Power? Well, one might well argue that increased employment leads to increased demand which leads to inflation. This can hardly be likened to a "positive effect on the currency" can it?

So I guess we need to know what he means by "a positive effect on the currency".