Re: Jane D'Arista on Doug Henwood's Show
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Michael Perelman wrote: Regarding the thread on exchange rates, yesterday Doug interviewed Jane regarding exchange rates, posing Ellen Frank's analysis to her. Doug Henwood: Welcome to WBAI, Jane D'Arista Jane D'Arista: Thank you. DH: As I said in the introduction, after many years of being the world's strongest currency, the United States, after being the target of foreign investors' capital flows, seems to be having a wobbly time of it. What's your analysis? What's going on with the dollar, and what are the underlying reasons for it? JDA: The slowdown is certainly a factor in what is going on with the dollar. But the problem is that it is the trade balance that is at the heart of this issue. The US has been not really the target of investors except as a by-product. Really what it is is the target of exporters. All the world exports except the US and we are the importer of last resort. As a result, and because of the fact that the dollar is the key reserve and transactions currency, we pay our bills in dollars, and those dollars then go out and are returned to our financial markets. So it's not so much the idea of a strong dollar policy per se, or that the US is the preferred locus of investment, so much as that those by-products are inevitable, if the dollar is going to be the key currency, and if the US is going to be the importer of last resort. Now the fact that the US economy is slowing, and those imports are dropping, is very much affecting the dollar. DH: Let's go over some basic concepts here. You mentioned the phrase reserve currency. What does that mean? JDA: That means that countries who have to keep a reserve in order to protect their own position keep those reserves in dollars. It used to be gold, under the gold standard. Now that they hold dollar reserves, they need dollars to keep them up. They need them in order to be able to import to keep their own economies going, to repay debt, and to build additional reserves. The reserves are out there because markets for most currencies other than those of a few countries (Europe of course, Japan and the US) are very thin. So people cannot -- Mexico, for example, although it's in a very strong position at the moment, tends to use dollars as well its own currency in its export/import industries. So the dollar has become the key currency, both for holding reserves and for transactions. That has a very large implication for the United States and for US financial markets. It means that, increasingly, investment has to be in the US. Over a third of all US treasury securities are owned by foreigners, a very large share of that by foreign central banks, who hold their reserves in dollars. Now they don't hold dollar bills. They invest those reserves in a US financial asset. And they are looking for the safest asset, and that tends to be the treasury bill. They have also moved now into the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paper, the government-sponsored enterprises that appear to be the next-safest financial asset in the US market. DH: This is subtle point, and I guess a pretty obscure one to most Americans, namely that other countries do a lot of business, including financial business, or paying for imports, in currencies other than their own. JDA: That is correct. DH: India can't pay for oil imports in dollars, it needs dollars, and Argentina can't pay its debts in pesos, it needs dollars. JDA: That's correct. DH: But the United States is unique, in that we pay for oil imports, and pay our foreign creditors, in the currency that we print. How big a benefit is this for the United States, in your estimation? JDA: Well, certainly during the 90s it was an enormous benefit because it jump-started our economy and kept it running in 5th gear. That was a lot money pouring in. Throughout the 90s, between 10 and 20 percent of the flows into US financial markets were flows from foreign investors. So the foreign sector made a real contribution to US financial markets. This meant that the saving rates could fall and not push up interest rates and not constrain credit because credit was gushing in. But the result was . . well, when you read about a developing country, they say if the capital flow is over 10 percent of GDP, then you have a problem. Well, it's been pretty high in the US, and I think we have a problem as well. What this has done is create a debt bubble. Everybody focuses on the stock market bubble, the real bubble is debt. And in particular consumer debt. DH: Let's get back to this in just a second. But let's talk a moment about the basics of international accounting. You mentioned trade deficits and capital inflows, and these things are related. If we import more than we export, we have to finance the difference, and that becomes debt we owe to foreign creditors. JDA: That's correct. DH: Now, there are a lot of optimists who say we've been hearing about this for a long long time.
Tobin tax in France
A colleague heard a news item in the last few days that France has adopted a Tobin tax, which will be used to fund overseas development aid. Can anyone confirm that or provide more details please? Bill Rosenberg --- The content of this message is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Blocking Labour 'tragedy' for Fiji,warns professor]
Original Message Subject: [pasifik_nius] 3385 POLITICS: Blocking Labour 'tragedy' for Fiji,warns professor Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 18:52:12 -0800 From: Journ12 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Journalism, University of the South Pacific To: Pasifik Nius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Title -- 3385 POLITICS: Blocking Labour 'tragedy' for Fiji, warns professor Date -- 2 September 2001 Byline -- None Origin -- Pasifik Nius Source -- Wansolwara Online, 2/9/1 Copyright -- USP Journalism Status -- Unabridged --- USP Pacific Journalism Online: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/ Fiji elections coverage: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/docs/news/index.html USP Pasifik Nius: http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/nius/index.html USP Pasifik Nius stories on Scoop (NZ): http://www.scoop.co.nz/international.htm Have your say: http://www.TheGuestBook.com/vgbook/109497.gbook BLOCKING LABOUR 'TRAGEDY' FOR FIJI, WARNS PROFESSOR http://www.usp.ac.fj/journ/docs/news/wansolnews/wansol0209013.html Staff Reporters: September 2, 2001 Wansolwara Online (USP) SUVA (Pasifik Nius): A leading political scientist today warned that any attempt to block the deposed Fiji Labour Party from forming a new government if it wins the largest number of seats when counting begins tomorrow will be a tragedy for the country. There is an enormous effort from the top down to do that, said Associate Professor Scott MacWilliam, of the University of the South Pacific's history/politics department. It is disappointing that the position was based upon the claim that there will be violence if the Labour Party wins. It simply means that a small number of thugs are holding the country to ransom and that's a tragedy in any country. Prof MacWilliam's comments, made in a fullpage interview with Daily Post reporter Mithleshni Gurdayal published today, followed lobbying by a group of Fijian lawyers last week to orchestrate a pact between indigenous parties aimed at blocking Labour from forming a government. Most political observers predict a Labour victory in the general election, in which the week-long voting ended yesterday. Police have set up tight security with razor wire barricades around the four counting centres in Suva. According to Prof MacWilliam, an Australian: It is likely that the Labour Party will win the most seats; it is less likely that they will win an absolute majority. Asked whether the election would bring about stability for Fiji, he said the ballot had been conducted in exceptional circumstances and is was debatable about whether elections could ever bring stability by themselves. Did the last election in 1999 bring stability? he asked. The [Labour-led] People's Coalition Government had an overwhelming majority of seats in Parliament and yet violence from outside the parliamentary arena eventuated in overthrowing the government. It seems that a lot of people take the rhetoric of elections as the way of solving crisis. Nowhere in the world have elections been the sole means of dealing with those matters. Elections have been accompanied by other things like presidential security guards and so forth. Elections alone don't solve anything. Prof MacWilliam said it was an exceptional election in the sense that it was not within direct constitutional provisions. There was also a question about whether the decision to hold an election itself was unconstitutional - it still hangs in the air. What, for instance, has been the effect of all the intimidation, harassment and so forth? he asked. When people talk about a free, fair and open election, it may be that the election process itself is fairly blemish-free or faultless, but what about the background to that? How have people been persuaded to vote by either bribes or by threats and fears? While Fiji had been undergoing a transition with urbanisation as elswhere in the world, it's been urbanised in poverty. Prof MacWilliam said the victory of Labour, which offered policies to address poverty, had been so substantial in 1999 that he had predicted then that the People's Coalition would win the next two elections. They had so far completely wiped out the Opposition. It would have taken something very dramatic for them to lose all that support as a result of last year, he said. In fact, you could say that there were things that have encouraged people to go to the Labour Party - the job losses and the kinds of appeals that the party had made like cutting off the value-added tax (VAT), he said. Finding jobs would appeal to the poor people. It not only appealed to the Indo-Fijians, but many ethnic Fijians in the urban areas who have seen their living standards decline. Prof MacWilliam said so much depended on what ethnic Fijians had done with their vote in the urban area. Urbanisation is a factor here, he said. Earlier, in an interview with Wansolwara Online last week, Prof MacWilliam had said many politicians vying for seats in the election were not serious about addressing
Re: Tobin tax in France
G'day Bill, A colleague heard a news item in the last few days that France has adopted a Tobin tax, which will be used to fund overseas development aid. Can anyone confirm that or provide more details please? German Minister Says Jospin's Tobin Tax Won't Work by Ulrika Lomas, Tax-News.com, Brussels 31 August 2001 French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's Tobinesque fox finally ran into the buffers on Wednesday when German Deputy Finance Minister Caio Koch-Weser (Deputy Minister, mind you, not even the Minister) said that better regulation of derivatives and hedge funds would be more promising than taxes as a way of curbing volatile capital flows. Koch-Weser, speaking to newspaper Financial Times Deutschland, said the idea of a so-called 'Tobin tax' on foreign exchange transactions 'has charm but will never fly'. On Tuesday, Jospin on Tuesday had reiterated his support for the Tobin tax, named after American Nobel prize winning economist James Tobin, who suggested the idea in the 1970s, and called for a European Union initiative on the tax at international level, saying it would be discussed at the next Ecofin Council meeting. Koch-Weser said it would be more promising to try and limit currency speculation in other ways, though he noted it was questionable whether all short-term transactions were damaging. But Lionel Jospin wasn't thinking about currency speculation when he mentioned the tax, he was making electoral calculations with his eye on the Elysee, that and indulging in every French politician's predilection for increasing taxation whenever possible. Koch-Weser on the other hand is coming from the current preoccupation of finance officials with stability. Since the 'Asian crisis' and the near melt-down of LTCM, financial regulators in the EU and the G7 have concentrated on finding ways to reduce systemic risk in the financial markets. 'I am thinking for example of certain derivatives, about which one could ask if they should require a higher use of own capital,' Koch-Weser was quoted as saying. He also mentioned regulation of hedge funds, a subject being addressed by the G7-sponsored 'Financial Stability Forum', a group of regulators headed by Bank for International Settlements chief Andrew Crockett.
Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
I think that's right. In addition, the Chinese do not have modern delivery systems. With their current technology, they probably could hit only part of the US. If Prince George's Star Wars plan proves feasible, then it will have the ability to knock out maybe 20 missles at a time. Without changes on the Chinese side, this would shift the balance of power. The US would not be deterred from attacking China by the existence of the Chinese nuclear arsenal. Now that the Chinese face no opposition to their build up of nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems, however, the balance of power between the US and China would be maintained even with Star Wars. The existence of a working Star Wars system would change the fairly simple MAD system of the Cold War and post-Cold War era. If you have Star Wars at home or in a theatre, the incentive to use nuclear weapons increases. If you are faced with an opponent with Star Wars, you will look for other ways to harm your opponent. One obvious choice would be to aim your missles at your opponent's nominal, non-Star Wars equipped allies. In this case, that would be Europe and Israel. Furthermore, a ten-fold increase in the number of Chinese nuclear weapons will have an effect on regional stability. Japan and Korea must eventually be tempted to build up their own stockpiles to counter China. India and Pakistan, too, will be forced to build up missles to a level comparable to that of the Chines. Any so-called rogue state with a handful of nuclear weapons, stymied by the existence of Star Wars, would eventually acquire enough nuclear weapons to get at least a few shots through the shield. In an era where Russia is scrapping many of its warheads, there could be plenty available. Even without the strategic problems Star Wars presents for world peace, I think it is just a terrible idea to announce support for a buildup of weapons of mass destruction by a vile, dictatorial regime bent on maintaining their power, and willing to commit any despicable degradation of human life and autonomy. When Prince George announces this policy, on the Saturday of a three day weekend when few Americans are paying attention to the news, he is trying to keep people in the dark about his support for the Chinese Communist regime. Since China will need to conduct several nuclear tests, United States support for Chinese nuclear weapons will also have the denigratory effect of implicitly breaching the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Blame it on Bush. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 15:22:16 -0700, michael pugliese wrote: Just glanced at the NYT webpage. David Sanger byline, U.S. Will Not Object to Chinese Missile Buildup. (Course when you only have 18-20 nuclear missiles, even 100 times that is only about half of what the USA currently has under the START II treaty limits with the fSU. My numbers about right? I'm not gonna wade through DoD or CDI webpgs. at the moment...Michael Pugliese From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 9/1/01 1:49:34 PM At 01:01 PM 09/01/2001 -0500, you wrote: The purpose of the new approach, administration officials say, is to convince China that the administration's plans for a missile shield are not aimed at undercutting China's relatively small nuclear arsenal, but rather intended to counter threats from so-called rogue states. maybe the purpose to create a rogue state in order to justify Star Wars? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine Is it peace or is it Prozac? -- Cheryl Wheeler.
McTeer
G'day all, Here's what passes for bullishness these days. I notice the world doesn't feature in Mr McTeer's calculations (eg humungous Japanese bad debt projections), nor does he feel the outrageous credit creation of the last few years is of concern, nor has he noted the recent plateau in consumer optimism, nor does he seem to think global political inconveniences like nationalist and pro-democracy movements have anything to do with trade projections. Anyway, here's the spray ... Cheers, Rob. Dallas Fed chief: Where's the rebound? http://www.dallasnews.com/business/stories/460013_mcteer_02bus.A.html McTeer sees pieces for a recovery in place but steers clear of timetable 09/02/2001 By ANGELA SHAH / The Dallas Morning News Robert McTeer looks confidently for an economic rebound. Predicting its arrival is another matter. I've been thinking it's right around the corner for months now, said the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. An unabashed fan of the new economy, Mr. McTeer admits that he's been a bit humbled by the persistence of the slump that threatens to halt the longest U.S. expansion ever. Yet even as he shies from offering a firm forecast on when the slowdown will end or how high the unemployment rate might rise, he sees the essential ingredients for recovery in place strong action by the Fed, tax-cut checks in consumers' pockets and lower energy prices. During a meeting with editors and writers at The Dallas Morning News last week, he spoke of the new economy's bust and possible rebirth, and the fear in the stock market. He also defended the Fed's attempts at engineering a soft landing with its 1999-2000 interest rate increases aimed at cooling a red hot economy. Mr. McTeer has not been a voting member of the Fed's policy-making committee, which has cut a key short-term interest rate seven times since January the most aggressive cuts of Chairman Alan Greenspan's tenure. President of the Dallas Fed since 1991, Mr. McTeer returns to that policy-making role next year. It was from his perch on that committee that he gained national prominence for extolling the marvels of the tech boom. As a public speaker, he takes the road less traveled when describing economic theory expounding on monetary policy, for example, by talking of night shifts pumping gas at his father's truck stop in rural Georgia. He's also prone to invoking the wisdom of Elvis and the singer-songwriters he calls picker poets. He didn't drop any of those names in the interview. Nor did he bring along his New Paradigm Frog, a figurine he uses as his New Economy mascot, though he said he had considered it. But he did leaven his remarks with lighthearted suggestions about how consumers can prop up the beleaguered telecom sector use their cell phones more and upgrade and bolster the economy by spending their tax-rebate checks. Keep shopping, America, he said. The McTeer household, though, will use its tax-rebate check to pay credit card bills, he added. Here are excerpts: Question: Let's start with something simple. What's going to happen with the economy? Answer: Every time we have a new round of statistics, I expect that the next round is going to be much better. And we are accumulating reasons to expect that, but so far it hasn't happened. I must say that I have been a little bit surprised and obviously disappointed that we haven't made a sharp turn yet on the upside. Mainly the reason that leads me to hope and expect that things will get better before long is that the Fed started easing very aggressively in January. Monetary policy has now been joined by fiscal policy in switching over to fiscal stimulus, with the checks literally in the mail. I must say that I didn't like that provision of the tax bill, but it's turned out to come in very handy. It's timed beautifully. Of course, that was an accident. We'll take what we can get. The third thing is that energy has stopped going up, and we've been getting a little relief on that. [They] are all pushing us in a positive direction. This slowdown's been very unusual. The thing that's been saving us is the consumer. They've been doing something that's probably irrational from the point of view of the individual consumer because they all need to be saving more: saving for retirement, saving for college and all of that. But we'd be in bad trouble if they started doing the rational thing all of a sudden. We're happy that they're spending. We wish that they didn't have to run up a lot of debt to do it. But it's not something we're terribly worried about right now because their assets are high. Question: One thing that occurs in previous cycles when you saw big leaps in technological innovation railroads, the automotive industry you saw a big burst in productivity and then things fell back. Are we going to see this burst look a lot like that pattern in the past? Answer: Speaking to someone who's out on that new
Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
cfr below is, www.cfr.org/ FreeRepublic.com A Conservative News Forum http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b915cf26385.htm To: Harley_hog China Probe Finds Bipartisan Skeletons http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8ba4c406e5.htm 3 Posted on 09/01/2001 15:23:10 PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub [ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ] To: Harley_hog More of those administration 'leaks' that can't tell their butts from a hole in the ground? 4 Posted on 09/01/2001 15:42:06 PDT by piasa [ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast this is nuts 5 Posted on 09/01/2001 15:43:02 PDT by freedomnews [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast ...We don't see the need for any tests, by anyone, in the near future, the official said. But there may, at some point, be a need by both countries to make sure that their warheads are safe and reliable If our warheads are 'safe and reliable' it's safe to assume that their warheads are too... Assuming, of course, that the chicoms can read the blueprints and follow the instructions for proper assembly, etc. 6 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:06:40 PDT by DWSUWF [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: DWSUWF If there is any truth whatsoever in this report, insanity has taken over the brain functions of our government. 7 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:14:14 PDT by meenie [ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ] To: meenie ...If there is any truth whatsoever in this report, insanity has taken over the brain functions of our government... There's a time during most fairly bad car wrecks when control has been irretrievably lost, and a wreck is inevitable, but the really loud noises and bone-breaking impacts haven't yet begun to happen. That's where we are right now. 8 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:24:33 PDT by DWSUWF [ Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast part of an effort to overcome Chinese objections to the Bush administration's missile defense plans Um, I don't seem to be able to read past the first sentence. Exactly WHY do WE care what COMMUNIST CHINA thinks about OUR Missile DEFENSE System 9 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:31:17 PDT by Libertina [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: Sawdring, Pericles, ATC ... 10 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:37:00 PDT by Aaron_A [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: Libertina because the cfr says we have to 11 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:37:40 PDT by IRtorqued [ Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast Didn't one of our ambassadors (April Glespie) tell Saddam we did not oppose his views that Kuwait was part of Iraq? Just before he started invading half the mideast? 12 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:43:11 PDT by djf [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: RightOnTheLeftCoast, Poohbah, Miss Marple, JohnHuang2 Who cares? We'll probably be able to stop `em all, anyhow. 13 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:03:25 PDT by hchutch [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: Sanger, you blathering DNC toe-sucker China is now developing mobile, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles that would be far more likely to withstand a first nuclear strike to replace those aging missiles The Indians know what the Chinese are doing, and so does everyone else, a senior administration official said. If we canceled the whole missile defense program tomorrow morning, China would still build more and better missiles, and other countries would figure out their response. Hey Sanger, don't you read your own drivel?? 14 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:12:52 PDT by mrsmith [ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ] To: mrsmith LOL! 15 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:16:37 PDT by piasa [ Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | Top | Last ] To: All Bush's China Policy: Oh gee, how many nuclear missiles would you like to have pointed at the United States, okay
Fw: [marxist] Oil pipeline across the Balkans [fwd]
-Original Message- From: asianhistory [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, September 02, 2001 9:21 AM Subject: [marxist] Oil pipeline across the Balkans [fwd] Foreign Affairs Front Page News Source: kathimerini Published: 9/01 SOFIA (AFP) - The construction of an oil pipeline across the Balkans from Bulgaria's Black Sea port of Burgas to Vlore on Albania's Adriatic coast should begin by the end of the year, the US-led consortium in charge of the operation said yesterday. The 890-kilometer (550-mile) pipeline, which will cross the troubled republic of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), will take four years to build, cost 1.13 billion dollars (1.24 billion euros) and have a daily capacity of 750,000 barrels of crude oil, said Ted Ferguson of the Balkan pipeline consortium (AMBO). I believe the decision will be made by the end of the year and real work to develop the project will begin at the end of the year, he said. Speaking before a meeting with Bulgaria's Deputy Prime Minister Kostadin Pascalev, Ferguson said the pipeline was needed as an alternative to the Bosphorus sea route through Turkey to bring oil from Central Asia to western markets via the Black Sea. The Bosphorus shipping route would be insufficient to transport growing oil supplies of oil coming from the Caspian Sea region, he said, pointing out that a pipeline linking Kazakhstan to Russia's Black Sea port of Novorossisk was due to begin pumping in September. Bulgaria has said it will also back plans for a pipeline linking Burgas to the Greek port of Alexandroupolis on the Aegean Sea. The 700-million-dollar pipeline would stretch 320 kilometers and transport 40 million tons of oil annually. But Ferguson said AMBO's route was a better choice. We believe that the port of Vlore is more attractive than the ports in the Aegean Sea for exports because it's deeper water (and) closer to the areas and ports where the oil will be sold, he said. Oil arriving in Vlore would be transported via Rotterdam to the United States, he said. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/1bSolB/TM -~- [C]apital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt. --Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 31 Community email addresses: Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shortcut URL to this page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist Also take our one-question survey at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marxist/polls Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Re: Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
Also on the same site: Join the Free Republic Network Conference Cruise with featured speaker, David Horowitz, for a fun and information filled cruise to the Bahamas! October 15 - 19.
Re: Re: Atlas shrugged
The problem is that it means a high dependency ratio; just as is found in a very young population. Jim Devine wrote: and what's wrong with an aging population? I don't think biology is destiny. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Investors (re)discover bonds.
Bonds on Track to Beat Stocks: Rates of Return (Update1) By Heather Bandur New York, Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Treasuries are on track to beat the Standard Poor's 500 Index for a second year. That hasn't happened since 1981 and 1982, when the economy was in recession. Concern among some investors that the U.S. might again be headed for recession has hurt stocks and driven up prices on government securities, which pay a fixed rate of return and typically rise in price when the Federal Reserve is lowering interest rates. ``People are finally figuring out that they can lose money in their 401(k) account, so they're turning to bonds,'' said Peter McTeague, a bond strategist at Greenwich Capital Markets. ``The game is over'' for stocks, he said. Government securities have returned 5.9 percent this year including reinvested interest, according to a Merrill Lynch Co. index of bonds and notes. That compares with a -13.8 percent return for the SP 500, including reinvested dividends. Treasuries returned 13.3 percent last year; the SP -9.1 percent. ``Bonds tend to beat other asset classes, including stocks, at the end of a business cycle, through a recession and back out on the other side,'' said William Dawson, chief investment officer for fixed-income investments at Federated Investors in Pittsburgh, whose $194 million Total Return Bond Fund has returned 6.4 percent year-to-date. Layoffs and Profits Business investment in equipment last quarter had the biggest drop since 1980, when the economy fell into the first of two recessions during the decade. After returning 9.9 percent in 1981, Treasuries soared a year later, returning 28 percent. Stocks trailed bonds for both years, with the SP returning -4.9 percent and 20.4 percent, respectively. The comparison between today's economy and the one in 1981 and 1982 only goes so far. Inflation remains well-contained now, allowing the Fed to lower interest rates to spur growth. It soared between 1979 and 1981, forcing the government to pay a record 15 3/4 percent to sell 20-year notes. The Fed's interest-rate increases to end inflation helped bring on the recession then, while falling corporate earnings and a slowdown in consumer spending threatens to send the economy there now, analysts say. Companies such as Gateway Inc. and Ford Motor Co. have fired thousands of employees in an attempt to preserve profits. Under the direction of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, the central bank has slashed the target for overnight bank loans 3 percentage points since January in an effort to stave off recession. The target, now at 3.5 percent, is the lowest in seven years. Rediscovering Balance Conventional wisdom has it that stocks rally six to nine months after the central bank begins reducing rates. Nine months after the start of the current cycle, investors are still waiting. The Nasdaq Composite Index is down 27.7 percent so far this year. ``Stocks are more volatile than bonds, and there's nothing in history that says they'll win every time,'' said Richard Sylla, co- author of ``A History of Interest Rates'' and a professor of economic and financial history at New York University's Stern School of Business. ``There were people who'd put all of their money in stocks. Now they're rediscovering a more balanced approach to investing.'' It's this shift in attitude that is turning investors onto bonds. Two-year notes, among the securities most sensitive to overnight rates set by the Fed, have rallied 1.5 percentage points since the start of the year to 3.59 percent yesterday, the lowest since they were first issued in 1972. They have returned 5.4 percent year-to-date, putting them on track to return 8.3 percent by the end of 2001. Ten-year notes have fared the best, returning 6.2 percent since January. On an annualized basis, they will return 9.2 percent this year if the current rally continues. Three Years? With some analysts calling for the central bank to lower its target interest rate below 3 percent in coming months, the two- year-old bond rally may turn into a three-year affair, which hasn't happened since Germany invaded Poland in 1939, according to Ibbotson Associates, a Chicago-based research firm. Bonds beat stocks in the three years between 1939 and 1941, returning 5.9 percent, 6.1 percent and 0.9 percent, respectively. The SP posted losses during those years, returning -0.4 percent, -9.8 percent, and -11.6 percent. Before that, one would have to look to the early years of the Great Depression to find the longest string of winning years for bonds and losing ones for stocks -- a four-year period between 1929, the year the stock market crashed, and 1932. The biggest loss for the SP during that time was in 1931, when it returned - 43.3 percent. Bonds returned 16.8 percent a year later, according to Ibbotson. McTeague at Greenwich Capital Markets predicts that 5- and 10- year Treasury
Tom Palley and Reserve Requirements
In the LAT piece, Tom P. is referring to a system of asset-based reserve requirements. Applied to all financial sector assets, such a system would: a) respond to the long-term movement of this sector's assets out of the banking industry and into nonbank financial firms; b) respond to banks shifting deposits into non-reservable sweep accounts; and c) enable monetary policymakers to target sectoral bubbles and droughts w/o exposing the broader economy to blunt-instrument interest rate changes. Used properly, these universalized reserve requirements would have strong counter-cyclical effects (at every stage of the cycle) in contrast to the prevailing regime of bank capital standards. There's even an existing domestic precedent of sorts in the National Assn. Of Insurance Commissioners' Asset Valuation Reserve/Interest Maintenance Reserve, adopted after the insurer meltdowns of the early 1990s. Long version: Stabilizing Finance: The Case for Asset-Based Reserve Requirements, Thomas I. Palley, Financial Markets Society, August 2000 http://www.fmcenter.org/pdf/FMSaug2000.pdf Subj:[PEN-L:16565] He's not God after all! Date: 9/1/01 11:19:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Devine) [note that leftist economist Tom Palley is quoted below. I hope that the AFL-CIO isn't saying that financial controls should be imposed at this point in the business cycle...] September 1, 2001 / Los Angeles TIMES. Talk about it Fed Chairman Talks of Limits to His Powers By ROBERT A. ROSENBLATT, TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON -- Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Friday that huge swings in the stock market and big changes in home prices are making consumers more unpredictable in their behavior, making it much harder for policymakers to influence the economy. The changes in financial institutions give consumers more knowledge and more opportunities to change their spending rapidly, undermining the powers at Greenspan's disposal. The current system emphasizes the 401(k) salary set-aside accounts, with individuals getting monthly or quarterly statements showing their retirement balances. The stock market boom often changed consumers' outlook, sometimes making them enthusiastic spenders, said Tom Palley, deputy chief of public policy at the AFL-CIO. You receive a statement saying that your wealth has increased, and you think that means there is less need to save, that the savings is being done by the [stock] market, Palley said. Consumers, feeling rich, rush to spend, he said. The AFL-CIO would like Greenspan to use other tools than interest rate changes to deal with the economy. Imposing new reserve requirements on banks could slow down the growth of home equity loans, or the Fed could ask mutual funds to hold more of their assets in cash to dampen stock market fluctuations, Palley said. Such steps would slow the erratic swings in consumer spending, he said.
UNSUBSCRIBE
UNSUBSCRIBE
Re: Re: Re: Atlas shrugged
I wrote: and what's wrong with an aging population? I don't think biology is destiny. Michael Perelman: The problem is that it means a high dependency ratio; just as is found in a very young population. the dependency ratio doesn't automatically rise with the age of the population. It's partly a socially-determined variable. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
letters to the editor
from today's (9/2/01) L.A. TIMES, letters to the editor: Government Is Far From Bankruptcy Robert Scheer [the LA TIMES' house leftist (of sorts)] suggests that George W. Bush has a plan to bankrupt the national government (Bush Binds Us Into a Fiscal Straitjacket, Commentary, Aug. 28). While I share his animosity toward Bush, it's wrong to misuse the word bankruptcy. Sounding the alarm in this way simply reinforces the conservative tilt of the government. The federal government is far, far from bankruptcy. In fact, it is much further now than in 1992 because of the Clinton-era paying down of government debt, along with economic growth. This can be seen when we consider the growth of its debt relative to that of its ability to collect taxes (roughly measured by changes in gross domestic product). The government's debt has fallen from roughly 50% of GDP that year to about 35% now. The U.S. government will go bankrupt only when it cannot pay the interest on its outstanding debt. In these terms, it should be obvious that the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, is nowhere near the situation of Argentina or Russia. An outstanding government debt can be good for the economy since, by and large, government debt represents an asset to the public, allowing us to keep our savings in an extremely safe form. The public's holding of government bonds helped prevent a severe recession at the end of World War II. Instead of worrying about the government's debt, we should be concerned with the excessive indebtedness of private individuals and corporations. That's the sector most likely to go bankrupt. James Devine Professor of Economics Loyola Marymount University [they edited my original letter. The above is more focused and shorter. However, I wish they had consulted me about the final form.] Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Atlas shrugged
You are correct. On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 08:15:05PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: I wrote: and what's wrong with an aging population? I don't think biology is destiny. Michael Perelman: The problem is that it means a high dependency ratio; just as is found in a very young population. the dependency ratio doesn't automatically rise with the age of the population. It's partly a socially-determined variable. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Atlas shrugged
Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the ratio of seniors to others is projected to occur alongside a drop in the ratio of children to population -- so that the total dependency ratio is projected to be a only a tiny bit higher than at present... Michael Perelman wrote: You are correct. On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 08:15:05PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: I wrote: and what's wrong with an aging population? I don't think biology is destiny. Michael Perelman: The problem is that it means a high dependency ratio; just as is found in a very young population. the dependency ratio doesn't automatically rise with the age of the population. It's partly a socially-determined variable. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tobin tax in France
Rob Schaap forwarded: A colleague heard a news item in the last few days that France has adopted a Tobin tax, which will be used to fund overseas development aid. Can anyone confirm that or provide more details please? German Minister Says Jospin's Tobin Tax Won't Work by Ulrika Lomas, Tax-News.com, Brussels 31 August 2001 French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's Tobinesque fox finally ran into the buffers on Wednesday when German Deputy Finance Minister Caio Koch-Weser (Deputy Minister, mind you, not even the Minister) said that better regulation of derivatives and hedge funds would be more promising than taxes as a way of curbing volatile capital flows. Koch-Weser, speaking to newspaper Financial Times Deutschland, said the idea of a so-called 'Tobin tax' on foreign exchange transactions 'has charm but will never fly'. Additional details: Jospin backs moves for cross-border capital tax http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=Viewc=Articlecid=FT3E4NQ0YQClive=truequery=tobin More at: www.ftd.de/tobin-tax Schwerpunkt Tobin Tax: Berlin lehnt Devisenumsatzsteuer ab http://www.ftd.de/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=PrintArticlePageartid=FTDEER3LYQC Populärer Angriff auf die Spekulanten Die Organisation Weed hält die Devisenmärkte für überliquide. Besteuerung und Zielzonen für Wechselkurse gelten als Rezept. http://www.ftd.de/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=PrintArticlePageartid=FTDSQIJ00RC More additional links...: Unterschriftenaktion an die Bundesregierung Devisenumsatzsteuer gegen weltweite Spekulation und zur Finanzierung von Entwicklung http://www.weedbonn.org/finanzmaerkte/tt_u_form.htm Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Stabilisierung der Finanzmärkte durch eine Tobin-Steuer Autoren: Peter Wahl, Peter Waldow http://www.weedbonn.org/finanzmaerkte/tt_paperd.htm Tobin Tax, Speculation and Poverty http://www.attac.org/fra/toil/doc/attacliegeen.htm ... and finally a quote: Eine Besteuerung internationaler Finanzflüsse - eine rein negative Maßnahme - ist zwar nützlich, aber ganz und gar unzureichend. James Tobin hat selbst erklärt, dass das Hauptverdienst der von ihm vorgeschlagenen Steuer darin besteht, eine andere Kreditpolitik mit ermäßigten Zinssätzen zu ermöglichen. (Paul Boccara, Demokratische Umverteilung - Märkte beherrschen und überwinden, Sozialismus 5-2001, http://www.sozialismus.de/05.01/boccara05-01.htm ) Une taxation des flux financiers internationaux, mesure uniquement négative, serait utile mais tout à fait insuffisante. James Tobin lui-même a déclaré que le principal mérite de la taxe qu'il a proposée est de permettre une autre politique de crédit abais sant les taux d'intérêt. (Paul Boccara, Des partages. Pour maîtriser les marchés, in: Economie et Politique. http://www.pcf.fr/Eco-po/0012/boccara.pdf ) hk
Re: Atlas shrugged
G'day Gar, Also there is one other point. In the U.S, anyway the increase in the ratio of seniors to others is projected to occur alongside a drop in the ratio of children to population -- so that the total dependency ratio is projected to be a only a tiny bit higher than at present... I agree with all this - 65 ain't what it used to be, tendentious ageism is implicit in mosr public communication on this stuff, and there are a lot less kids per capita than there used to be anyway. On which last point, I heard myself speculating the other day (I often don't know what I'm thinking until I either write it down or take cups unto loquacity) that a big determinant in bouts of widespread 'western' resistance/activism to the establishment might coincide with troughs in parenthood. In the sixties, the boomers had got to twenty, but the diffusion of the pill, a degree of female emancipation and something of a break with religion (at least amongst the formally educated classes) had combined to push back the average age of the first-time parent by a fair way (or so I imagine - is there a handy stat on this?). Now, of course, we have a lot of that, but also loud anti-child movements; a culture of fanatical consumerism (chronic, acute and terminal); and - in an age of job insecurity, sustained real estate inflation, and lapsing health/education infrastructure/ public play venues - lots of economic disincentives to spawn. So we're freer to be the irascible and uppity bunch we are, in fact, becoming. I find I have certainly become a far quieter, more pliable and less dignified lackey since first the loinfruit bounced into consideration, anyway. Which is probably why I've been waxing abstractly rebellious on lists like this ... Waddyareckon? Cheers, Rob.
