Good read elmat. First I remember that Mr. Econ Hit Man said capital flows have been engineered the past 40 years to make sure it is sucked out of those places and sent to the USA.
freenewmexican.com
We like sitting on our asses el mat why everyone else serves us.
Next I remember reading an article on America's Tribute by mr. Richard Benson - bush and sauds pulled off the greatest central bank hiest in history - the middle easterners will keep buying our debts if they want our "protection"
prudentbear.com
Slants don't realize Bush is just to throw them off - there is a mega corp global system of crooks that have designed a system to make sure they stay at the top in the castles.
I just watched on cspan "contracting in iraq" where we are sucking mid eastern dry with haliburton reconstruction.
I read Putin is begging for more foreign investment but after the oil grab who wants to go there? I guess he didn't want to pay the america's tribute like it looks the others will do.
Next again on C-span I remember MR. China - the british investor who lost hundreds of millions because of bad loans and crooks over there - again like with Putin - who wants to invest with crooks? Mquirce is pissed they steal his software and qcom technology!! Mr. China said there was money to be made over there, but you had to know the "secrets" - I don't like secrets and special tricks - unless the crooks pulling the tricks and secrets are working for me - hehe.
Next I have the US consumer is tapped out - europe will not replace him - russia will not - south america will not - when he falls - but from your article:
The Asian emerging market economies have, however, worked very hard to sterilise the monetary impact of the reserves.
This confuses me why they did this -
But in standard theories, the monetary impact of such an anchor should not be sterilised. A rapid accumulation of foreign currency reserves should, instead, be allowed to work its way through demand, inflation and so ultimately competitiveness
Mises went over why this back in his day no?
I guess they thought blair and bush and friends was really going to give them a poker chip to the big table - hehe - silly slants. Sure they pulled 400 billion out of poverty - they got lots of clownbucks for it - that makes them wealthy - but when they can't go buy OIL for thier clownbucks - OOPS - they realize they got suckered and really didn't pull 400 million out of poverty - slick american crooks just got them to do a lot of work for FREE - they can buy some artwork or a few building like japan - we might allow that. All this noise on protectionism - really - we are all for free trade if they will just buy the right things no?
Above all, it is hard to believe that current trends are sustainable for many years. A country of China’s scale cannot continue to drive trade ratios ever upwards.
Look - pay america's tribute - oil goes up - dollar goes down - Warren shorts dollar - goes long energy - reaffirms he is the genius many think he is. Clownbucks will be shown to be fraud and investors who think they can trust US will see we just as crooked at putin and Mr. China friends - only we play a lot dirtier and that is why we will always win.
Yet it is evident that large deficits cannot be adjusted if surpluses are not adjusted as well.
Come on - oil going up, dollar going down, this will rebalance the surplus and deficits with china no? And rebalance them over to our saud friends that we have better friendship with - remember bush holding Kings hand talking about blue flowers.
Bhagwati said the tide can lift all boats in a speech a few months back and we need multilateral free trade - but I just read this:
townhall.com
CAFTA struggles
Bruce Bartlett
June 28, 2005
This week, the Senate is expected to take up CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The White House is putting heavy pressure on Congress to support this agreement, which it should. But one cannot help feeling that its own missteps on trade are what have gotten this administration to the point where it must pull out all the stops to gain passage of a very modest trade agreement that probably won't have much impact one way or another. In previous administrations, this sort of agreement would have been a routine matter, not requiring extraordinary effort to get passed.
The problem for many free traders like myself is that the Bush administration has played politics with trade since day one, which has done serious damage to the fragile alliance that still supports free trade. It imposed utterly unjustified tariffs on steel, torpedoed the Doha Round of multilateral trade talks by supporting a huge increase in agriculture subsidies, and has never missed an opportunity to demagogue China for all our trade woes.
Having destroyed the prospects for a multilateral trade agreement, which was supposed to be primarily about eliminating agriculture subsidies, the Bush administration has tried to salvage some semblance of a free trade agenda by pursuing bilateral trade agreements. Such agreements have been concluded with Australia, Chile, Jordan and Singapore. Talks are underway with Bahrain, Morocco, Panama, and groups of countries in Africa and South America.
While the amount of activity is impressive, the results are not very great in terms of opening trade. Moreover, the heavy reliance on bilateral trade agreements may create future problems. Economist Anne Krueger, now the No. 2 official at the International Monetary Fund, summarized the case against preferential trade agreements in a 1999 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives:
-- Once countries are inside a trading bloc such as NAFTA or the European Union, they have an incentive to support protection against countries outside the bloc.
-- Protectionists will use bilateral trade agreements to avoid multilateral agreements, which all economists believe are far preferable. Those who benefit from bilateral agreements will henceforth tend to oppose new multilateral deals. Once a trader has gained access to the market he is most interested in, he will not want to share those benefits with other countries.
-- Finally, the resources of organizations like the U.S. Trade Representative's Office are limited. If they are busy with bilateral agreements, they have no time or political capital left to pursue multilateral agreements.
Jagdish Bhagwati, America's leading trade economist, has gone so far as to call free trade agreements "a sham" that are actually undermining the world trading system. He argues that the proliferation of such agreements by the United States is part of a long-term effort to pursue a unilateral trade policy. "Thanks to the myopic and self-serving policies of the world's only superpower, bilateral free trade agreements are damaging the global trading system," Bhagwati says.
A 2003 study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the economic potential of bilateral agreements is very limited. It noted that NAFTA, one of the largest such agreements, had virtually no effect on the U.S. trade balance with Mexico even after eight years. However, the study also noted that there might be important non-economic reasons to support free trade agreements. For example, they could support U.S. foreign policy objectives and aid democratic forces in those countries with which we have such agreements.
Indeed, it would appear that foreign policy is the best reason to support CAFTA. It is clearly in this country's interest to encourage economic growth and reform in Central America, even if the economic benefit for us is minimal. It also keeps alive the principle of free trade, which this administration has done so much to undermine.
Still, much more could have been accomplished with CAFTA if the White House had made more of an effort. For example, it could have used this as an opportunity to start dismantling the absurd U.S. sugar policy, which keeps domestic prices far above world levels just to enrich a few producers. Although CAFTA opens the sugar market a little, much more could have been done without making the sugar lobby any more opposed to the agreement than it is anyway.
Free traders have no choice but to support CAFTA. Its failure would be seen as a victory for protectionism and would crush the hopes of economic reformers throughout Latin America. I agree with economist Tyler Cowen: "This is probably a treaty we should pass, but it is not a treaty we should be proud of."
The effort shouldn't have been this difficult. If President Bush had been more consistent in his support for free trade over the last five years, he would now be in a stronger position to get CAFTA approved.
thisislondon.co.uk
Now Mr. Ballmer wanting to get involved in all the fun, he helping slants make OS to restrict and censor thier people - but better a round eye do it than lose that market eh? |
