Ron,
ms.com
Morgan Stanley, especially the article by Stephen Roach and the one on Japan, has a number of good articles. They are amazingly bearish from a brokerage.
Isn't the best scenario for an end to the crisis a major weakening of the US markets and lower bond rates to move monies back into the emerging markets, but not so much that it weakens the US economy and labor/consumer markets?
No. The world needs consumers, consumers, consumers to get the global economy thriving again. This crisis is not an imbalance but rather an implosion. Unfortunately, we are heading in that direction. In order for everyone to start consuming again, stability needs to be restored in many parts of the world. Jobs have to be created. Laws to protect trade have to be enacted and enforced by governments which can and will enforce them. Using Russia as an example, would you sell some of your "rocks" to anyone there without some assurance that you are going to be paid, and in a currency that is worth something?
Well, if you have the answers to the current problem, I would like to shake your hand because you will be the next Nobel price winner, in Peace, Economics, may be Physics (since a solution may defy the law of Physics).
Haven't the hedge funds simply made a bad situation much worse? Added to the instability? They could not have 'attacked' if there was no weakness.
I don't know and having been thinking about this question recently. Should Caesar's Palace be allowed to come into my house, wake me up in my sleep and say time to play some blackjack? I said no thanks, I don't gamble. The dealers say, sorry, this is how the free market works.
Isn't that what happened to the Thai citizens last July? Everyone who had a Thai Baht to their name is forced to play the Soros game. Unfortunately, Soros has more money than the Thai government so the Thai citizens lost.
Was that opportunity created because of "weakness"? Lets try this example. If I have as much money as a casino in Las Vegas and the casino has no limit on wagers, I can own the casino or lose all my money with one roll of the dice. Now if the rules are such that I can leverage my money and end up with a warchest that is ten times that of the casino's, the odds are the casino will lose. Now if the rules are such that I can go attack anytime, when they least suspect and ill-prepared, my odds increase again. Now if I know my attacking this casino will attract others to do the same at exactly the same time, there is no chance the casino will not fall. In the end, do you blame bad management for the fall of the casino?
Ramsey |
