Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (6102)	5/23/2000 8:41:00 PM
From: jimpit	Respond to of 9127

Here's another view of what's happening at the Fed. Can you think of any reasons why Slick's friends would want to destroy the economy the he and AlGoreBore have been taking credit for creating? ______________________________________________________ Jewish World Review jewishworldreview.com May 23, 2000 Lawrence Kudlow Fed Threatens Prosperity IF ROBERT NOVAK'S recent syndicated column about the Fed is even partly correct -- and I believe it is -- then financial markets could be in for a bumpier near-term ride than most folks think. And certainly bumpier than our inflation-less prosperity deserves. The estimable Mr. Novak, who is surely the most influential conservative journalist around, and quite possibly the number one media commentator of his generation, believes that Alan Greenspan is being pressured by President Clinton's Fed appointees into a new tightening cycle that will be much more aggressive than the Chairman wants. Greenspan reportedly preferred only a 25-basis-point rise in the overnight federal funds rate. However, the Clintonite Gang of Three -- Laurence Meyer, Roger Ferguson and Edward Gramlich -- insisted on a 50-basis-point hike. Greenspan apparently decided to switch rather than fight. Even worse, the Fed announcement left the door open for another 50-basis-point credit tightening in June. And perhaps a third 50-basis-point move in August. In the context of a rising dollar and a falling gold price, alongside surprisingly benign April inflation reports, there can be no doubt now that Fed policy is aimed directly at curbing economic growth. Buggy whips in hand, with bugles blaring, the Fed austerity brigade is armed with an old-economy Phillips curve designed to slay non-existent inflation by depressing the new Internet economy. Ride on, fellas. Right out of a 1950s smokestack playbook. Too many people working. Too many people getting raises. Too much investment. Too much productivity. Too much -- prosperity. There were even a couple days leading up to the last Fed meeting when the stock market appeared to be recovering. Of course, the market was signaling strong approval of George Bush's private investment account reform of Social Security. Good thing the Fed stopped that before it got out of hand. Much too good an idea. Nearly 15 years ago a similar Fed story occurred, but in reverse. Shortly after President Reagan appointed commodity price watchers Manley Johnson and Wayne Angell, they banded together with earlier Reagan appointees (Preston Martin and Martha Seger) to pressure Paul Volcker into an easier money policy. Volcker nearly resigned, but then, like Greenspan, he went along. But then easier money was the correct course. Now, tightening overkill is a terrible idea. Is it possible that Mr. Greenspan is considering resignation? As a footnote to the saga, Bob Novak pointed out that the "Super-hawks" want to move the fed funds rate upward in line with the growth in nominal GDP (total spending in the economy, which grew at an 8-percent rate in Q4, and 7.5 percent over the past year). This, by the way, is a view held by a number of Reserve Bank presidents, as well as the Clintonite Board members. Consequently, Laurence Meyer & Co. may be preparing for a 7.5-percent or even 8-percent fed funds rate. So here's a warning: This harsh tightening mode is not yet discounted by financial markets. Not stocks or bonds. Both the fed funds and eurodollar futures markets are suggesting no more than 75 additional basis points of tightening, but certainly not 100 or 125 basis points. Trouble is, by the time the Fed gets to an 8-percent funds rate, money and GDP growth will already be slowing. That's why looking through the rear-view mirror is such a bad idea. Forward-looking prices, such as gold and the dollar exchange rate, are much better inflation indicators. The Meyer plan would be a very risky scheme. If this worst-case scenario comes to pass, then real economic growth in the second half of this year could drop below 3 percent. Even worse, next year's growth could hover around 1.5 percent. This is a long stone's throw from the 6-percent-plus growth of the past three quarters. And whenever we start down this slippery slope, recession can never be ruled out. Stocks won't like this one bit. Mind you, this is still not my best-guess forecast. There is no inflation, and the economy appears to be cooling but not collapsing. Therefore, it is always possible that the monetary professors will seek Higher Guidance and come to believe in the benefits of prosperity. The economic numbers in the weeks ahead will be very important. However, if the Laurence Meyer Phillips curve Gang of Three remains on a tear, then investors had better tighten their seatbelts. Cash is starting to look better and better. Of course, an optimist like myself always looks for the cute little pony among all the manure. Where's the pony? The presidential election is less than six months away. Tax cuts and two unfilled Fed Board seats will be back in play. It may well turn out that the Greenspan Fed is an equal-opportunity presidential unemployer. Bush the Elder has never stopped blaming Greenspan for his 1992 re-election defeat, though in truth Fed policy that year was much less important than his broken no-new-tax pledge. As for campaign 2000, Al Gore's "it's the prosperity, stupid" mantra may go down in flames from Fed overkill. Oh well, every bear market has a silver lining. ¸1999, Lawrence Kudlow ____________________________________________________ jewishworldreview.com

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (6102)	5/24/2000 12:24:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

With the peso artificially tied to the dollar, I'm not surprised that not much export-oriented industry has developed. They muscled the Philippines into floating their peso years back, and it did succeed to some extent: imports got more expensive and less attractive (though necessary ones, like oil, are a problem), and exports have gone up. The economy is still a wreck, though: political continuity and the insistence on maintaining property rights, even those which date back to colonial-era theft, have kept both political and economic power in the hands of the feudal elite, and management is horrendous, both in the public and private sectors. The wealthy simply cannot distinguish among public funds, corporate funds, and their own funds, and both the government and many potentially profitable private companies are being bled to death to support the extravagant lifestyles of the unproductive. Middle-class young people with the motivation and skills that could actually accomplish something leave in droves, looking for a place where what they know means as much as who they know. Sometimes I think about 10 years of Communism would not be a bad thing here, and when I see the way some of the feudal lords live and behave, the logic of the re-education camp takes on a certain appeal. What's the Argentine debt up to now? I think we're up over $45 billion here, though it may have changed. Hard to keep track.