SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Louis V. Lambrecht who wrote (4124)6/21/2001 8:11:03 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 33421
 
Who said oil should be paid in Dollars?

Yes... we've heard this argument before. I recall some discussion about convincing OPEC nations to accept Euros back when in 1999 and 2000. Any poor oil pumper who would accepted that agreement would have seen their proceeds depreciate by some 20-25%.... :0)

What worries me is when the Ahabs start telling us they want gold instead of USD. That's what will get me a trifle worried.

But then, I imagine, we can unleash good 'ol Saddam, or his boy wonder, upon them all. Or we can give a wink to Iran to stir up some mischief.

Or better yet, we'll just tell the Israelis that since OPEC is threatening the global financial and economic system, they can have at there neighbors.

Of course, these are all rather "extreme" measures, but certainly Aces up our sleeves.

The Ahabs know that Europe can't, nor have the will to, defend them from each other. And I can't see China being accepted as much of an alternative (although always a possibility).

As for Kyoto, I agree that it's going to be big business for many parts of the European economy. Carbon credits are huge over there and I have some stock in a company that hopes to profit from that movement. But I believe the argument our government is making is that it disadvantages industrialize nations, especially the US, while permitting developing nations to effectively ignore environmental planning in their economic growth. We're a huge country, and fossil fuels are far more integral to our economy than they are in Europe.

But what I find particularly amusing is that Europe is planning on shutting down their nuclear reactors, and erecting hundreds of thousands of high-maintenance windmills
that will have to be rebuilt every 15 years, versus the 40-60 year service life of a reactor. And they will find that a decentralized power infrastructure will prove a tremendously costly maintenance nightmare, given the nasty weather over there.

And all of this centrally directed economic activity that is forced to compete against more cost-efficient competing economies, is really bad news for the future of the European economy. Because, just as you stated, it is being subsidized, and thus becoming one more entitlement liability that their taxpayers will have to bear.

But I certainly understand your point of view with regard to making a quick buck from it all.

Personally, I would rather the US subsidize nuclear power plant production because of the the bigger, long-term, bang for the buck that it would give. And besides, with relatively inexpensive electricity, we could move from fossil fuels to hydrogen as the energy of the future.

Btw, I don't think anyone minds our "endless discussion". I learn a tremendous amount from people like yourself by just lurking around and participating when a topic comes up that especially interests me.

Hawk



To: Louis V. Lambrecht who wrote (4124)6/22/2001 12:29:50 AM
From: John Pitera  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 33421
 
John Berry in Today's WP--Fed Wonders: Where's the Rebound?
Policymakers Worried by Economy's Unusual Resistance to Rate Cuts

By John M. Berry
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 21, 2001; Page A01

As U.S. economic growth remains stubbornly sluggish, some Federal Reserve officials are growing increasingly concerned that unusual developments may be clogging the main channels through which lower interest rates normally stimulate the economy.

After five half-percentage-point rate cuts this year -- the most aggressive such actions by the central bank in nearly 19 years -- there is no sign yet of a rebound.

Fed officials believe their policy actions will eventually be effective, but, because of a variety of factors, they can't be sure when. That makes it more difficult for them to decide whether, and by how much, to cut interest rates again when the central bank's top policymaking group, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), meets next Tuesday and Wednesday.

There's always a long lag between changes in interest rates and noticeable changes in the economy's behavior. For that reason, the impact of the first of the interest rate cuts this year, which came Jan. 3, ought to be just beginning to be felt.

But some Fed officials are becoming increasingly concerned that any rebound in growth might not begin until next year and that it could start out weaker than many investors and analysts are expecting.

That's because they see few signs that the economy is responding to interest rate cuts in traditional ways.

First, when the Fed cuts rates, the value of the dollar usually falls, making U.S. exports cheaper for foreign buyers and thus stimulating U.S. production. But that hasn't happened this year. The dollar has kept rising, and exporters are furious.

Second, lower rates usually give the stock market a boost, which can stimulate consumer spending as household wealth increases. But stock prices have remained stubbornly weak, particularly for high-tech companies whose share prices have plummeted from their speculative peaks of more than a year ago.

Third, short-term rate reductions usually also bring down longer-term rates, which encourages businesses to invest more in new plants and equipment because it is less costly to borrow. But many companies have a large inventory of unsold goods, and high-tech manufacturing firms in particular have lots of excess production capacity because of the investment boom that ended last year. Companies in such straits are not likely to increase their capital spending simply because interest rates have fallen. Moreover, long-term rates have dropped only modestly so far.

These factors have "blunted the power of monetary policy compared to past easing campaigns," Goldman Sachs Group Inc. told its clients last week.

One area where Fed actions have helped has been in holding down mortgage rates, which has contributed to the still-strong housing market.

But Fed officials concede that further rate cuts won't boost business investment under these circumstances, and they have no confidence that more rate cuts will cause the dollar to weaken. And as long as business profits are falling, the stock market isn't likely to stage a sustained rally.

In a speech last week, Robert T. Parry, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, said that after years of high levels of investment "many firms seem to have large stocks of capital equipment already, so they're not in the market for more."

Another factor to consider is that federal income taxes are being cut and many American households next month will begin getting advance refund checks of up to $600, some of which likely will be spent quickly, giving the economy a temporary shot in the arm. A number of Fed officials, however, do not believe the tax cut will have a significant impact on the economy.

So the goal of many of the Fed policymakers is to try to provide enough of a cushion through lower rates to keep the economy out of a recession until businesses are able to work off their excess inventories and absorb all the spare production capacity they've created.

The issue on the FOMC table next week will be to decide, in essence, how much is enough. That's the sort of judgment call that often leads to difficult meetings and compromise outcomes at the consensus-seeking FOMC.

Although the primary focus of the FOMC members remains the weak economy, some on the committee have also expressed concerns that rates could be reduced so far that inflationary pressures would rise when economic growth picks up later this year or in 2002. A few members may well be arguing for a pause in the rate-cutting campaign.

Worst of all, there is growing worry that whatever the Fed does, it might not be enough -- that before the stimulus from the rate reductions and the tax cut kick in, the economy could still tip into a recession.

Since last fall, the nation's unemployment rate has gone up about half a percentage point, to 4.4 percent, and the number of workers with jobs is slowly shrinking. So far job worries have not caused consumers to reduce their overall spending, but spending is rising only very slowly.

That could change quickly, as Anthony Santomero, president of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, said in a recent speech.

"I believe that now the most significant risk factor is the timing of the impact of the policy actions already taken," Santomero said. "In essence, I think there is something of a footrace going on. Will the stimulative monetary and fiscal policy actions we have undertaken provide enough upward momentum in time to offset the potentially cumulating downward momentum of a weakening labor market?

"I believe the answer is yes. But there remains the risk that they will not," Santomero said.

Many investors and financial analysts expect the Fed to reduce rates again next week. Until last week, most expected only a quarter-percentage-point cut in the FOMC's target for overnight interest rates, to 3.75 percent. That would put the target 2.75 percentage points lower than its 6.5 percent level at the beginning of the year.

But a shower of bad economic news last week has caused many investors and analysts to decide the Fed is more likely to cut the target by another half-point, to 3.5 percent.

If the committee decides on a quarter-point cut, that could be a compromise choice. Either way, the FOMC is expected to issue a statement at the close of the meeting saying the members continue to regard the risk of additional economic weakness as outweighing the risk of more inflation -- in other words, that the rates cuts aren't necessarily over.

Unfortunately, in all likelihood, the outcome of the economic footrace won't be determined by the FOMC's decision next week. Given the inevitable lags, any change in rates now will have little if any impact on economic growth until the beginning of 2002, Fed officials say. The issue is what the state of the economy will be six months or more from now, and, as Santomero said, that depends on how effective the stimulus already in place turns out to be.

And that is where the concern about future inflation comes into play. Some worry that additional rate cuts now could fuel inflation pressures months from now, after the economy has revived.

Fed Governor Laurence H. Meyer said in a speech late last month:

"We have been quick and aggressive in responding to what we viewed as a threat of a slowdown that was steeper than necessary to contain inflation, and the risks remain tilted in that direction," Meyer said. He added: "Attention must also be given to calibrating the [rate reductions] to avoid overshooting in the other direction in a way that ends up adding to price pressures as growth strengthens."



To: Louis V. Lambrecht who wrote (4124)6/25/2001 2:39:53 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 33421
 
Bon Jour Louis,

Re: Rambling, rambling, sorry for those lenghty posts.

Au contraire, mon ami! Don't apologize, continue! I'm really enjoying your perspective. So refreshing and forward thinking in comparison to the trogologyte traipsings in the past that we are engaging ourselves in here in the US-laves to the past glories. Sorry for editorializing. But I'm an American who just doesn't "get" Prince George's antipathy for science, technological advancement and fair markets. I guess I'm in a 5-4 minority here, but we're gaining ground as the results of our most recent, and unfortunate, election become clear to the masses. Who are going to be paying the bill in a big way real soon. Seems that this was the most expensive election in history. It would appear that the payoff for the bribes, er, contributions that the GWB campaign collected are on the order of one thousand to one. This is new territory. Used to be in this country that the bri.......contributors only got about a 100:1 payoff for their money. We've completely changed that. Just as we have executive compensation. Both situations are now critically obscene. Do Amurricans notice? Some do, most don't. But I think some on this thread understand the breath of fresh air you bring to this discussion. I really appreciate getting someone to come forward and suggest that green policies can have a bottom line. If we were to believe the drivel coming out of the bog known the Beltropolis, we wouldn't think this is possible. Yet it clearly is.

Thanks for your refreshing views. They are appreciated.

Cordially, Ray :)