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.
Non-Tech : Deflation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (81)11/24/2001 9:18:17 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 621
 
>>I can name friends of supporters of the IRA if you like. Right here in SI!!<<

Mq, I am starting to think you are obsessed with me.-g-

Seriously, though, in America it's not uncommon for people of Irish descent whose parents came over in the 19th century to still hate the British for the way they treated the Irish Catholics for centuries.

Personally, I think people like Ian Paisley cause more harm than Sinn Fein. I have no sympathy for people who attack innocent bystanders, but I think the Irish have the right to throw the Brits out. By that I mean the occupying army and police force. At this point, I think it's preferable to throw them out by means of democratic elections, but that's not how the Brits got in, is it?

ianpaisley.org



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (81)11/24/2001 10:17:33 PM
From: Jon Koplik  Respond to of 621
 
NYT piece on "Glut of Bargains" / deflation possibility.

November 25, 2001

Glut of Bargains Cheers Shoppers
but May Take Toll on Economy

By DAVID LEONHARDT

Attention, shoppers: America is now on sale.

Airlines and hotels are offering deep discounts.
Carmakers are extending interest-free loans.
Department stores have already marked many items
down sharply. The price of computers continues to
plummet.

Commercial rents are falling for the first time in a
decade. Businesses are paying less for many basic
materials than they were a few months ago. And a
gallon of gasoline costs 25 percent less than it did in
June.

In industry after industry, companies find themselves
with too many products in their warehouses and too much machinery on their factory floors, even after a year of
economic weakness and corporate cost-cutting. One result, in many parts of the economy, is a lingering glut of
goods and accompanying price cuts.

For all the benefits that the nationwide sale has brought to consumers, it also carries a darker side: that the United
States could suffer an extended period of declining prices, known as deflation, which could deepen the first
recession in 10 years.

Over all, even though the cost of services is still rising, consumer prices have remained flat over the last six months,
the first time in 15 years they have failed to rise over a sustained period. The prices that businesses pay for crude
materials have fallen for six consecutive months, and, in October, dropped 9.1 percent. Since the government began
keeping such statistics in 1947, the only larger monthly decline came in February this year.

For now, the absence of inflation is one of the few bright spots for consumers,
whose holiday spending will go a long way toward determining how quickly the
economy emerges from its downturn.

The fall in energy prices alone has given households an additional $10 billion in
spending money, or $100 a household, over the last five months, according to
Economy.com, a consulting firm in West Chester, Pa. The average price for a
gallon of gas — $1.20 — is back where it was in 1985.

Should the price declines spread further, many businesses would be forced to
begin yet another round of job cuts. In a deflationary economy, such as now
prevails in Japan, wages drop as well, and people and businesses struggle to pay
off debts, which effectively become larger as the value of money declines.

Most economists consider that unlikely in the United States, saying aggressive
steps by the Federal Reserve have pumped billions of dollars into the economy,
helping to stabilize prices and lift demand next year.

Still, the extent of the price decreases, and the oversupply of products causing
them, suggest that the economic recovery is unlikely to be a robust one, many
analysts say. In October, companies used only 74.8 percent of their industrial
capacity, the lowest level since 1983, as many continued to suffer a hangover
from their overly optimistic purchasing of new equipment in the late 90's.

Even if demand for their products begins to rise soon, businesses will not
increase their investments again until they are using more of their existing
capacity, economists say. "Inventories are still excessive, and companies are
suffering a squeeze on profit margins," said John Lonski, chief economist at
Moody's Investors Service, the credit rating agency. "That tells me that at best
the recovery is going to be modest."

The recent price declines follow years of mild inflation that, according to many
economic models, should have gradually picked up steam as the economy
boomed in the second half of the 1990's. Instead, a strong dollar and a flood of
imports helped keep inflation low, forcing businesses to increase profits primarily by becoming more efficient rather
than raising prices.

Between 1992 and 1999, inflation on consumer goods never exceeded 3.5 percent over a 12-month period. In
previous booms, it sometimes reached 6 percent or more.

When the United States economy seemed to fall into recession this year, inflation all but disappeared. The one
exception was oil prices, because producers found themselves without enough supply to meet the surge of demand
as Asian countries recovered from their financial crisis of the late 90's. But by the summer, the economic slowdown
— which had spread to nearly every large country in the world — depressed energy prices, too.

After energy, the biggest recent price declines have come in industries that are operating far below capacity.

The starkest case is technology. Prices for computers and semiconductors have been falling for years, as advances
have cut costs and manufacturers have become far more efficient. Throughout the 90's, though, profits continued
to rise as both consumers and businesses quickly replaced old equipment with the latest innovations.

But businesses sharply reduced their technology budgets at the end of last year, deciding, at least temporarily, that
they already owned all the equipment they needed. Computer manufacturers were forced to curtail production; their
output fell last month to 61.3 percent of capacity — a record low — down from 80 percent a year ago.

Price cuts have accelerated over the same period, and computers are about 30 percent less expensive than they
were a year ago, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But there is a price to pay for too much of a good thing. Widespread price declines "are a double-edged sword for
U.S. companies," said Edward McKelvey, a senior economist at Goldman, Sachs & Company. "One company's
cost is another company's output price."

Even some industries that have been shrinking in recent years find themselves with excess production capacity. The
United States textile industry, under relentless pressure from overseas, has become smaller in each of the last five
years. But the industry still finds itself bloated and forced to cut prices. A flood of imports from Asian countries that
had devalued their currencies in the late 90's was already restraining inflation. The worldwide slowdown in demand
has caused the price of many fabrics to decline in recent months.

David Link, chief economist for the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, said that more than twice as many
plants had closed in 2001 as in any previous year. Even Malden Mills, the well-known maker of Polartec fleece, is
flirting with bankruptcy.

In recent weeks, expectations have shifted as well. Next year, consumers, on average, think inflation will be only
0.4 percent, according to a survey released last week by the University of Michigan. That is the lowest expectation
since the 1950's.

"It's stunning," said Richard T. Curtin, the university's director of consumer surveys.

If those expectations continue to decline, they will aggravate fears of a deflationary spiral, in which people begin to
save money because they are worried about layoffs, salary cuts and debt payments and because they expect the
prices of many products to fall in the months ahead.

But economists said the recession would have to deepen significantly, and perhaps drag on for years, before
deflation became a genuine threat.

"I'm not worried we're going to have a Great Depression," Olivier Blanchard, an economist at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, said. "And if we don't have a Great Depression, we're not going to have deflation."

Analysts note the prices for many goods and services are still increasing. Supermarket and restaurant food,
residential rent and health care have all become more expensive in each of the last three months, according to
government statistics.

The economy should also benefit from the lack of the kind of real estate bubble that hampered the United States in
the 1980's and Japan throughout the 1990's. Although vacancy rates for commercial office space have spiked —
sending rents lower than they were 12 months ago for the first time since 1993 — they are unlikely to approach the
levels they reached in the early 90's, according to Torto Wheaton Research.

A broad fall in real estate prices creates acute problems for many people and businesses because they must continue
to meet the payments on their mortgages, even as their investments lose value.

But perhaps the strongest sign that deflation remains unlikely, analysts say, is consumers' predictions about how
long inflation will remain completely absent. Over the next five years, according to the Michigan survey, consumers
expect prices to rise by an average of 2.8 percent a year.

"Hardly anyone is concerned about rising prices," Mr. Curtin said. "But even fewer people think it's better to wait to
buy."

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (81)11/25/2001 12:01:44 AM
From: Jon Koplik  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 621
 
More NYT stuff -- "What the Fed Can't Do About This Recession."

November 25, 2001

ECONOMIC VIEW

What the Fed Can't Do About
This Recession

By LOUIS UCHITELLE

Monetary policy could not be better. The Federal
Reserve has reduced interest rates so
aggressively that lenders are almost giving
away money. The economy should be rising again in
response to so much easy credit. It is not rising, but
there is some response, which helps to explain why
the current, potentially severe recession is still a mild
one.

This is an uncommon recession. It has arrived after a
period of great plenty and excessive investment;
surfeit seems to reign and indebtedness surely does.
People turn away from the marketplace unless the
offer is truly tempting. Car sales, the most glaring
example, would not be booming today, or even above
water, without zero-interest loans, which the Fed makes possible. Without its rate cuts, the car companies could not
borrow cheaply enough to bear the losses from zero-interest lending for as long as they have.

Similar dynamics show up elsewhere, in each case helping to prevent the recession that started last spring from
producing more hardship and unemployment. Because of the rate cuts, for example, consumer confidence held up
until September, when layoffs finally unnerved the public, according to Richard Curtin, director of the University of
Michigan's monthly consumer surveys.

Home sales and home construction owe their persistent strength to 30-year
mortgages at 6 percent interest, unimaginable last fall. As mortgage rates fell,
families that already owned homes refinanced them and pocketed the savings
from the lower monthly payments. Or they took out low-interest home equity
loans and paid off high- interest credit card debt, again freeing money that they
either saved or used for another stab at spending — perhaps the last stab.

Some economists have tried to quantify the benefit to the economy from the
Fed's 10 rate cuts since Jan. 1. The gross domestic product, the standard
measure of economic activity, contracted in the third quarter at an annual rate of
0.4 percent. Once all the data is collected for that quarter, the rate of decline will
probably turn out to be 1 to 2 percent, according to Peter Hooper, chief domestic
economist at Deutsche Bank (news/quote) North America.

"That 1 to 2 percent would have been 3 to 4 percent" without the cuts, he said.

The rate cuts have helped in other ways to keep the economy from coming apart.
The dollar, for example, has been rising against other currencies, making American products more expensive
overseas and thus less competitive. But the rise would have been even greater without the sharp decline in interest
rates. Low rates make dollar investments less desirable, so presumably fewer people buy dollars, although in these
uncertain times there is still plenty of demand for the safety of America's currency.

Then there is the spread, which provides what may be the most important stimulus from the Fed's aggressive
rate-cutting. The Fed manipulates the so-called federal funds rate, the interest that banks and other financial
institutions pay to borrow money from each other for the short term. These borrowings are then lent to companies
and individuals. With the federal funds rate now at 2 percent, down from 6.5 percent on Jan. 1, the nation's lenders
have plenty of incentive to borrow short term at 2 percent and to lend long term at 4.5 percent or higher.

Mortgages offer a particularly juicy spread, and if potential customers hesitate — because they are nervous about
their jobs and about home prices — then lenders can lure them by lowering mortgage rates a few more notches
while still reaping an adequate spread. With the federal funds rate at its current level, the 30-year mortgage can go
as low as 4 or 4.5 percent, in the view of Albert Wojnilower, a Wall Street economist.

Like many forecasters, Mr. Wojnilower expects the economy to rebound by next summer. The Fed's rate-cutting
will help to make that happen, he and others say. But there are two areas where monetary policy normally works to lift the economy out of hard times, yet is not working now.

Businesses usually take advantage of falling rates to step up investment. That spending normally gives the economy a powerful lift. But in this recession, there is so much excess capacity, thanks to the excesses of the 1990's, that companies resist. They fail to see a gain in profits from new investment, no matter how cheap credit gets. And the shock from the bursting of the high-tech bubble makes everyone a wary and reluctant borrower.

The Federal Reserve, in sum, lacks the power this time to lift America out of recession.
Help is essential — from government spending or lower oil prices or some wondrous new technology or economic revival abroad. And soon, before the federal funds rate gets to zero.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (81)11/28/2001 12:29:15 AM
From: JF Quinnelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 621
 
Yeah, it's going to be a selective indignation against terror. You have the Kennedys running cover for the IRA, to the degree that they passed a law allowing foreign nationals "who merely belong to terrorist groups" free access to the US. Disgraceful. And while I have an Irish surname, I have little in common with those who washed ashore in the 19th century, seeing that I have way more British ancestors than Irish. The partisans on both sides ought to grow up and get behind a far more important cause, that of the South rising again to throw off the shackles of the Yankee invaders....