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.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2349)7/16/2002 6:02:25 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Will corporate cheaters join Lindh in prison?

EDITORIAL
Posted Tuesday, July 16, 2002
the.honoluluadvertiser.com

The full weight of the U.S. justice system has been brought to bear against the hapless John Walker Lindh, who — infatuated with Islam — joined the Taliban and found himself unexpectedly facing off against American combat troops.

For his efforts, the young Mr. Lindh will face 20 years in prison in a plea agreement that avoided the possibility of a life-without-parole sentence.

Most people will have little sympathy for Lindh. But it seems clear that he got himself into this mess not out of a conscious effort to harm fellow Americans, but out of a confused sense of religious zealotry. He will have up to 20 years to decide if he made the right choice.

One wonders, however, whether the same vigorous, focused determination to put someone behind bars for a long time to come will be seen as the federal government moves forward on white-collar and corporate crime.

Untold numbers of lives have been ruined and fortunes lost because of the deliberate, rather callous manipulations of corporate insiders. Even under the tough new corporate reform legislation that passed the Senate yesterday, it is doubtful that few — if any — executives will face anything close to the sentence imposed on Lindh.

What does that say about our priorities?
________________________________________________

Will Kenny Boy, Fastow, Skilling, Ebbers, Kozlowski, etc...EVER end up in prison and serve some serious hard time...?? IMO, they are all much more of a threat to our country than 'the John Lindh's of the world'...Our SEC and Justice Department sure aren't funded like our Military...Guilty white collar criminals MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE...I'm not too confident that Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Pitt & Co. will be rushing to lock up a lot of their friends...You won't see them lead any major reforms to deal with the white collar crime problem -- they'll only get on board when they have to for political reasons. What kind of role models do we have in Washington..?? Maybe we need some new leaders that aren't clearly in bed with big business...JMHO.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2349)7/16/2002 11:25:04 PM
From: t2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
jim, Saw some commentary that the YEN is now overvalued against dollar. The trade that is in play is the dollar weakening against Euro according to some analyst on bloomberg this evening.

So far, dollar index holding day levels. Can be a case of it stabilizing overall but still weakening against Euro as it may be seen as an alternative reserve currency.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2349)7/16/2002 11:28:54 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Stephen King: If the US can't offer stability, then we're all in trouble

Weak dollar and equities mean the US cannot play the role of consumer of last resort

15 July 2002
news.independent.co.uk

How is the world economy faring? On a superficial level, rather well. A cyclical recovery that has, for the most part, been stronger than expected. A maintenance of low levels of interest rates to ensure that the cyclical recovery doesn't go wrong. Generally speaking, only a limited rise in unemployment relative to earlier economic setbacks. A rate of inflation that remains very well behaved compared with the bad old days of the 1970s and 1980s.

Somehow, though, the sum of the parts seems to be greater than the whole. Despite all these apparently good pieces of news, the overall story doesn't seem to stack up quite so well. One good reason is, of course, the persistent weakness of stock prices, perhaps the defining characteristic of the difficulties that have cropped up in our new, low inflation, world. There are, however, other concerns. Chief among these is the apparent lack of sustainability of the current global picture. More specifically, the US may no longer be in a position to consume or invest the rest of the world's excess savings.

Throughout the last decade, the US current account deficit widened dramatically. There was a partial reversal during the course of 2001 but the old trend appeared to have re-asserted itself in the past few quarters. Admittedly, the US current account deficit has been a hoary old chestnut for a long time, always promising to cause problems but never quite delivering. This time, however, there may be bigger difficulties ahead. And problems for the US current account deficit are likely to mean problems for the rest of the world as well.

The deal through the 1990s was simple. Europe and Japan couldn't deliver decent returns. Europe's problem was a lack of structural microeconomic reform. Japan's problem was a failure to deal with deflation. Either way, with open capital markets, it made sense for European and Japanese investors to pour their money into the US economy. After all, the US had a productivity miracle so surely foreign investors couldn't lose.

Right? No, wrong. As we've seen from recent events, foreign investors have been unable to extract the financial returns that should be their due for having invested in the US New Economy over the past few years. The benefits have instead gone to US consumers or have been siphoned off through the machinations of devious or downright fraudulent company executives who have cooked the books to make US companies look a lot better than they really are.

So, the pact signed by the US and foreign investors which gave rise to the ever-increasing US current account deficit and, with it, a persistent appreciation of the dollar, now looks null and void. Both parties to the agreement now have a potential problem. For foreign investors, the US economy has lost its allure. For the US, a rich seam of cheap capital has come to an abrupt end.

Let's take a few steps back. The US pact with the rest of the world was based on a number of simple "facts". First, the developed world had (and still has) a pension funding problem with lots of people wanting to save for their future. Second, Europe and Japan were unable to deliver the relevant returns to ease this pension problem. Third, the US was happy to step into the breach and use excess savings from elsewhere in the world to deliver financial returns that would ease the pension problem not just for US citizens but for would-be pensioners the world over. In effect, the US was the equivalent on a global scale of your fund manager who promises much better returns in, for example, equities, than can be found in your boring old bank account.

As long as these assumptions held, there was no real problem. But with the collapse in US corporate profitability and with the activities of Messrs Lay, Ebbers and no doubt many others no longer looking quite so clever, the whole story has begun to unravel. The deal between the US and the rest of the world might as well be torn up.

This leaves a number of problems. For the US, the tap that provided a cheap source of capital is being turned off. On the plus side – at least from a US perspective – that means a lower dollar and, hence, an improvement in competitiveness for US exporters. On the minus side, US consumers will suffer as import prices rise but, more importantly, US asset prices – notably equities – will end up a lot lower, reducing the ability of US companies to invest and expand. In effect, the rest of the world will be saying "We entrusted you with our savings and you could not deliver. We now want our money back."

For the rest of the world, however, the end of the deal is also fraught with problems. Suddenly the great investment opportunity that appeared to be a partial way out of pension problems no longer looks so attractive. Put another way, the failure of the US to deliver the required returns for the rest of the world simply removes a "get rich quick" scheme. If, after all the excitement of recent years, the returns that the US can offer are really not much better than those elsewhere, then we're all in trouble.

What needs to be done? From a longer-term perspective, more thought is needed on the implications of a world with lower capital returns and its implications for future pensioners. From a short-term perspective, however, we have a straightforward Keynesian deficient demand problem at the global level. The US had been the consumer of last resort, ensuring that excess savings elsewhere in the world were being spent thus propping up demand for the world as a whole. Now, however, through a combination of either dollar weakness, equity weakness or domestic demand malaise, the US is either unwilling – or, more likely, unable – to carry on playing this role.

The trouble is, nor is anyone else. The second chart shows the path for final domestic demand growth (consumer spending, government spending and capital spending) in the US, the eurozone and Japan in recent years. The US story has deteriorated a long way in recent quarters. Unfortunately, so too have the eurozone and Japanese stories. If we were living in an ideal world, the following events should be triggered. A lower dollar to improve the US current account deficit. A loosening of domestic monetary and fiscal policies in Europe and Japan to offset the effects of a weaker dollar. The eurozone and Japan beginning to become the global consumers of last resort.

Well, you can live in hope. For Japan, this is a very unlikely chain of events, if only because domestic monetary and fiscal support has already failed to stimulate a decent economic recovery. In Europe's case, the European Central Bank still seems to be fighting yesterday's battle against inflation and hence will be in no mood to cut rates. Meanwhile, although individual European governments are increasingly having doubts about the viability of the stability pact, it is difficult to imagine a co-ordinated and aggressive loosening of the fiscal reins.

A failure to co-ordinate policies in this way may, however, be to everyone's disadvantage. An excess of savings over investment will weaken global economic activity, leaving unemployment too high and profits too low. America's promise to the rest of the world may have been broken but it's for everyone now to get on their hands and knees and pick up the pieces.
________________________________
Stephen King is managing director of economics at HSBC



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2349)7/16/2002 11:46:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Why the Next Great Depression ?

mte.net.au



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2349)7/17/2002 1:39:08 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Yen Falls Versus Dollar on Concern Japan May Sell Its Currency

By Kanako Chiba and Mari Murayama

Tokyo, July 17 (Bloomberg) -- The yen weakened against the dollar, snapping a seven-day rally, on speculation Japan will sell its currency for an eighth time since May to protect earnings at exporters.

The Japanese currency fell to 116.02 versus its U.S. counterpart from 115.81 in late New York trading, where it reached 115.54, its strongest level since Feb. 21, 2001. Against the euro, it stood at 117.38 from 117.14.

Japan has sold $33 billion of its currency between May 22 and June 28 to thwart a 12 percent gain in three months, analysts said. The advance erodes profits companies earn on overseas sales when the government is trying to nurture an export-led recovery, analysts said. Exports accounted for half the first quarter's 1.4 percent growth, the first expansion in a year.

``We are on alert, since the Japanese government can come in anytime to sell its currency,'' said Minoru Shioiri, foreign exchange manager at Kokusai Securities Co. ``They have to help exporters, which are the sole engine of this rebounding economy.''

The yen pared its decline against the dollar as Dow Jones Industrial Average futures for September delivery fell, suggesting the index will extend a seven-day decline, its longest losing streak since September, when stocks begin trade today.

Mazda

Economic and Fiscal Policy Minister Heizo Takenaka yesterday said he intended to discuss policy responses to the rising yen at the Bank of Japan policy meeting which concluded yesterday.

``According to Japan's economic fundamentals, an extremely volatile move in the currency must be met with appropriate measures,'' Takenaka said yesterday.

Mazda Motor Corp.'s second-half profit may be hurt if the yen holds at 116 yen, said Lewis Booth, president of Japan's No. 5 automaker, yesterday.

Mazda, a third owned by Ford Motor Co., predicted in May it will generate full-year group net income of 20 billion yen ($172 million), in the year that ends on March 31. The forecast is based on an average exchange rate of 125 yen per dollar.

The automaker is ``fully hedged'' for the first half of the fiscal year, which will end on Sept. 30, Booth said, indicating his company has market positions that will protect it in case the yen strengthens further.

Mazda has ``some cover'' in the second half of the fiscal year, Booth said, indicating the company may suffer at least some losses if the yen rises during that period. He spoke yesterday to reporters gathered for auto conference in Tokyo.

Greenspan

The dollar may also strengthen against the yen after Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan yesterday cautioned investors against expecting the dollar to decline.

``There may be more forecasting of exchange rates, with less success, than almost any other economic variable,'' Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, describing his comment as a ``flag of caution'' amid currency market predictions that the dollar would keep falling in value.

``Greenspan's remarks may help the dollar to rebound,'' said Kazuyuki Harada, who runs Sumitomo Marine Asset Management Co.'s 3.5 billion yen ($30.1 million) Dollar Yen Strategy Fund. ``The dollar has already corrected significantly and we think the bottom of its decline is around 115.'' Harada bought dollars this month.

The U.S. currency may extend its decline against the euro from a 2 1/2-year low on concern U.S. stocks will slide further, eroding demand for the currency.

Extending Losses

Even as Greenspan yesterday said the U.S. economy is gaining momentum and can weather a loss of faith in corporate honesty, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 1.9 percent, extending its loss to 22 percent this year. The declines grew as companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Qwest Communications International Inc., and WorldCom Inc. said they're under investigation, feeding concern companies are misstating earnings.

``Since there is no sign this stock decline will stop anytime soon, and with the U.S. accounting system now in doubt, we cannot buy U.S. stocks at the moment,'' said Yasuhiro Miyata, manager for investment planning at Dai-Ichi Mutual Life Insurance Co., Japan's second-largest life insurer, which had 2.9 trillion yen of foreign assets as of March. His company sold dollars last week, Miyata said.

Following Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill also gave the dollar some support yesterday when he told reporters in Kyrgyzstan there was no change in the Bush administration's ``strong dollar'' policy.

In other trading, the dollar was little changed at $1.4500 Swiss francs from 1.4497 in New York. It stood at $1.5745 per British pound from $1.5758 in New York.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2349)7/17/2002 2:32:14 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
A Revenue Shock

By David S. Broder
Washington Post
Editorial
Wednesday, July 17, 2002

If the Bush administration has seemed exceptionally concerned about the long and sometimes sickeningly steep slump in the stock market, there is good reason. It is more than the blind trusts of top officials being hammered or the political risk that voters in November, worried about their retirement savings, will blame the party in power.

Beyond all that, it has dawned on top Bush officials -- if not yet the public -- that the federal budget is literally being held hostage by Wall Street.

Mitchell Daniels, the embattled director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, didn't use exactly those words at his midyear briefing last week, the one where he announced that the deficit for the current year is likely to hit $165 billion.

What Daniels did point out was that a dangerous gap has appeared, unexpectedly, between the growth of the economy and the course of federal revenues -- a gap that makes it far harder than ever to find a safe course of fiscal policy for the nation.

The stark fact, he said, is that while the economy "has been much stronger than we projected in February," when President Bush submitted his budget for next year, tax receipts are "much weaker than expected."

The likely reason: Capital gains, mutual fund distributions and other stock-market-related incomes have slumped, along with the Dow Jones and Nasdaq averages -- after booming during the 1990s.

In an interview after the briefing, Daniels told me that when he came to the job from his corporate post in Indiana, the career folks at OMB told him one of their time-tested rules of thumb has been that "every one point of growth in the gross domestic product yields $28 billion in additional taxes."

Back in February, the budgeteers, erring on the side of caution, said that after the short near-recession of 2000-01, they expected the economy to grow hardly at all -- less than 1 percent -- this year. In fact, it has done much better; the final quarter of 2001 saw growth at a 1.7 percent annual rate, and the first quarter of this year, 6.1 percent.

If the old rule held, that should have translated into billions in extra revenue. But in fact, Daniels said, "receipts in 2002 are now estimated to decline outright by $124 billion, or 6 percent, from 2001. The last time revenues fell to that extent was in 1955."

Virtually all the anticipated decline -- 98 percent of it -- is in individual income taxes, and most of that -- perhaps as much as two-thirds -- can be traced to the stock market's yielding losses, not gains, for investors.

This growing dependence on Wall Street introduces a dangerous element of volatility into government economic policy. It is difficult enough to anticipate cycles in the overall economy; guessing the ups and downs of the stock market is an impossible burden for any administration to shoulder.

We got to this point through a combination of forces. The tax reforms of the Clinton years made the revenue system more progressive; that is, higher-income people paid more of the bills. And growing income inequality -- the tendency of the well-educated and highly skilled to make increasing multiples of what the less-educated and unskilled receive -- compounded that effect.

As a result, the top 1 percent of taxpayers now furnish more than one-third of the income tax receipts; the top 5 percent pay more than half; and the top 50 percent pay all but a small fraction -- 4 percent -- of what the government receives in personal income taxes.

During the boom years, high-income people cashed in on the stock market, and the government cashed in on them. Between 1995 and 2000, capital gains tax payments almost tripled, and income taxes on realized stock options more than doubled. Like a heroin addict, the government got hooked on that revenue and forgot that it was exceptional.

How to deal with this problem is uncertain; J. D. Foster, Daniels's associate director for economic policy and a Treasury veteran, told me there is no precedent for such a prolonged stock market decline in a period of economic growth.

But Daniels is convinced that it would be dangerous to assume this is just a temporary, one-time phenomenon. With "more volatility" in revenues, he said, "we have to be able to anticipate the effects better."

That caution would have been useful before the president recommended and Congress passed that $1.3 trillion, 10-year tax cut last year. But it certainly is needed now.

Since 9/11, neither Congress nor the president has exerted any real discipline on government spending. What Daniels has described poses even greater danger to coherent fiscal policy.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2349)7/17/2002 2:54:25 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
The Cycles of Financial Scandal

By KEVIN PHILLIPS
Editorial / Op-Ed
The New York Times
July 17, 2002

GOSHEN, Conn. — America is at a turning point. Corporate scandals, the fall of the stock markets, the sudden mobilizations in Washington of the last few weeks to legislate against some of the more egregious corporate abuses: they all indicate that the nation's attitude toward business is changing. It is potentially a bigger change than many politicians realize. What's unnerving them is that the payback from the market bubble of the late 1990's is becoming apparent to Main Street. The charts of the downside since March 2000 are starting to match the slope of the earlier three-year upside.

Not that it's a new phenomenon. In the Gilded Age of the late 19th century and again in the Roaring Twenties, wealth momentum surged, the rich pulled away from everyone else and financial and technological innovation built a boom. Then it went partially or largely bust in the securities markets. Digging out is never easy. But this time, the deep-rooted nature of "financialization" in the United States that developed in the 1980's and 90's may make it even tougher.

Near the peak of the great booms, old economic cautions are dismissed, financial and managerial operators sidestep increasingly inadequate regulations and ethics surrender to greed. Then, after the collapse, the dirty linen falls out of the closet. Public muttering usually swells into a powerful chorus for reform — deep, systemic changes designed to catch up with a whole new range and capacity for frauds and finagles and bring them under regulatory control.

Even so, correction is difficult, in part because the big wealth momentum booms leave behind a triple corruption: financial, political and philosophic. Besides the swindles and frauds that crest with the great speculative booms, historians have noted a parallel tendency: cash moving into politics also rises with market fevers.

During the Gilded Age, the railroad barons bought legislatures and business leaders bought seats in the United States Senate. In the last years of the 19th century, one senator naïvely proposed a bill to unseat those senators whose offices were found to have been purchased. This prompted a colleague to reply, in all seriousness, "We might lose a quorum here, waiting for the courts to act."

Over the last two decades, the cost of winning a seat in Congress has more than quadrupled. Legislators casting votes on business or financial regulation cannot forget the richest 1 percent of Americans, who make 40 percent of the individual federal campaign donations over $200. Money is buying policy.

Speculative markets and growing wealth momentum also corrupt philosophy and ideology, reshaping them toward familiar justifications of greed and ruthlessness. The 1980's and 1990's have imitated the Gilded Age in intellectual excesses of market worship, laissez-faire and social Darwinism. Notions of commonwealth, civic purpose and fairness have been crowded out of the public debate.

Part of the new clout and behavior of finance is so deep-rooted, however, that it raises questions that go far beyond the excesses of the bubble. In the last few decades, the United States economy has been transformed through what I call financialization. The processes of money movement, securities management, corporate reorganization, securitization of assets, derivatives trading and other forms of financial packaging are steadily replacing the act of making, growing and transporting things.

That transformation has many roots. Finance surged in the 80's partly because deregulation removed old ceilings on interest rates and let financial institutions offer new services. The rising stock market, in turn, drew money from savings accounts into money market funds and mutual funds, turning the securities industry into a huge profit center. Computers underpinned the expansion of everything from A.T.M.'s to scores of new derivative instruments by which traders could gamble with such dice as Treasury note futures or Eurodollar swaps. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department proved during the 80's and 90's that nothing too bad could happen in the financial sector, because Washington was always ready with a bailout.

Supported so openly, rescued from the stupid decisions and market forces that pulled down other industries, the finance, insurance and real estate sector of the economy overtook manufacturing, pulling ahead in the G.D.P. and national income charts in 1995. By 2000, this sector also moved out front in profits. It also became the biggest federal elections donor and the biggest spender on Washington lobbying.

The effects have been profoundly inegalitarian — and not just in the loss of manufacturing's blue-collar middle class. In the last two decades, as money shifted from savings accounts into mutual funds, promoting the stock markets and the money culture, corporate executives became preoccupied with stock options, compensation packages and golden parachutes. "More" became the byword.

In the new management handbook as rewritten by finance, the concerns of employees, shareholders and even communities could be jettisoned to raise stock prices. Major companies could make (or fake) larger profits by financial devices: writing futures contracts, investing in stocks, juggling pension funds, moving low-return assets into separate partnerships and substituting stock options for salary expenses. Enron was only the well-publicized tip of a large iceberg.

A century ago, putting a new regulatory framework around abuses of the emergent railroad and industrial sectors became a priority. This effort largely succeeded. Whether another such framework must be put in place around finance in order to safeguard household economic security is a question that at the very least calls for a national debate. Whether the current proposals are the beginnings of that debate or mere window dressing remains to be seen.
_________________________________
Kevin Phillips is the author of "Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich."

nytimes.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (2349)7/17/2002 3:19:20 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
An interesting perspective on the market...

Message 17744004