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: Mannie who wrote (4815)8/19/2002 4:09:09 PM
From: Jim Willie CB  Respond to of 89467
 
Ducky, please concentrate on financial topics <G> / jw



To: Mannie who wrote (4815)8/19/2002 4:32:21 PM
From: Jim Willie CB  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 89467
 
Slowly beat the drums of August
by William R Thomson
Chairman of Momentum Asia Ltd
19th August 2002

Tradition dictates that nothing much happens in August - at least on the surface. The ministers of state in the chancelleries of Europe were supposed to take a break from their plans to wreak havoc on their neighbours and retreat to their chateaux, villas and palaces. In the meantime, skeletal groups of mandarins continued to flesh out the details of their autumnal offensive. The middle and lower classes, that would bear the brunt of their leaders aggressive plans, retreated from their dark satanic mills for a final wakes week at the local equivalent of Blackpool. The media propagated a conspiracy of silence about the impending doom. If it encroached on the silly season at all, the message was that there is no need to worry about a thing, we are the greatest, we'll whip the heathen and the boys will be home by Christmas in any case.

But these attitudes were from the dark ages of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. We are all so much more sensible and sophisticated now - aren't we?

Well the rhythm of life continues, only the players and locales change. Human motives - fear, greed, and revenge remain the motivating forces. Substitute Washington for Whitehall and middle Europe, and Waco for Tuscany and the Alps and you have the old playbook modernised for the twenty-first century. Add a devil figure, a volatile mix of the three major religions amidst the world's most important oil fields and the world's sole superpower with a messianic mindset and you have today's dog days of August.

Hollywood could not script it better. The trouble is it may not have a happy Hollywood ending.

Official Washington has found its devil in Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the pressures for war are growing inexorably. There are reported US troop build ups in neighbouring countries of the Middle East, and also reserve call ups in the US for troops with war making (as opposed to peace keeping) skills whose enlistment terms cover the period through March/April of next year.

In Washington itself, the military is the institution, supported by the likes of Brent Scowcroft and General Schwartzkoff, urging caution whilst the civilian hot heads such as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who are in ultimate charge, dismiss them as wimps. The public, lulled into complacency, supports action confident, as Britain was in 1914, of the inevitability of easy victory seeing Iraq as yet another Kosovo to be knocked into shape by the forces of reason and light.

But Iraq is no Kosovo and selected voices on the left and right are now beginning to raise questions about the wisdom of the rush to war. Leaving aside questions of the morality of the whole adventure, the potential for the adventure to go wrong are greater than any such venture since Vietnam and the global impact could be severe and protracted.

Clearly, Bush's electoral politics are driving the timing and the agenda. Early next year is his last real window, if he wants to avoid war in his re-election year 2004. Victory would help his position but victory in the Gulf war did not help his father a year after it was over.

Neighbouring countries to Iraq, especially Saudi Arabia, are becoming destabilised as a power struggle for succession intensifies between forces friendly to and those opposed to the infidels. Indeed, some believe the US wants control of Iraq's oil in case Saudi goes over to the fundamentalists. The mindset in Washington is the Arabs just happen to be temporary custodians of 'our' oil.

European support for the US is virtually non-existent at this point although the French and the probable next German Chancellor are likely to become supportive if the US looks like winning. The war-loving, Bush poodle, Blair, will again blindly follow America right or wrong, and will be the US' only real European supporter. But he could end up splitting his party. The majority of the British public are firmly opposed to military action against Iraq.

An unintended consequence of globalisation is that it has succeeded in making weapons of mass destruction available to unsavoury elements. The problem has to be effectively addressed. But there must be a sense of foreboding that the US is making a dogs breakfast of the challenge and will create a far greater mess than the one it intended to address.

The shadows of August 1914 loom over the masses drinking themselves stupid on the Mediterranean beaches. But if they have no control over the actions about to descend upon them that may not be so stupid after all.

This month marked the 88th anniversary of the commencement of World War I. We took the next generation of the family to pay homage to an uncle we never knew who was sent to France at the beginning of the conflict, and like millions more never returned. That war started and then escalated out of control because of a series of miscalculations and blunders by incompetent politicians and military leaders. Let us hope a similar situation does not recur. But the Indo-Pak front in Kashmir remains an unstable nuclear-armed tripwire. Instability in the Islamic world could have unintended consequences there: an overthrow of Musharreff and nukes being placed in the hands of fundamentalists there and the Middle East. The possibilities are endless and less than cheerful.

Investment implications

We maintain our cautious stand on the global equity markets. Clearly, prices offer better value than for many years and if nightmare scenarios are avoided - as they have been to date - many markets will probably not go significantly lower.

The problem is that the most important market in the world, the US, remains generally overpriced. The US dollar is also similarly over-priced. The current account deficit remains in deficit by about USD 450 billion a year. This is the net figure that the US has to attract from the rest of the world to finance the deficit. The gross figure to be attracted, to offset capital outflows by American residents is probably twice as large. The deficit can only be corrected by a significantly lower dollar.

In addition, the US growth in the money supply, particularly money of zero maturity MZM, has started to reaccelerate into double-digit figures again. That must be bad for the dollar's exchange rate.

Finally, the US housing bubble seems to be leaking in some places, especially the top end of the market. This spells bad news for personal consumption that has been buoyed by refinancing. It also spells bad news for financiers dependent on the refinancing boom, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their charts indicate they are going south.

But what continue to trouble us are the major banks particularly JP Morgan Chase and Citicorp. They have bad loans galore from every busted bubble in telecoms or high tech as well as Argentina and now possibly Brazil. The IMF programme for Brazil is a con intended to buy time till the Presidential election in October. Then it will be up to the new President to decide whether to put his country through several years of economic contraction to suit the international financial community or to take a more radical path. If it is the latter, then the situation of the money centre banks becomes even grimmer. We cannot hazard a guess what will happen in Brazil right now - the situation appears balanced on a knife-edge - but we would expect the Bush Administration to try and avoid a default at all costs. In no way has Brazil been as irresponsible as Argentina and it is six times larger. Latin America is threatening to descend into chaos even without a Brazilian default.

We therefore maintain our view that precious metals are in the early stage of a mini bull market. If a war economy develops then commodity producers - both countries and companies - will benefit. That includes the long despised Mango markets - Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia. But it also includes companies in Japan, Taiwan and Korea that supply essential electronics components for the US military machine. East and south eat Asia have always boomed in previous periods of US military activity such as the Koran and Vietnamese conflicts.

Finally, China and particularly India continue to grow solidly and are much more self-contained and less dependent on the US economy. With India, the P/Es are low by any standards, and corporate governance is improving. If nuclear war can be avoided on its border then the markets will eventually respond.

A year ago we wrote that Asian markets looked as if they would outperform developed markets. That has proven to be the case. Thailand, for instance is up almost 30 percent in USD terms whilst the S&P is down over 20 percent. US PEs are what you want depending on how you calculate earnings, but they are generally at least in the mid to upper twenties whereas 15 might be a more historically viable number. Despite frequent and often violent bear market rallies, there remains plenty of opportunity for further declines in US share prices.

William R. Thomson
19 August 2002
Wt@momentum-asia.com.hk

Bill Thomson is Chairman of Momentum Asia, a distributor of Momentum's conservative (non-leveraged) alternative investment funds. He is also Chairman of the Siam Recovery Fund and advises governments and institutions in Asia. He was formerly Vice President of a major international bank in Asia and is a former US Treasury official. He writes widely and we appreciate his words of wisdom at 321gold.

Disclaimer: Mr. Thomson is not a registered investment adviser and any individual decision to invest should follow the proper due diligence and be based on suitability after receiving qualified professional advice. Mr. Thomson has small investments in Durban Deep and Harmony.



To: Mannie who wrote (4815)8/19/2002 6:16:58 PM
From: Clappy  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
LMAO!

US Air would be bringing in more cash than Krispie Kreme and Microsoft, combined...



To: Mannie who wrote (4815)8/20/2002 2:51:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF, the US general who commanded allied forces during the Gulf War, joined a growing number of senior US military and political figures yesterday who are opposed to a unilateral invasion of Iraq 8/19

timesonline.co.uk

General tells Bush: Don't go it alone

From Tim Reid in Washington and Clem Cecil in Moscow
August 19, 2002

Gulf veteran: General Norman Schwarzkopf opposes unilateral US action against Iraq

NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF, the US general who commanded allied forces during the Gulf War, joined a growing number of senior US military and political figures yesterday who are opposed to a unilateral invasion of Iraq and said President Bush “should not go it alone”.

General Schwarzkopf, now retired from the US Army but still a commanding voice on matters relating to Iraq, said that the success of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and the expulsion of President Saddam Hussein’s troops from Kuwait was almost entirely based on the existence of a broad international coalition. He said: “In the Gulf War we had an international force and troops from many nations. We would be lacking if we went it alone at this time.”

He emphasised the dangers of an invasion without international consensus and military support because of the size and strength of the Iraqi Army. “It is not going to be an easy battle but it would be much more effective if we didn’t have to do it alone,” he said.

To be effective, a US-led invasion would need launching points not only from Kuwait and Turkey, but also from Saudi Arabia, which Riyadh has so far pointedly refused, he added.

Wesley Clark, the retired general who led the Nato alliance during the Kosovo campaign, also joined the voices counselling against an invasion without international co-operation.

In an article for the September issue of The Washington Monthly, he said: “The early successes (in Afghanistan) seem to have reinforced the conviction of some within the US Government that the continuing war on terrorism is best waged outside the structures of international institutions. This is a fundamental misjudgment. The longer the war goes on . . . the more our success will depend on the willing co-operation and active participation of our allies.”

Brent Scowcroft, who was the National Security Adviser to the first President Bush and who is a close friend of the Bush family, said last week that US action against Iraq, without resolving tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, “could turn the whole region into a cauldron and thus destroy the war on terrorism”.

Richard Armey, the Texan House majority leader and a close presidential ally, said that an “unprovoked attack” on Iraq would be unjustifiable.

Mr Bush’s hopes of international support suffered a further blow yesterday with the confirmation that Russia and Iraq are about to agree to a five-year economic co-operation plan worth £27 billion. Abbas Khalaf, Iraq’s Ambassador to Moscow, said that the agreement would probably be signed in Baghdad at the beginning of September.

Mr Khalaf said that the new agreement will enable Russia to help Iraq to modernise much of its infrastructure, which was built by Soviet or Russian specialists.

President Putin supports lifting United Nations sanctions against Iraq in the hope that Baghdad will start paying off debts that were amassed in Soviet times. Mr Bush also faced accusations of hypocrisy over his claims that Saddam’s use of chemical weapons justified “regime change”. The New York Times said that covert US support for Iraq during its war against Iran in the 1980s would have included the realisation that Saddam was using gas and chemical weapons.



To: Mannie who wrote (4815)8/20/2002 3:14:06 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Chicken hawks

Matthew Engel
Tuesday August 20, 2002
The Guardian
guardian.co.uk

Of all the many nonsenses affecting American aviation at present, the most absurd by far is the post-September 11 regulation imposed solely on flights to and from National Airport (or, as the Republicans try to insist, Reagan National) in Washington that bars anyone leaving their seat for the half-hour of flying time nearest the capital.

No matter that you are old, young, sick or simply bursting. No matter that half an hour in the air takes you hundreds of miles away. No matter that the rule does not apply at Washington's other airport, Dulles (about two minutes' flying time from National), nor at any of the hundreds of other American airports near potential terrorist targets. The flight path at National goes close to the centre of Washington and the leaders' safety is paramount. As we saw when the president's jet zigzagged across the country in the hours after the attacks, members of the ruling elite are concerned about the safety of all Americans, but somewhat more concerned about their own. This fits, to a startling extent, with their personal histories.

Traditionally, the left has always had an inferiority complex about military experience. In Britain, Ted Heath (a wartime artillery colonel) used to patronise Harold Wilson (who spent the war in Whitehall) on the subject. Here in 1996 Bob Dole (badly wounded in the second world war) played the same card against the unheroic Bill Clinton. But as the Bush administration paints itself into an ever-tighter corner with its Iraq rhetoric, it is instructive to note the astonishing extent to which those so anxious to stage the next war managed to be absent from the last one.

The US is now mainly governed by men in their mid-50s, ie the Vietnam generation - except that this lot missed being the Vietnam generation. The enterprisingly original New Hampshire Gazette (www.nhgazette.com) maintains a "Chickenhawks" database to tell their stories. Most of the allegations fit with facts recorded elsewhere.

Not everyone is implicated: Colin Powell's military record is solid, of course, which may help explain his distaste for fighting; and Donald Rumsfeld, an older man, was a naval aviator, albeit in the undramatic mid-50s. Otherwise, it starts with the president, who missed Vietnam by securing a cushy number in the Texas air national guard after (so everyone assumes) his congressman father pulled strings to get him in. It is less well-known that Dick Cheney avoided the draft by getting deferments, first because he was a student, then because he was married. "I had other priorities in the 60s than military service," he has said. Fine. Me too, Dick. Some people have got other priorities now. How about you?

Consider Washington's two most prominent superhawks: Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy) and his adviser Richard Perle. Who's Who in America is curiously vague about their precise whereabouts in the late 1960s, though it is fairly clear where they were not. As the shrewd and sceptical Republican senator Chuck Hagel said last week: "Maybe Mr Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad."

The two Democrat leaders in Congress, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, served; their Republican counterparts, Trent Lott and Dick Armey, did not. Tom DeLay, the most powerful hawk in the House of Representatives, missed Vietnam too: he was working as a pest exterminator. Reportedly, he once complained that he would have served; but, he said, all the places were taken up by ethnic minorities.

There are similar stories about almost every other prominent rightwing Republican of recent vintage. Newt Gingrich, ex-Speaker of the House, went the Cheney route; Kenneth Starr, Clinton's legal nemesis, had psoriasis; Jack Kemp, Dole's running mate in 1996, was unfit because of a knee injury, though he heroically continued as a National Football League quarterback for another eight years; Pat Buchanan had arthritis in his knees, though he soon became an avid jogger.

The best story concerns Rush Limbaugh, the ferociously bellicose radio personality, who allegedly had either "anal cysts" or an "ingrown hair follicle on his bottom". It is not my custom to mock others' ailments, but anyone who has listened to Limbaugh's programme can imagine the dripping scorn he would bring to the revelation that a prominent Democrat had skipped a war over something like that. Also, in his case, a pain in the arse is peculiarly appropriate.

Admission: I did not serve in Vietnam either. My country was not there, and did not ask me, or anyone else. Like those named above, I was unenthusiastic about that war. Unlike most of them, I am profoundly alarmed about the one now being plotted.

matthew.engel@guardian.co.uk



To: Mannie who wrote (4815)8/25/2002 10:46:57 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The trouble with business is business

BY MITCH ALBOM
DETROIT FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
August 11, 2002

Mr. Kozlowski wanted a new house. So he took a loan. The loan was for $19 million. He took it from his company.

With that money, he built a 15,000- square-foot Mediterranean-style mansion that featured, among other lavish touches, a $6,000 shower curtain.

And then, as if by magic, the loan was forgiven. Wiped out. Gone. He never even paid interest. In fact, the company also paid $13 million of his taxes on his gift. The shareholders were never told.

Mr. Kozlowski -- Dennis to his friends -- was the CEO of Tyco International. He quit his job the day before he was charged with evading taxes. Tyco's stock is now in the toilet, and the company is being investigated by the SEC.

No word on the shower curtain.

Linda Wachner used to run Warnaco, which produced, among other things, Calvin Klein underwear. The company, under Wachner, sank last year, and the stock dropped to just over a dollar a share. Saddled with debt, it filed for bankruptcy, and the board asked Wachner to resign. She did. Now she wants a severance package: $25 million.

Oh. And she wants to be paid ahead of the other creditors, thank you. A check will be fine.

The corporate gods
Tom Wolfe, in his brilliant book "Bonfire of the Vanities," described the mind-set of super-rich Wall Street types: "Masters of the Universe." That was how they saw themselves. Privileged. Entitled. Forced to share their greatness with the unwashed masses who actually punched a clock. Masters of the Universe!

The only problem with that characterization is that it doesn't go far enough. The CEO in America has been elevated from master to god. His arrival at a company is often celebrated with religious fervor, giant-screen projections, multimedia productions. Books are written detailing the CEO's secrets. His seven steps to success are studied by would-be imitators the way young clerics study the Bible.

And somewhere along the line, these people have bought into the myth. They honestly think they are entitled to more, to better, and, most sadly, to a different set of rules.

So a man like Kozlowski can ring up $11 million worth of art and antique purchases and charge it to his company. Or a guy like Kenneth Lay from Enron can make sham deals that show a phony $60 million worth of profit -- just so he can hit his bonus numbers and collect millions in compensation -- yet his wife weeps on TV that they have nothing.

There is a crisis in American business, all right. But it's not because shareholders don't know what they're investing in anymore. It's because they don't know whom.

Their just deserts
Corporations, like football teams, are not that hard to figure out. The grunts may do the work, and the staff may handle the details. But the head coach sets the tone, sets the rules and knows what's going on. Whether it's Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, Enron, ImClone, Halliburton, Tyco or any other big company, the people at the top are the people running the show.

And when they think it's OK to indulge, so does everyone else.

So I don't blame the recent spate of lawsuits seeking damages not just from deceitful corporations but also from the people who ran them. After all, if a CEO thinks he and the firm are so interchangeable that it can pay for his suits, his homes and his shower curtains, then why shouldn't he pay for its transgressions?

Perhaps the biggest sin of our 1990s indulgence is that we so separated the rich from the poor -- or even the middle class -- that they stopped thinking of them as people. They were shareholders, thereby rubes, thereby less than Masters of the Universe, thereby fair game to be toyed with, lied to and dismissed.

Usually, when they say "it's not the money," it's the money. This time, when you consider these CEOs' behavior, the worst part really isn't the money.

It's the gall.

_____________________________________________

Mitch Albom is a columnist and author of the bestselling book Tuesdays with Morrie. Contact MITCH ALBOM at 313-223-4581 or albom@freepress.com. "The Mitch Albom Show" airs 3-6 p.m. weekdays on WJR-AM (760).

freep.com