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.
Gold/Mining/Energy : An obscure ZIM in Africa traded Down Under -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: smolejv@gmx.net who wrote (284)9/6/2002 7:29:58 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 867
 
Hello DJ, <<No more fish on wine and olive oil for some time>>

I entertained some Mainland Chinese guests with lunch yesterday, in a better times popular restaurant (Zen) situated in one of three largest mall-office-hotel complex (Pacific Mall, home of Conrad, Marriott and Shangri-la hotels) in Hong Kong. In better times a waiting line would form for the dim sums, pastries, seafood and drinks. Now, 20% of the tables were empty.

My wife and I gathered with four friends in a popular but normal times pricey Korean restaurant for dinner. Our table of 6 was not the only table used. The owner and staff used another table for gobble up chow down, or GUCD (gobble up chow down). 40% discount from normal price had been instituted since the beginning of the month.

My guess is the new pricing structure will remain in place for some time, pretend to be normal, and then replaced with a still lower pricing structure.

Cash, idling at the bank, is gaining fast on everything else, relatively.

You must have read the following already, but I attach to save, as a record of our travels:

msnbc.com

What’s wrong with falling prices?

Look to Japan to see the perils of a ‘deflationary spiral’

By Mike Robbins
CNBC ON MSN MONEY

Sept. 5 — Everyone likes low prices. Wal-Mart Stores founder Sam Walton knew it. The folks in line for the early-bird special at Denny’s know it too. So why fret over recent falling prices on everything from apparel to electronics?

ONE REASON CAN be found 5,000 miles west of California. Prices in Japan have been falling so broadly and so consistently that that former economic powerhouse has become mired in a “deflationary spiral.”

Usually when prices fall, consumers decide it’s a good time to buy, and their increased spending helps prices rebound.

In a deflationary spiral, consumers expect prices to continue to fall. So rather than take advantage of low prices, they sit on their wallets and wait for prices to fall further still. Corporations can’t be counted on to end the deflationary cycle, either.

“In deflation, corporations are basically less likely to do anything,” says Don Luskin, chief investment officer with economic research firm Trend Macrolytics. “In a normal world, you want out of money and into something that can make you a profit. In deflation, if you hold onto your dollar, it might be worth the equivalent of $1.10 next year. And holding money is without risk

When you have something that’s risk-free (and) that’s also going to appreciate in value, you’d be crazy to do anything else. Who needs R&D? Who needs employees? When deflationary expectations get going, it becomes self-fulfilling.”

Consumers consume less; corporations produce less; an economy can slow to a crawl. With R&D spending slashed, there’s even a slowdown in new products that might get prices rolling again. It doesn’t take an economist to spot the problems with this trend.

Fortunately, it’s far from certain that the United States is headed for deflation a la the Depression of the 1930s or Japan of the 1990s. But even so, the U.S. economy is enduring a rare period of very low inflation, with some sectors — including computers, telecommunications and steel — struggling to weather the pressure on prices. What does this mean for you? The answer depends on who you are.

PRICES FALL HARDEST ON UNLUCKY FEW
In the short term, lower prices mean paychecks stretch a bit further. Thus, falling prices can be a pleasant development for consumers, assuming deflation doesn’t spiral out of control.

Still, some groups will suffer, starting with seniors. Many retirees depend on income from inflation-indexed pension plans and Social Security. When inflation rates are low, payouts from these sources don’t increase. In theory, these stagnant payouts should be offset by the seniors’ stagnant expenses. But in reality, certain prices continue to rise even when inflation rates in general slow or even reverse. One sector where prices have steamed steadily upwards: medical care, the sector most important to the elderly. “If deflation persists, we’ll see many seniors’ costs rise much faster than their income,” says Chris Orndorff, director of equities with Payden & Rygel, the Los Angeles money management firm. “A lot of these people can’t afford that.”

Homeowners also could be hurt by falling prices. Real estate prices have held up well across most of the country in the last few years, thanks to low interest rates that have boosted prices and let owners refinance mortgages at substantial savings. This happy scenario could change in a serious economic downturn, or, more likely, if a specific market becomes overbuilt with new homes. In Japan, many homeowners now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.

Finally, falling prices figure to hurt individuals who earn their living by producing goods, not providing services. As prices fall, companies must cut costs — including labor costs — to remain profitable. That could accelerate the long-term pattern of manufacturers fleeing the United States in search of cheaper foreign labor. (China’s recent entry into the World Trade Organization won’t slow that trend, either.) But service-sector jobs generally can’t be exported. Service professions that require extensive skills or training — anything from dentistry to automotive repair — are particularly safe from competition. A close look at recent price changes bears these trends out.

Product prices are falling, but service prices are increasing,” says Michael Goldstein, associate professor of finance at Babson College. “The people who stand to lose are the ones whose only training is in the production of goods that can be made at a lower cost elsewhere and shipped in.”

TRICKY ENVIRONMENT FOR CORPORATE AMERICA
Falling prices can damage corporate income statements and balance sheets. “On the income side, falling prices means slowing revenue growth, which tends to squeeze margins,” explains Carl Steidtman, chief economist at Deloitte Research. “On the balance sheet, corporate debt burdens become harder to service, since debt must be repaid with money that’s worth more than it would have been at normal rates of inflation.”

Still, companies can prosper even as prices fall. There are success stories in the semiconductor industry, despite decades of consistently falling prices in that sector. There have been scattered winners in Japan even during that nation’s recent ruinous run of deflation. A small number of U.S. textile and apparel firms are even holding their own, despite the tremendous price pressure created by low-cost foreign competition.

A society can avoid deflation if it can produce goods and services that can expand the economic pie. For this country, in particular, that puts pressure on the private sector to provide the innovation engine that generates new economic activity. Survival and long-term success seem to follow certain patterns, including:

Companies continue to invest in the future. New-and-improved products can demand higher prices even when prices in general are falling, but new product introductions will be less frequent if R&D budgets are cut to the bone. Semiconductor giant Intel has as much experience with falling prices as any company. Despite the current tech slide, the company continues to pour $4 billion a year into R&D. “Technology doesn’t slow down just because the economy slows down” says Intel spokesperson Chuck Mulloy. “It’s not a matter of if the current recession will end, but when. We want to be ready when it does.”

For those worried about deflation, overall U.S. research spending seems to be holding up relatively well, reports Greg Tassey, senior economist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, though this could change if economic weakness persists. Research expenditures have been particularly strong in the health sciences, thanks in part to the strength of prices in that sector, and in part to medical care’s increasingly large slice of the federal research spending pie. Tassey does have a big concern, however: Companies in all sectors seem to be devoting more of their research budgets to the applied research that will help with next year’s bottom line. There’s less money going to the basic research that will pay off a decade from now. “That raises some long-term questions,” he says.

One semiconductor-industry trend that could find its way into other sectors faced with falling prices: modular design. With modular design, a product is produced from scratch in such a way that it can be inexpensively changed and (at least superficially) improved. “You add a few bells and whistles, a dash of salt, and you can say you’ve got a new product,” says semiconductor industry analyst Jim Turley. “That can give you some pricing power without a lot of expense.”

Companies don’t let their products become commodities. Price pressures are most extreme when companies have no way other than price to distinguish their products from those of competitors. In the semiconductor industry, most successful small firms don’t even try to compete with the big boys; they target the small niches that together make up the larger part of the semiconductor market. Orndorff mentions Zoran, a leading maker of chips for DVD players, digital cameras and other applications with growth prospects better than those of the PC market.

Proper use of a familiar brand name also can de-commoditize a company. “Federal Express initially was in the business of getting packages from point to point,” says consultant and author Andy Birol. “Now they’re in the business of selling assurance. You’re not going to get fired for using FedEx.”

In the textiles industry, a sector particularly hard hit by recent falling prices, Hot Topic profitably produces clothing right here in the United States despite low-cost foreign competition. The company sells apparel in styles worn or licensed by popular musical acts. Hot Topic’s success depends on getting new styles to their stores fast, something that’s harder to do if the merchandise must be shipped from Asia. “For us, the issue is quick turnaround time,” says Jay Johnson, a Hot Topic vice president. Goldstein puts it this way: “They’re essentially selling a rush service that insulates them from the price pressures of globalization in the industry.”

Companies fully use technology to make productivity gains. Looking for that new breakthrough technology that will push prices upward? The best bet might not be a new technology at all, but proper use of existing technologies.

In the 1990s, corporate America was obsessed with using the Internet to reach new customers. This decade, expect to see more attention paid to Internet and software applications that make companies more efficient, such as on-line forms processing and intra-office communications. “We really haven’t seen the full payoff from the tech boom,” says Dorsey Farr, senior economist with Balentine & Co. in Atlanta. “Historically, productivity seems to grow in 20-year on/off cycles. We’re still just halfway through.”

Companies exercise tight controls on inventory. Rapid inventory turnover is particularly important when prices are falling. Reason: Products that sit on shelves too long will be worth less by the time they’re sold. Matthews Funds senior analyst Jason Aitken notes that some of the most successful Japanese companies in recent years have made inventory control a top priority. Discount retailer Don Quijote has such tight controls on inventory that it sells virtually everything it buys, he says. Some business models have no inventory at all. Like eBay, the Japanese used-car-auction company USS doesn’t own the products it sells.

Companies keep their balance sheets strong. Not only does debt become a greater burden when prices are falling, cash becomes a more powerful asset. “A couple of years ago, a small intellectual-property company with one or two good ideas might have been acquired for $400 or $500 million,” says Turley. “These days it’s $4 million or $5 million.” Only firms with money in their coffers can scoop up the bargains.

In the tech sector, Payden and Rigel’s Orndorff notes that Intel and Microsoft have strong cash positions. (Microsoft is the parent of MSN Money.) Another company in good shape: General Electric. “We think it’s a very favorable market for acquisitions,” says GE spokesperson David Frail. “And we think we have the balance sheet and the know-how to make the acquisitions and integrate them into our company.” (MSNBC is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC, which is a GE company.)

Odds are, prices will return to their usual upward path in the years ahead. In the meantime, falling prices are likely to remain on everyone’s radar screen. “Should we worry about deflation?” asks Luskin of Trend Macrolytics. “You bet we should worry about it. Deflation is a largely unknown territory. And where there’s an unknown, there’s danger.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of publication, Mike Robbins didn’t own or control shares in any of the equities mentioned in this column.

© 2002 Microsoft Corp.

Chugs, Jay



To: smolejv@gmx.net who wrote (284)9/6/2002 11:38:24 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 867
 
Hi DJ, just checked out the URL you pointed to np-plitvice.tel.hr

Beautiful!

Meantime, in other parts of the world, brewing troubles may make the world a less safe place as the policeman gets too busy. Closing of borders and strategic retreat, should they happen, will mean bad juju for financial markets:

stratfor.com

U.S. Forces Numbers May Not Match Washington's Ambitions
6 September 2002

Summary

Some U.S. officials reportedly are suggesting that Special Operations troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan and used elsewhere. Such a decision would only contribute to the destabilization there, but the real problem for Washington is that its military resources could be spread increasingly thin in the global war on terrorism, while its priorities do not seem to be clearly set and major war targets have not yet been achieved.

Analysis

The New York Times reported earlier this week that some senior U.S. officers in the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) recently suggested that their forces be freed from hunting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. These officers believe bin Laden was killed during the bombing of the Tora Bora cave complex last year.

But there is still no proof that bin Laden is dead, and with Afghan resistance on the rise, a withdrawal of the most elite U.S. units from Afghanistan would only worsen the military situation on the ground there. So far at least Washington appears committed to keeping the forces there. But as pressure grows on the military to deploy these forces elsewhere, Washington in the future could have to spread its resources dangerously thin, especially if faced with a war in Iraq and increasing instability in Afghanistan at the same time.

The JSOC officers have justified their stance by saying that their hunt for bin Laden may well be pointless, although they admit that they have no hard forensic evidence to prove he was killed. Other military and intelligence officials in the United States and abroad strongly argue that it is too early to make any judgments about the al Qaeda leader's fate.

For example, on Sept. 5 a senior official in Germany's foreign intelligence service (BND) said, "According to the information we have, we believe that bin Laden and most of those in the immediate al Qaeda leadership are still alive," Berliner Zeitung daily reported. The BND is well respected by its allies for its ability to pick up human intelligence, and it has maintained a network of agents in Afghanistan since World War II.

Regardless of whether bin Laden is dead or alive, Afghanistan is full of forces that are determined to push American and other foreign troops out of the country. Among these are al Qaeda elements, armed followers of other international radical Islamic groups, Taliban fighters and Pushtun tribal warriors from both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Their numbers are on the rise, with some non-Pushtun tribes also considering joining the anti-U.S. flight. On Sept. 2, for example, a new group calling itself the Secret Army of Mujahideen said it had carried out 21 separate attacks against the U.S. military this summer, The Times of India reports.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a powerful warlord who was the most feared mujahideen commander during the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s, has also renewed his calls for the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country, BBC reported Sept. 3. The Afghan turmoil continues to impact its neighbors, with sweeps by both U.S. and Pakistani troops continuing for Taliban and al Qaeda forces on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

The anti-U.S. forces in Afghanistan also seem to be uniting their forces and rapidly increasing their attacks, with Afghan sources confirming that the Taliban have sealed a partnership with militant group Hezb-i-Islami. Two car bombings in central Kabul and an assassination attempt on Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai Sept. 5 seem to be well-coordinated attacks.

In these conditions, a withdrawal of Special Operations troops would only worsen the military situation on the ground. Even if bin Laden is dead or out of the country, there are several top ranking leaders planning and executing an anti-U.S. resistance in Afghanistan.

The JSOC's colleagues in the Afghan operations -- CIA paramilitary units -- would be even less likely to achieve any results in the hunt for bin Laden and al Qaeda if left alone. The 82nd Airborne Division and other forces have been trained and skilled in other kinds of combat operations, but have little of the training and experience needed for hunting groups like al Qaeda.

Without Special Operations forces, the U.S. command in Afghanistan would have to change its tactics. The American forces would have to conduct frequent and exhaustive sweeping operations involving larger amounts of troops. That would highly increase the exposure of the U.S. soldiers to enemy fire and ambushes, and the number of U.S. casualties could rise much faster.

The last example of a large operation of this kind was Operation Anaconda last February, when several U.S. soldiers were killed during the first day because of the ambush tactics of the mujahideen. The next day, the U.S. command had to start relying on air, missile and artillery bombing. No major Afghan operation has been conducted since then. A withdrawal of Special Operations troops could make the U.S. command in Afghanistan resort to large operations again.

But the U.S. government is faced with a dilemma given that it also needs Special Operations forces elsewhere. In plans to attack Iraq, Washington would have to deploy the most elite Special Operations units to destroy suspected Iraqi launching pads for missiles, long-range artillery batteries, and important command and control centers and communication facilities. Such forces would also have to secure control over suspected facilities for making weapons of mass destruction. These units would also likely to be used to hunt down Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his top lieutenants.

On the al Qaeda front, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently said he wants to use Special Operations troops anywhere in the world where U.S. and allied intelligence will be able to identify the presence of al Qaeda or other terrorist rings. Such a mission, even if not coupled with an Iraq war, would probably require at least 10 times the number of Special Operations troops the United States has now.

Of the nearly 46,000 personnel in Special Operations forces, only between 7,000 and 8,000 of them belong to combat units such as Army Rangers, Delta Force, Navy Seals and Air Force Special Operations units. Furthermore, of this group only about 1,000 are designated for counterterrorism missions and constitute front-line teams fully suited to fighting al Qaeda, according to the officers interviewed by The New York Times.

This is one example of Washington running short of key resources as the war spreads globally. It takes years to train Special Operations soldiers, and their current numbers are not enough to accomplish all the missions Washington may soon want. As with logistics and other issues, the problem with the shortage of these troops likely will interfere with the Bush administration's goal to achieve a major breakthrough in its global war efforts in near future.

stratfor.com

Chaos and Neglect Dominate U.S. Agenda in Latin America
5 September 2002

Summary

Latin America still has not assumed high priority on the Bush administration's radar, despite previous pledges the president has made. Disorganization and confusion within the White House's Latin America team have left leaders in the region wondering who is in charge.

Analysis

U.S. President George W. Bush pledged repeatedly before and after the 2000 presidential elections that Latin America would be a top foreign policy priority during his administration. However, 19 months into Bush's presidency, the region still occupies a low niche on the U.S. administration's agenda.

Worse, most governments there are not even certain of exactly who is running the shop on Latin America policy in Washington. As a result, U.S. influence and credibility throughout the region have withered considerably in recent months.

Changes in Washington's foreign policy agenda after Sept. 11 made defending the U.S. homeland and locating and eradicating al Qaeda more important than Latin American policy issues for the remainder of Bush's first four years. But even before then, it was increasingly evident to many Latin American political leaders and investors that the only regional head of state with good personal access to Bush was Mexican President Vicente Fox.

And even Mexico's seeming importance to the Bush administration has appeared to evaporate, as the collapse of the World Trade Center also killed any chance for a bilateral immigration agreement that would have legalized the status of some 5 million Mexican citizens who live and work in the United States without legal residency documents.

Bush has pointed often to his Texas business roots and the marriage of his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, to a citizen of Mexico to stress his strong interest in Latin American issues. However, it is nearly impossible to advance a coherent Latin America foreign policy -- with clear-cut objectives -- when the Cabinet-level officials tasked to such an assignment appear to have no interest in the region, and the individuals working on Latin America policy issues at middle and lower levels in the Bush administration seem to be working at cross-purposes and without true support from their bosses.

Moreover, Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell may share most of the blame for the current confusion in the U.S. administration's Latin America policy. According to congressional and administration sources, Bush started out on the wrong foot within hours of his inauguration when he made Ambassador John Maisto, a career foreign services officer who previously had served in Nicaragua and later Venezuela, the senior Latin America adviser at the National Security Council.

Sources said Maisto was and is philosophically more attuned to the Latin America policy concerns of former President Bill Clinton's administration than to the more conservative policies the Bush administration wishes to advance in the region.

Bush subsequently nominated Otto J. Reich, also a former U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, to head the State Department's Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. Reich's nomination in 2001 immediately sparked very strong opposition from Senate Democrats, chiefly led by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs. Dodd has alleged for more than a decade that Reich was involved in what became the Iran-Contra scandal and spread disinformation about the U.S. military role in Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Dodd and Foreign Relations Committee chairman Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) in effect denied Reich even the opportunity for a hearing on his nomination. After a nearly yearlong delay, Bush used his executive authority to grant Reich a congressional recess appointment, which legally means he can serve only until the end of 2002, unless Bush decides to grant Reich another congressional recess appointment next December.

As a result, during the first year of the Bush presidency, Maisto was the only senior Latin America policy adviser in the administration. However, his appointment to the NSC -- whose advisers have no direct input in actually mapping and executing foreign policy carried out by the State Department -- shut down any chance for the Bush administration to advance a coherent Latin America policy, according to congressional sources.

Unlike Clinton, Bush also did not appoint a special presidential envoy to Latin America, a role that Clinton's longtime adviser Thomas "Mack" McLarty carried for several years. Although McLarty had no real policymaking influence in that role, his official status as a presidential envoy gave him political clout and legitimacy across Latin America that both Maisto and Reich do not have, according to Latin American diplomatic sources in Washington. It also persuaded Latin American leaders that Clinton did care about the region.

They add that Maisto is viewed as a career foreign services officer "lightweight" who is overdue for retirement, while Reich is widely perceived regionally as lacking the vital political legitimacy that would be bestowed by a formal Senate confirmation of his appointment. However, Dodd has vowed that Reich will never be granted a confirmation hearing while Democrats control the Senate.

After his congressional recess appointment in December 2001, Reich was still putting together his team when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was briefly topped from power in mid-April. Congressional critics of Reich immediately accused the Bush administration of playing a role in the coup, an assumption that Chavez fueled in multiple interviews with international news media like CNN. Moreover, Dodd immediately announced an investigation to determine what role, if any, Reich and other senior administration officials might have played in the political crisis.

An official U.S. investigation subsequently concluded that there was no involvement by any Bush administration personnel, and Dodd apparently has abandoned notions of holding hearings on the issue. However, the political damage this caused Reich and his team may be irreparable, according to U.S. congressional and Latin American diplomatic sources.

Without an influential guiding hand for Latin America policy in the Bush administration, and without any indications of Cabinet-level interest and support by key officials like Rice and Powell, different agencies and officials in the administration have been managing multiple issues in the region. While it is not unusual for different U.S. federal agencies, such as the State and Treasury departments, to have their hands in some aspects of Latin America policy, the Bush administration's execution of foreign policy in the region so far has been more confused than coherent.