<1-2% may not be a big deal compared to our whole economy, but when one considers the US requires 75% of the world's capital to balance its current account, the geopolotical fallout may make it harder for us to rely on the kindness of strangers.
i predict an unpopular war abroad and a boycott of US paper by foreign investors. if that happens, US bonds and the US real estate market are toast! that will really screw our economy big time, imo. having pared back my equity positions, i am now considering paring back my heavy bond allocation. >
Mucho, when you cut back your bond allocations and aren't buying shares, I take it that means you'll just hold cash. Or what? Right now, [and for the past 9 months], I've been a cash kinda guy [other than my residual sacred cash cow QUALCOMM].
My job is to value the USA, Uncle Al, King George, Saddam, China, Japan and all the pawns, knights and rooks [and there are lots of rooks turning up from Enron, Global Crossing etc, meaning people have been rooked [idiomatic expression for robbed].
As you say, my vote, along with umpty million others, turns on things like ousting Saddam, invading Afghanistan, shooting down a passenger jet [taking off from Iran], deliberately flying a Korean 747 over Russia, bombing China's embassy, plus of course all the other things,
such as Uncle Al's printing rate, demographics and religious propensity.
I'm actually disposed to Colin's Colinisation and Condoleezza's Condominiums. Ethics matter and when good ethics flow downhill, like electricity flows from high to low charge, water is pulled by gravity downhill and money flows from richer people to those bidding the lowest price, it's like a law of nature. I'm not against nature. Power is also a law of nature, and Saddam is a manifestation of that. So is King George, but King George has ethics on his side [perhaps more in the form of laws and social constraints, but that's okay because ethics don't exist in a vacuum]. Power flows from tough to weak.
Well, that's my theory as made up as the pixels arrived on the screen.
Anyway, the summation is that I'm okay with the USA ousting Saddam and colonizing Iraq. With British help if they wish. Better still with UN help. The USA is NOT the final arbiter of global ethics - I am and they have to account to me.
I want a global legal and ethical and power system rather than the USA taking over and putting any aliens the army or police or FBI takes a dislike to into Guantanamo Bay or some other concentration camp pending no trial, legal representation and consideration by peers etc.
The USA will find my money voting with them on Iraq. But it is hot money, which remains unsatisfied with the legal and ethical standards of the USA as colonizer. The British, when they colonized, made everyone a citizen, with habeas corpus, rule of law etc [which became untenable when the impoverished citizens began showing up at the doorstep in Whitehall].
Politicians and many citizens of other countries might not like the USA raiding and defeating Saddam's gang, but I'm not sure that they matter from a USA current account point of view. They want to get their greedy mitts on my money - they have shown that all too often. The USA has got it and the other politicians and citizens want it.
I suspect other people around the world with money are keen to protect theirs too. The USA does a good job of that [Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcon etc notwithstanding]. The USA really does put crooks in gaol. We like that.
So, what's your preference now instead of bonds? Saudi Arabia has a lot of hot money too and they might feel unsettled by the USA taking over next door, but what are they going to do? Give it to Chirac, or an African thieving, murdering dictator, or Helengrad [Helen Clark in Wellington]?
The USA and British oil companies do extremely well with war against Iraq [those with high cost crude oil such as North Sea and North Slope]. Their profits for a decade have been extreme with that huge competitor's production off the market [or greatly reduced]. So the bias Bush and Blair feel is that it's no bad thing. The oil profits might not be the dominant reason for the sanctions, but they have been in the many $100 billion range. A cynic would say that's the main reason for the harrassment of Saddam.
Mqurice |
