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 (8491)10/25/2002 6:17:52 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Oil Security

By Dev George
Managing Editor
Oil and Gas International
10/21/2002

Last week, there was quite a lot of talk about oil security - not just the usual posturing by American politicians, but expressions of varying viewpoints that have been provoked by the present tense situation in the Middle East vis-à-vis Bush and Iraq and Sharon & Palestine - the former obsessing about decapitating Iraq, other reasons notwithstanding, to assure oil supply from the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia, and the latter attempting to depopulate lands claimed as Israeli to let Zionist settlers in and, he thinks, achieve a sort of fortress security.
Both have alienated world opinion, caused friends to question their alliances, and precipitated a new era of global terrorism on a tragic scale. They have also both led to this latest search for oil security.
Least it be forgotten, secure access to oil supply was the driving force behind Nazi Germany's conquest of Eastern Europe and North Africa and its attempt to occupy the Soviet Union. It was, as well, Imperial Japan's reason for invading the East Indies (Southeast Asia). In fact, Bush Senior, it could be argued, prosecuted the Gulf War a decade ago not to rescue Kuwait, but to be sure Iraq didn't take over the oilfields of Saudi Arabia.
Actually, the quest for secure sources of oil has a long and chequered history harking back to the time when the colonial powers carved up the world.
Oil security is essential for the foreseeable future simply because there is no practical alternative as a source of energy and industrial input. But, other than the scattering of incidences of attacks on oilfields and infrastructure (Sudan, Colombia, Nigeria) by disgruntled guerillas or angry citizens, the real threat to secure oil for the United States and others that support its Middle East policies is the dual dilemma of Iraq and Israel. In the words of UK Minister for Europe Peter Hain at a conference on energy security, "The first priority must be to take action to ensure security in the oil-rich Middle East by creating the conditions for a Palestinian state and a secure Israel."
At almost the same time, Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, in Pakistan, was once again calling for the Muslim oil-producing countries of the world to use oil as a weapon to influence world opinion. He supports George Bush's so-called war on terrorism, but is strongly opposed to his plan to attack Iraq and his acquiescence in Ariel Sharon's wanton disregard for international law and his determination to eliminate the Palestinians as an obstacle to Israeli expansion.
Mahathir is not alone. Some 115 other world governments, including most US allies and even Kuwait, whom Iraq invaded in 1990, have expressed their opposition to Bush's planned invasion of Iraq and called for allowing UN inspectors to try once more to find and eliminate any threatening Iraqi arsenals. Likewise almost to the exact number, there is opposition to Sharon's excessive belligerence.
Should the military might, economic power, and political strength of the United States be put to bear to force a just end to the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation and demand Israel return occupied lands and respect an established Palestinian state, the threat to Israel would cease and oil security would be assured.

oilandgasinternational.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (8491)10/25/2002 8:58:51 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The deflation danger

economist.com

Of debt, deflation and denial
Oct 10th 2002
From The Economist print edition

The risk of falling prices is greater than at any time since the 1930s

FOR decades inflation was the bogeyman in rich countries. But now some economists reckon that deflation, or falling prices, may be a more serious threat—in America and Europe as well as Japan. That would be decidedly awkward, given the surge in borrowing by firms and households in recent years. Particularly worrying is the rise in borrowing by American households to finance purchases of houses, cars or luxury goods. Deflation would swell the real burden of these debts, forcing consumers to cut their spending.

Policymakers in America and Europe have been quick to dismiss any fears of possible deflation. Bond markets, on the other hand, reckon that the risk is mounting: bond yields have fallen to historical lows. Many products, from clothes to cars, are certainly cheaper than they were a year ago. But full-blown deflation requires a persistent fall in the overall price level. The recent fall in the prices of durable goods has been offset by rising prices of services; so outside Japan, average prices continue to rise, albeit at the slowest pace for decades. As measured by the GDP deflator, the best economy-wide gauge, America's inflation rate has fallen to 1.1%, its lowest for 40 years. Its consumer-price index has risen by 1.8% over the past 12 months, but prices have fallen in half of its 16 main product categories—the biggest proportion since the current series started.

The world is still awash with excess capacity, in industries from telecoms and cars to airlines and banking. Until this is eliminated, downward pressure on inflation will persist. A good measure is the output gap, the level of actual minus potential GDP. Historically there has been a close relationship in most countries between the size of the output gap and changes in the inflation rate (see chart). When the output gap is negative (ie, actual output is below potential), inflation usually declines. The OECD estimates that America's GDP is about 1% below its potential. If growth remains at or below its trend rate of around 3% over the next two years, the negative output gap will persist into 2004, pushing inflation even lower. It would not take much to tip into deflation.

Optimists argue that deflation is much less likely today than in the 1930s because services now account for a bigger slice of the economy. The prices of services tend to be more resistant to dropping than the prices of goods because they are more labour-intensive, and wages rarely fall. However, Stephen Roach, an economist at Morgan Stanley, observes that service-sector inflation is now much weaker than usual. The rate of increase in the services component of America's GDP deflator fell from 3% in the year to the fourth quarter of 2000 to 2.2% in the second quarter of this year. In the previous six recessions, service-sector inflation actually increased over the comparable period.

Although Mr Roach reckons that deflation is a serious risk, economists at Salomon Smith Barney argue that fears of it are vastly overdone. Incompetent monetary policies were largely to blame for deflation in America in the 1930s and in Japan today. Outside Japan, they argue, no central bank would tolerate a persistent decline in prices. A recent paper by economists at the Federal Reserve draws lessons from Japan's deflation and concludes that, when inflation is unusually low, central banks must be especially alert to the risk of deflation and cut rates by more than is normally justified by inflation and growth rates.

The Fed is at least aware of the risks. However, not all central banks may be either willing or able to learn from Japan's mistakes. Germany probably faces a higher risk of deflation than America. The ECB's interest rate of 3.25% is broadly appropriate for the euro area as a whole, given its inflation rate (2.2%), the size of the output gap, and the bank's chosen inflation target of “less than 2%”. But the ECB seems unlikely to cut interest rates until inflation dips below 2%. And its inflation target is arguably too low. Research by the IMF and the Fed suggests that, if central banks aim for inflation below 2%, the risk of deflation rises markedly. If the ECB had an inflation target with a mid-point (rather than a ceiling) of 2%, it could now trim interest rates.

Even then, however, rates would still be too high for Germany. Since it is the highest-cost producer within the euro area, a fixed exchange rate tends to cause price convergence by forcing inflation to be lower in Germany than in the rest of the euro area. Germany's core rate of inflation (excluding food and energy) has averaged 0.6 percentage points below the euro-area average over the past three years; it is now a full point lower, at 1.1%.

Since interest rates are the same across the whole of the euro area, this implies that real rates will be higher in Germany and growth consequently slower. Germany's output gap, at an estimated 2.5% of GDP, is the second biggest after Japan among the G7 countries, and it is likely to widen. Deutsche Bank recently cut its growth forecast for Germany to only 0.1% for this year and 0.6% in 2003.

Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that, if the old Bundesbank were setting interest rates to suit Germany alone, they would now be below 2%. Worse still, not only is Germany unable to cut interest rates, but the EU's stability and growth pact also obstructs any fiscal easing. Nor can it devalue its currency. Stripped of all its macroeconomic policy weapons, Germany now runs a serious risk of following Japan into deflation.

Friend or foe?
Deflation is not necessarily bad. If falling prices are caused by faster productivity growth, as happened in the late 19th century, then it can go hand in hand with robust growth. On the other hand, if deflation reflects a slump in demand and excess capacity, it can be dangerous, as it was in the 1930s, triggering a downward spiral of demand and prices.

Today, both the good and bad sorts of deflation are at work. Some prices are falling because of productivity gains, thanks to information technology. But the weakness of profits suggests that most deflation is now bad, not good. Deflation is particularly harmful when an economy is awash with debt. Total private-sector debt is now much higher than when deflation was last experienced in the 1930s. Falling prices not only increase the real burden of debt, they also make it impossible for a central bank to deliver negative real interest rates, because nominal rates cannot go below zero.

If deflation causes real debts to swell, debtors may have to cut spending and sell assets to meet their payments. This can unleash a vicious spiral of falling incomes, asset prices and rising real debt. Irving Fisher, an American economist, described this process in a famous article in 1933 entitled “The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions”. He described how attempts by individuals to reduce their debt burden by cutting costs could paradoxically cause their debt burden to swell. Unable to increase prices to boost profits, firms have to cut costs, either by reducing labour costs and hence household income or by buying less from other firms. This is sensible for an individual firm, but it reduces demand in the economy, thwarting the desired improvement in profit, leading to another round of cuts and putting further downward pressure on prices.

America's corporate sector is already suffering deflation, with the price deflator of non-financial businesses falling in the past year for the first time since the second world war. Many firms that borrowed heavily in the late 1990s, expecting rapid revenue growth to finance their debts, are now in trouble. Ed McKelvey, an economist at Goldman Sachs, worries that corporate-sector deflation could create wider deflation if firms try to slash labour costs.

When Japan was the only country with deflation, one sure cure might have been a big devaluation of the yen to push up inflation. But for the world as a whole, this is not an option. Global deflation could be even harder to budge.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (8491)10/25/2002 11:58:58 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Was Bin Laden or Al Qaeda connected with the sniper from the Washington DC area...?

He was getting some money and making trips offshore...hmmm...anything is possible...

news.bellinghamherald.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (8491)10/26/2002 8:51:03 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Judge Webster, Miscast

Lead Editorial
The New York Times
October 26, 2002

So much for the idea that the fight to restore investor confidence is a bipartisan effort. In a bitter public session yesterday, the five commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission split along party lines in voting for a chairman of a new oversight board for the accounting profession. The three Republican commissioners, led by the chairman, Harvey Pitt, voted to appoint William Webster.

Mr. Webster, the former federal judge and director of both the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., was the face-saving Beltway eminence that Republicans turned to after they had derailed the appointment of John Biggs as a favor to the powerful accounting lobby. Mr. Biggs, the respected head of a large teachers' pension fund, has long been a thoughtful critic of the accounting gimmicks and auditors' conflicts of interests. He was the perfect choice to police the profession, which is why industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress worked so hard to derail him. The two Democratic commissioners still voted for him yesterday.

It's a wonder that the 78-year-old Mr. Webster, who has a distinguished record of public service but little engagement with these issues, is allowing himself to be used in such a manner. That the White House urged him to consider the job further tarnishes the process. The S.E.C. is an ostensibly independent agency.

Mr. Webster would have been better off insisting that Mr. Pitt name Mr. Biggs, or someone else with a comparable record. Now he will lead a body hobbled at birth. It is not beyond redemption. But Mr. Webster has his work cut out for him. He must make sure that the board becomes more than a disengaged blue-ribbon commission, and he must move quickly to hire energetic regulators. Only in this way can he create an institution that will in time police the accounting lobbyists who are now cheering his appointment.

The new board, which has broad powers to set and enforce accounting standards, is the centerpiece of the corporate reform passed by Congress in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Despite the accounting profession's complicity in these scandals and its sorry track record of policing itself, the Bush administration and many Republicans initially opposed an independent board. They only succumbed when rising investor anxiety threatened opponents of meaningful reform.

By derailing Mr. Biggs, the Republicans are seeking to undermine the effectiveness of a board they never wanted. By siding with his former clients in the accounting industry and with his Republican overseers, Mr. Pitt has again demonstrated that he is not suited to lead the S.E.C. Maybe Mr. Webster will surprise us, but so far investors are the losers.

nytimes.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (8491)10/26/2002 9:11:26 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
What Al Qaeda Learned in D.C.

By FRANK RICH
Columnist
The New York Times
October 26, 2002

Does everyone feel safe now?

There are good reasons why the sniper siege terrified Americans who were far from the line of fire, but they're not the reasons that have dominated the media babble. It's not that we all have relatives in Washington or knew a child slated to go there on a school trip. It's not that we were watching too much bad TV. Sure, cable dished out the story as if it were Gary Condit or shark attacks redux, with hapless CNN going so far as trying to add actors from CBS's "Crime Scene Investigation" to its already inept roster of profiling pundits. But however trivializing the style of presentation, the content was weighty. The reason that a USA Today/CNN poll this week found that the sniper was the second most highly watched news story in a decade, second only to 9/11, may be that Americans intuitively sensed that it could be the second most important story as well.

What made the story both scary and substantial was the mercilessness with which it exposed our permeability to a terrorist attack at home more than a year after 9/11 "changed everything." Whether this Muhammad was an Atta sympathizer or not, the fact remains that one or two gunmen were able to paralyze the capital of the most powerful nation in the world for three weeks, to the point of threatening the ability of citizens to carry out the most fundamental rite of democracy, freely walking into polling places on Election Day. Media critics complained that the sniper usurped more significant news stories like Iraq, Bali and Moscow, but in truth these are all strands of a single story. Each day that the sniper remained in charge was a day likely to embolden our foes, just as we prepare to expand the war on terrorism. "Even if the sniper isn't connected to Al Qaeda, he's showing our vulnerability," said John McCain when I spoke to him the day before the suspects were identified.

After the bombing in Bali, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, was moved to observe that it was "a wake-up call for the Indonesians." Are we sleeping through our own wake-up call? Relief that the killers seem to have been caught should not be confused with closure. We must not now forget that the failures of cooperation between federal and local law enforcement as the sniper piled up his kills were a replay of the turf wars between Rudolph Giuliani's cops and the feds after last fall's still-unsolved anthrax attack. The Pentagon, which may soon face the task of tracking down Saddam Hussein in a city of five million, made the mistake of tipping off the sniper of its air surveillance plans for the D.C. area. The syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin argues persuasively that the I.N.S.'s decision to release John Lee Malvo after his December 2001 arrest by immigration authorities was "in clear violation of federal law."

These are merely the leading indicators of a larger drift into complacency that is hardly limited to this one form of terrorism or a single city. Just how much so was cataloged yesterday by the Council on Foreign Relations, which released an alarming document with a most un-council-like title to match: "America Still Unprepared — America Still in Danger." The report is the work of a bipartisan task force headed by Warren Rudman and Gary Hart and stocked with intelligence, military and foreign-policy heavies as various as the former F.B.I. superagent James Kallstrom, the Iraq hawk George Shultz and the former N.I.H. head Harold Varmus. "The next attack will result in even greater casualties and widespread disruption to American lives and the economy," they wrote.

The facts back up their fears. They found that the nation's 650,000 local and state police still have no access to federal terrorist watch lists. They found minimal surveillance of the potentially explosive cargo containers transported to and within the U.S. by ship, truck and train. (We seem to be making the unwarranted assumption that Al Qaeda's next attack will again be by plane.) Though President Bush told the nation this month that a single "Iraqi intelligence operative" could with one "small container" wreak havoc with chemical and biological weapons, we are largely defenseless against such an attack: "Police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel in most of the nation's cities and counties are no better prepared to react now than they were prior to September 11."

(Page 2 of 2)

The report, which can and must be read at www.cfr.org, does offer fixes, some of them fairly quick, for the shortfalls. Stopgap communications equipment for law enforcement officers can be purchased off the shelf. Local emergency centers can hire retired medical workers to be on call should Mr. Bush's dire warning come true. But most of these recommendations include the verb "fund" — as in, someone will actually have to pony up for them, and soon. "The states are in dire straits and the federal government has to step in," says Mr. Rudman, a fiscally conservative Republican. "We have to do something. Give up a tax cut, pay a surcharge, something. This is a damn war we're involved in. We can't expect all this to materialize out of the air." Yet there is not a leader in either party who has the guts to call for such a sacrifice from America's taxpayers. Thus the federal government has authorized only $92 million toward the estimated $2 billion needed to secure our ports, at which 21,000 containers arrive each day.

Mr. Hart says that what united the entire task force was the feeling that there's "no sense of urgency and we have slipped back into business as usual." For him and Mr. Rudman, it's déjà vu. In 1998, they had been put in charge of a similar Defense Department task force initiated by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. In their January 2001 report, they foresaw terrorism on "American soil" leading to mass death; they proposed, among other possible protections, a department of homeland security. The Bush administration brushed off their recommendations, and the press, including The Times, largely ignored them, too. Even now, after 9/11 dramatized how prescient their findings were, the department of homeland security is still gridlocked in the Senate. Mr. Hart in part faults his own party's intransigence on civil service protections for what he considers an unconscionable delay.

Whether the new Hart-Rudman report will be ignored as the first was is as yet unknown. But the bizarre air of unreality in our public life right now doesn't fill one with hope. It's as if we can't seem to break the bad habits that led up to 9/11. In February 2001, the C.I.A. chief, George Tenet, testified before Congress that Osama bin Laden and his network were "the most immediate and serious threat" to the U.S. and that they were likely to stage "simultaneous attacks" producing "mass casualties." Few in government, including at his own agency, felt any great urgency about it then, and neither did the public. But did Mr. Tenet's parallel testimony of little more than a week ago have much more impact? Lest anyone forget, he said that Al Qaeda was "reconstituted" and "coming after us," fomenting a threat level as bad as that of summer 2001.

In Washington, though, the threat level remains frozen at yellow. The Democrats have gone home to decry the economy. The president is off campaigning, too, outdoing even his predecessor in money raised and days devoted to sheer politics. Poor old Charlton Heston could be found waving his rifle to cheering crowds, defending his Second Amendment rights über alles, even as a man with a rifle was bagging human game in the capital. Neither the president nor Tom Daschle wanted to do more than ask for a study or "take a look" at the terrorism-fighting possibilities of ballistics fingerprinting. Just before Congress left town, a long-overdue 9/11 investigative commission was scuttled once more — by the White House, according to John McCain and other witnesses. Is ignorance bliss? "You can't prevent a repetition of an act of terror unless you know all the events leading up to it," the senator says.

Speaking from his home state of Colorado, Gary Hart said, "The attitude is that it's not going to happen here." I had asked him if he agreed with my perception that terrorism seems a much less pressing threat when you talk to Americans outside the D.C.-N.Y. axis. "It's an East Coast problem, maybe a West Coast problem," he said, giving his take on the local mood. "And that's tragically mistaken. The next targets could be Denver, Cleveland, Dallas. The way you demonstrate a country's vulnerability is to attack it everywhere."

Certainly our enemies learned this month, as Mr. Rudman puts it, "how easy this kind of terrorism is to carry out." Did we?

nytimes.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (8491)10/26/2002 9:13:35 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Foreign direct investment

atimes.com