Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elsewhere who wrote (67298)	1/21/2003 12:09:52 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting - a real Saddam-o-meter! I'm not sure I quite understand futures in Saddam, how do you exercise the option? what is the strike price? who pays who at expiration?

To: Elsewhere who wrote (67298)	1/21/2003 12:18:12 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Looks like the US is not quite as far gone as Euroland, JJ. But we will get there if we don't watch out! Weekly Standard. The American Way Wins Why American capitalism trumps Euro capitalism. by Irwin M. Stelzer 01/21/2003 12:00:00 AM NOW IT CAN BE TOLD. More precisely, now it has been told in new studies of comparative economic performance. It seems that the U.S. economic model trumps the European model, and is set fair to continue to do so. Since communism collapsed and the Japanese model of government-guided investment, exchange-rate manipulation, and the replacement of markets with ministers proved itself dysfunctional, the world has had on offer only two versions of how to create national wealth: the European Union and the United States. The governments of the European Union by and large claim about 50 percent of their nations' output for the governments' ministers to do with as they please; the U.S. federal government takes about 30 percent. The high taxes needed by E.U. governments to support their welfare states have contributed to persistent double-digit unemployment in Germany, and to very low growth rates throughout most of what is called "Euroland." Add to the tax burden three further economic impediments to growth--labor markets so rigidly regulated that employers dare not hire for fear of being unable to fire; a Growth and Stability Pact that prohibits countries from running significant deficits when faced with recession; and a one-size-fits-all interest rate that is applied both to recession-afflicted Germany and inflation-afflicted Portugal. There is worse. In addition to national governments that are inclined to regulate everything from the amount of foam allowed on a mug of beer sold by publicans (the UK), to the hours stores can stay open (in Germany it's never on Sunday and only part of the time on Saturday), Brussels' eurocrats have rules that regulate everything from the size of condoms to the permitted curvature of bananas. So it comes as no surprise to any economist not included in the swath of those who hate America--"capitalism red in tooth and claw" and "the law of the jungle" are two of the epithets sometimes hurled at me in international conferences--that the E.U. economies are in trouble. There is no better proof than last week's moan from Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission. It seems the European Union is falling ever-further behind the United States in the competitiveness race. Per capita productivity of the E.U.'s employed workforce fell from 86 percent of the U.S. level in 1999 to 83 percent last year. If you count the zero productivity of the massive numbers of Europe's unemployed, things are even worse for the European Union. And unlikely to get better, says the new study by the European Commission. Resistance to labor-market reform remains a potent force, Europe continues to devote fewer resources to research than does the United States, and E.U. taxes remain high (at a time when the debate in American is not over whether, but by how much, to reduce the tax burden on workers, entrepreneurs, and investors). None of this is by way of a self-satisfied gloat. Although the anti-Americanism and even more perfervid anti-Bushism to which my wife, Cita, and I are subjected when we are abroad makes such gloating terribly attractive. It seems that our president can't put a proper English sentence together; that he goes to sleep at a time that Europeans believe to be their cocktail hour; that he is--gosh--"religious," as in "the fanatical religious right." Not only that, but he doesn't see much point in relying for military support on countries that don't have any weapons or well-trained troops and he doesn't appreciate advice on Middle Eastern policy from countries with thinly veiled anti-Semitic tendencies. But rise above all of this, and one can see that America has an interest in a prosperous Europe. We need it as a good trading partner, not given to protectionism to protect its clapped out industries. We need it to be wealthy enough for its member states to be able to afford credible military establishments. So, in the end, we need to continue to contribute to the debate on European policy, as Jeff Gedmin's Aspen Institute, my own Hudson Institute, and other think tanks are doing. Most of all, we have a stake in persuading our principal ally, Britain, that it should retain such control as now remains over its foreign and economic policy by avoiding deeper engagement in the E.U. bureaucracy, and by refusing to surrender control over its monetary and fiscal policy by trading in the pound sterling for the euro. In short, we should fight in the universities, in the think tanks and in the journals, never faltering in our efforts to persuade our European friends that aspects of the U.S. model are worthy of their serious consideration. Irwin M. Stelzer is director of regulatory studies at the Hudson Institute, a columnist for the Sunday Times (London), a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (67298)	1/21/2003 4:32:56 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Jochen Jansen; Nice link. For the record, TradeSports shows Saddam at 38/41 to be gone by March 31st, and 59/61 to be gone by June 30, 2003. Might as well make a weekly habit of charting it, unless FADG God complains. Expiration Date 03/31 06/30 -------- ----- ----- 03/01/21 38 41 59 61 I should explain: The value of the contract will be $0 if Saddam is still in power at the specified date, and $100 if he is no longer in power. For every person who is short the contract, there is another person who is long it. At the expiration date, the person who is short a given contract will pay the $ amount (either $0 or $100 depending on the outcome) to the person who is long. In this case, going long means that you will be paid $100 if Saddam is no longer in power on the expiration date. If you buy the June 30th contract today for $61, this means that you will make a total of $39 on the deal. If you sell the June 30th contract today for $59, then you will either end up with a profit of $59 if Saddam is still in power, or a loss of $41 if Saddam is out of power. The number can be interpreted as an investor estimation of the probability of Saddam not being in power. Examples: (A) If you think that Saddam will be removed by March 31, 2003 with a probability higher than 41%, than you should buy the March 31st contract. (B) If you think that Saddam will still be in power on June 30, 2003 with a probability higher than 41% (i.e. the probability that he will be removed is less than 59%), then you should sell the June 30th contract. Also see Slate's "Saddam-o-meter", which currently shows a probability of invasion at 65%: slate.msn.com -- Carl P.S. I suggest selling both these contracts, LOL.