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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (347662)1/25/2003 5:33:27 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Respond to of 769670
 
A Tale of Two Meetings: World Economic Forum, Davos

How the mighty have fallen: "At the height of the dot.com boom, our main concern was about how we should brand our website, or that our stock price had risen by only 100 per cent over the past year. Today we worry about whether we are going to end up behind bars".

news.independent.co.uk

A Tale of Two Meetings: World Economic Forum, Davos
By Jeremy Warner
24 January 2003

THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM: Facts ==
Numbers: 2,350 participants are expected, down from 3,200 in 2001. Some are paying £10,000 to attend.
Accommodation: Five-star hotels, costing between £160 and £330 a night, are fully booked.
Security: A £6m security operation includes hundreds of police and 2,000 troops. Unauthorised aircraft may be shot down.
Entertainment: Organisers called off the traditional poolside black-tie evening gala, preferring a toned-down classical music event.
Star delegates: Brazil's leftist President, Lula da Silva; the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell; King Abdullah of Jordan; Bill Gates; Michael Dell; Bill Clinton – but not Stephen Case, the former CEO of AOL-Time Warner, and other one-time stars of the gathering.
Talking points: "Corporate challenges"; "the global economy"; "global governance"; "security and geopolitics"; "trust and values".


The world economy is faltering, recovery in America and Europe looks anaemic, war in the Middle East is looming, stock markets remain deep in the doldrums and public trust in Western governments, politicians and business leaders has hit an all-time low.

There could hardly be a more gloomy backdrop to the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, which kicked off yesterday in the high Alpine resort of Davos, Switzerland.

About 2,350 participants are expected to attend what is generally considered to be the world's most illustrious networking conference, many of them paying about £10,000 apiece to rub shoulders with the elites of business, policy and politics. Hotels in the town are in such demand that some of the world's most highly paid chief executives are having to forgo their usual, salubrious lodgings for single rooms in two-star establishments.

Security has never been tighter and outside the event itself, Davos is like a ghost town, inhabited only by security men and soldiers. Many residents have chosen to leave for the duration, despite the fact that the skiing season, one of the town's primary sources of income, should be in full swing.

The overall cost of protecting the event has risen to nearly €10m (£6.6m), some of it paid for by the WEF, but much of it by the Swiss government, which still regards the forum as a big draw. The focus of security has switched too, from the anti-globalisation protesters to the threat of a terrorist attack. It is sometimes said that more than two-thirds of global wealth comes to Davos for the summits, making it an obvious target. As a deterrent, the Swiss government has said it will shoot down any unauthorised aircraft, including hot-air balloons, that stray within a 50-mile radius of Davos.

Big hitters expected to attend include the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell; Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, and the newly elected Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The British Trade and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, flies in today.

In keeping with the sobriety of the times, the customary Saturday night black-tie "Gala Soirée" with cabaret has been cancelled in favour of an evening of classical music. The WEF, which has organised the event around the theme of "restoring public trust", felt ostentatious partying would send out the wrong message.

And the triumphalism that once characterised these meetings is almost absent. Since the Enron and WorldCom scandals, and with savings decimated by the stock market collapse, no one quite likes to boast any more, even if they've got something to boast about. As one participant glumly put it; "At the height of the dot.com boom, our main concern was about how we should brand our website, or that our stock price had risen by only 100 per cent over the past year. Today we worry about whether we are going to end up behind bars".

The world's elite has much to be worried about. According to an international poll commissioned by the WEF, we now live in a world where the most trusted organisations and institutions are those without power – NGOs and religious bodies – while the least trusted are governments, politicians and companies. Over the last year, public trust in established political and business leaders has continued to fall alarmingly. There is a big decrease in almost every country in the number of citizens who think the world is going in the right direction. Only in China do people generally feel that things are getting better.

Presenting the findings, Doug Miller, the president of Environics International, characterised the collapse of trust in the institutions of advanced capitalist economies as "a growing and significant threat to global stability".

Most of the largish contingent of American business leaders and economists here attempt to put as positive a spin on the economic outlook as they can, but no one is confident in their forecasts. Gail Fosler, chief economist with The Conference Board, a US forecasting group, expects America's growth this year to return to a trend of about 3.5 per cent but even she, an unrepentant optimist who has often been wrong before, admits that war in Iraq could upset that.

As for Europe, few are prepared to predict growth of more than 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent and there is general resignation to the idea that things are unlikely to improve much until Germany grasps the nettle of structural reform. No one here thinks that likely any time soon. "Forget the five economic tests", said Jurgen von Hagen, professor of economics at Bonn University. "Britain would be unwise to join the euro while Germany's trend rate of growth remains so much lower than her own."



To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (347662)1/25/2003 8:52:15 AM
From: JEB  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Reagan cut taxes: revenues fell and deficits exploded.

I see you like to make things up out of whole cloth.



To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (347662)1/25/2003 1:10:29 PM
From: Peter O'Brien  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Well, then, I guess it really is simple
after all!

All United Airlines needs to do is jack up
their ticket prices by 20% or so, and all
their problems will be solved!

Their revenues should increase by 20%,
which should be more than enough to solve
their "deficit" problem, right?

Bravo! Brilliant analysis!



To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (347662)1/30/2003 11:57:03 PM
From: JEB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
<<Wal-mart and Southwest airlines
have the LOWEST prices.
They also have the largest SURPLUSES
(i.e., profits) in their respective
industries.>>
So would you say if they lowered prices further, their profits would go even higher? Would zero prices yield infinite profits?
In government the exact opposite of what you assert is true.
Reagan cut taxes: revenues fell and deficits exploded.


This is the most common and overly simplistic interpretation of the budgetary events of the 1980s. Further, it is factually untrue that the Reagan tax cuts were a major cause of the budget deficits of the 1980s and the "quadrupling" of the debt. (In the 1980s the real debt doubled; it did not quadruple.) Real federal revenues grew at a faster pace after the Reagan tax cuts than after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes. From 1982 to 1989, they expanded by 24.1 percent. Over a comparable seven-year period, 1990-97, a period that accounts for both the Bush and the Clinton tax increases, real federal revenues will have grown by 19.3 percent (see Table 5). The lesson of the 1980s and 1990s is consistent with the supply-side theory that there are behavioral and investment responses to changes in tax rates.

As a share of GDP, federal revenues fell from 20.2 percent in 1981 (the peak year for taxes as a share of GDP in the post-World War II period) to a low of 18.0 percent of GDP in 1984, and rose back up to 19.2 percent by 1989. This would suggest that the Reagan tax cuts were a small contributing factor to the increase in the budget deficit over the course of the 1980s. From 1950 to 1995, federal receipts have averaged 18.4 percent of GDP. Hence, throughout most of the Reagan years and clearly by the end, taxes as a share of national output were substantially above the postwar average.

If the Reagan tax cut was not the major contributing factor to the increasing deficit in the 1980s, what was? There were two primary explanations: (1) a large and sustained defense build-up; and (2) the unexpected rapid decline in inflation and the recession in the early 1980s.

Clinton raised taxes: revenue soared and deficits virtually disappeared.

Oil prices fell into the basement and practically everyone made truckloads of money.

Bush cut taxes: revenue is dropping and deficits are exploding again.
A perfect correlation and the exact opposite of what you claim to be true.


What tax cuts? We’ve only seen a tax rebate.

In fact Federal revenue grew faster under Jimmy Carter than it did under Ronald Reagan. And of course it grew much faster under Clinton than under Reagan.
Your theory is severely lacking.


Carter taxed us into a recession. Clinton taxed us into a recession.

cato.org