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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: foundation who wrote (5911)	3/7/2003 8:38:37 AM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12247

It's Time for Serious Talk About the Dollar By Floyd Norris Is it really terrible when a government official tells the truth? You might think so, at least when the office in question is that of Treasury secretary and the subject is the dollar. There were horrified reactions this week when John W. Snow allowed that he was "not particularly concerned" about recent weakness of the dollar. "The dollar is going to rise and fall some," he said. "There's nothing unusual about this, nothing alarming about it." The dollar promptly slipped and commentators started talking about Mr. Snow's gaffe, which was compared to all the ones supposedly committed by his predecessor, Paul H. O'Neill. Mr. Snow's aides quickly said he continued to believe in a "strong dollar" policy, and the next day he dutifully said the same. The "strong dollar" policy is one of those things that every administration is supposed to follow, whatever the circumstances. The dollar is down 15 percent against the euro since President Bush took office. You don't hear criticism about that, but traders go berserk if a Treasury secretary does not stick to the script. Mr. Snow did not agree to be interviewed for this column, but his spokesman, asked what the policy was, provided the following statement: "There has been a consistent policy on the dollar going back the better part of a decade, which I support. I favor a strong dollar. A strong dollar is in the national interest. A strong currency provides a reliable medium of exchange and serves as a stable store of value that people choose to hold. Sound pro-growth economic policies and a commitment to free and open markets are the foundation for a strong dollar." Such generalities do not qualify as much of a policy, but in any case nothing that Mr. Snow said could have reasonably been interpreted as a departure from it. What is sad about this is that we could use some clear thinking on international economic issues, including the dollar. Mr. O'Neill had clearly given a lot of thought to those issues, but rather than consider what he had to say, the knee-jerk reaction was to say he had committed a gaffe by mentioning the subject at all. It is not clear if Mr. Snow has given much thought to the subject, but the reaction to his quite reasonable observations makes it unlikely he will be willing to say anything if he has. With the trade deficit continuing to soar and foreigners no longer eager to invest in America, there is something to be said for a weaker dollar. In fact, a continued weak world economy could easily see competitive devaluations, as countries fight for competitive advantages in trade. During the late 1990's, as America ran up huge trade deficits, the dollar was not damaged because foreigners were eager to invest here. But that has changed. Last year, foreign direct investment in the United States was just $46 billion, down 85 percent from 2000. For the first time since 1995, American direct investment in foreign countries was greater than foreigners' investment here. There was also a sharp falloff in stock purchases by foreigners. Foreigners now lend us the money we need rather than invest it in assets or shares. To John Paul Rathbone, an economics commentator on breakingviews.com, such borrowing is evidence that the United States is "taking on the financial characteristics of a banana republic." That's a hostile view from Britain. But borrowers need to worry about what lenders think of them. Instead, there is little talk about our foreign financial position, and an implicit assumption that we can borrow all we want, for as long as we want, at very low interest rates. It would behoove Mr. Snow to give some thought to those issues, and it would behoove the rest of us to not give him grief if he decides to discuss them, rather than simply repeat the all- but-meaningless mantra of a "strong dollar" policy. nytimes.com

To: foundation who wrote (5911)	3/7/2003 4:30:19 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 12247

Ben, Israel isn't a big deal from a humanitarian point of view. They are ethical. They aren't keen on genocide. The genocide in Jenin was a lie. There are more innocent people murdered in New York than by Israel, with some by police action. Look at Waco and compare that with Jenin for loss of innocent life. I'm not sure why Israel gets people drooling at the chops so much unless they are simply anti-Jewish for religious wacko reasons. There's mass murder all over the place if there's some worry about innocent people being suppressed and killed - Israel does almost none. Sure, Jews are religious wackoes too, thinking they have a 2000 year old right to own some old rock or something or other and maybe even the whole of some territory, because some story teller ranted about some promised land in some really, really, really old novel. But in practise, they aren't doing much compared with the mayhem in Kashmir, Africa and elsewhere. Catholics, Moslems and the Church of England, whatever they are called, are notoriously anti-Jewish. In fact, I don't know of any religious gang outside Buddhists and Bahais who I'd call civilized [in the sense of not wanting to rule the world]. They all seem to have the alpha male supremo destiny suppression of heretics, unbelievers, infidels, apostates and witches. Sure, the Moslems say they are a religion of peace [ignore those Koranic calls to kill]. The Catholics say they live by "Though shalt not kill" [unless it's children in Omagh, the Tower of London and anyone else they take a dislike to and Jews were a bit too icky to feel much sympathy for, since they deny that Jesus was anything other than a wacko black sheep of the family]. Personally, I'd reconstitute the United Nations. Tell Israel their 1948 UN mandated statehood was a mistake and is cancelled and take it over. Enough of that "Chosen People" superstitious insanity. Also take over the Palestinians and enforce secular law to run the show. None of that Islamic Jihad Koranic crap. Take over Iraq and use the oil to fund operations. It's only been run by conquest so better the UN run the show than Saddam. Take over Kuwait too - they lost the war with Iraq and only exist because of the United Nations [albeit with the USA doing the winning]. That'll boost oil revenues a lot. Kuwait only exists because of some Pommy Foreign Office lines on a map. Kuwaiti "Princes" can get real jobs and the oil wealth can be shared among We the Sheeple in the form of civilizing agencies such as rule of law, habeas corpus, police and military due process. That'll do for 2003. Feel free to ask for any more ideas. Mqurice