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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (3090)	3/29/2004 8:35:43 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

A voice of reason. house.gov March (Budget) Madness Despite all the rhetoric flying around Washington last week during the annual budget debate, one fact about the new budget is clear: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for the enormous budget resolution, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, especially when we remember that the federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? Hardly. It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony talk about “priorities” and recognize federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is. A federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in one year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation's GDP is far too large. Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are these ever-growing social services and military expenditures really proper in a free country? We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all. My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire, because Democrats always offer to spend even more than Republicans. When congressional Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion, and why not? It's all funny money anyway, and it helps them get reelected. The term “baseline budget” is used every year in Washington. It means the previous year's spending levels represent only a baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If Republicans offer a budget that increases federal spending by 3%, while Democrats propose 6% growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it. Furthermore, the budget passed last week further entrenches another phony Washington concept. An increasing percentage of the budget is categorized as “nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either. Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a bureaucrat's dream, because it assumes we as a society simply have accepted that most federal programs must be funded as a matter of course. NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable. The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would be unnecessary if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the federal government.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (3090)	3/29/2004 8:51:48 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

The Day the FED stood still financialsense.com While The Fed has been busy concerning itself with the public's and business world's perceptions of the mere possibility of inflation, it has done an awful job of preventing inflation from occurring. Despite all of the efforts of government economists to tell us that inflation is tame, over the past four years, consumer prices for prescription drugs, food, and energy have increased steadily. These are things we need. We use TV's. We like TV's. But babies need milk. Now we are getting beyond the steady inflation phase and into the serious phase. These are the slowly moving, inevitably inflationary pressures building up in the consumer economy of the U.S. Retail gas inflation is now turning into disorderly, chaotic price inflation. But there is something much more substantial and dangerous behind this. It is severe inflation in commodity prices globally—regardless of the effects of currency translations between the declining dollar and rising currencies that are rising against the greenback. ... The Fed worries a bit about this. People and companies can always reduce their expenditures without Fed intervention. The Fed is clear: it does not want the housing market and credit markets to crack. The Fed worries about rising TV prices but not nearly as much as it is worried about the trillions of dollars in notional derivatives that underpin the credit markets and interest rates. The collateralized bond markets float upon a jet stream of derivatives. This frightening scenario is neither far-fetched nor far from taking place. When gas hits $3.00 a gallon, we will remember that day as The Day the Fed Stood Still.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (3090)	3/29/2004 9:14:22 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

Saudi Arabia calls for oil output cut news.ft.com Saudi Arabia will on Tuesday push the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to cut output despite some members' opposition and high oil prices. Ali Naimi, Saudia Arabia's energy minister, late on Monday told Felipe Calderón, his Mexican counterpart, that the market looked over-supplied and that the kingdom feared a serious price drop in the coming months if the oil cartel did not act immediately, people close to the meeting said.