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 (50315)7/5/2004 11:54:55 AM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Hornet's Nest...101

Americans to Begin Leaving Bahrain

By ADNAN MALIK, Associated Press Writer

MANAMA, Bahrain - U.S. military families will begin leaving Bahrain in the next few days following reports terrorists were planning attacks here, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy (news - web sites)'s 5th Fleet said Monday.

AFP/File Photo



Cmdr. James Graybeal said the formal departure orders came late Sunday, two days after the Pentagon (news - web sites) announced the first such mandatory evacuation from this longtime U.S. ally in the Gulf.

Graybeal said the orders affected 350 families, or about 650 people. They were relatives of service members or Defense Department staff, he said. He said earlier reports that nonessential staff also were being evacuated were incorrect.

"We are in the process of executing the departure, which will happen in the next few days," Graybeal said. Citing security, he refused to say how the families would travel or exactly where in the United States they were headed.

The U.S. 5th fleet is based in Bahrain, where the U.S. Navy has had a presence for more than 50 years.

On Thursday, the State Department cautioned Americans against traveling to Bahrain and advised Americans who live there to leave because of information that extremists were planning attacks in Bahrain.

The Pentagon said Friday it was withdrawing service members' families from Bahrain for at least 30 days. The State Department added Saturday it had authorized the voluntary departure of family members and non-emergency employees of the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain.

The State Department has provided no details on the information it has about possible terror attacks on Americans in Bahrain.

Bahrain is linked by a 15-mile causeway to Saudi Arabia, which has seen a series of attacks on Americans and other Westerners living there. Some here have expressed fears that Saudi militants, under pressure from their security forces, might see Bahrain as an easier place to attack Westerners.

The Saudi violence has been blamed on members of or sympathizers with al-Qaida, the network of anti-Western Muslim extremists blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. Al-Qaida has vowed to topple the Saudi royal family, accusing it of being too close to the United States and insufficiently Islamic.

The Bahraini king, Sheik Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, also is close to the United States. Sheik Hamad was one of the few Arab leaders to accept an invitation to last month's Group of Eight summit in the United States, where a U.S. initiative to encourage democratization in the Arab world was unveiled.

Saturday, Sheik Hamad said Bahrain was ready to send a naval force to help safeguard Iraqi territorial waters if asked by the new, U.S.-backed Iraqi government. Few other Arab leaders have been willing to commit troops for fear of being seen as supporting the U.S.-led war that toppled Iraq (news - web sites)'s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (50315)7/5/2004 3:52:16 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Superpower or Superdebtor?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD




Since the passage of the “Iraq Liberation Act” in 1998, the US government has spent more than 40 million taxpayer dollars on the Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi. As we now know, Chalabi in turn fed the US government lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda in the hope that the US would invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and put him in power. To hedge his bets, it appears he made a few deals with the Iranians, delivering US intelligence to that country. How’s that for gratitude? Now we see that the US has raided the house of Ahmed Chalabi and seized his papers and computers to see how much damage he may have caused the US with his Iranian dealings.

Round and round we go, and we never seem to learn. Regime change plans, whether by CIA operations or by preemptive war, almost always go badly. American intervention abroad – installing the Shah of Iran in the fifties, killing Diem in South Vietnam in the sixties, helping Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the eighties, and propping up dictators in many Arab countries – has had serious repercussions for American interests including the loss of American life.

It is clear that interventionism leads to the perceived need for more interventionism, which leads to more conflict and to increased resentment and anti-Americanism. It is an endless cycle and the American taxpayer is always left holding the bill. This policy has huge dollar costs at home, which contributes to huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation, and economic dislocations. War cannot raise the standard of living for the average American.

The day is fast approaching when we no longer will be able to afford this burden. For now foreign governments are willing to loan us the money needed to finance our current account deficit, and indirectly the cost of our worldwide military operations. But economic law eventually will limit our ability to live off others by credit creation. Eventually trust in the dollar will be diminished, if not destroyed. At that point it will become painfully obvious to even the most strident supporter of our interventionist foreign policy that the super-power has become a super-debtor, its power and influence greatly diminished, and its people much poorer and more vulnerable.

It is not too late to change course. The United States can again be viewed as the shining city on the hill and an example to other nations by re-embracing the kind of foreign and economic policies that made us wealthy and admired across the globe in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, and no foreign meddling. Regaining our economic security will go much further toward guaranteeing our national security in the future.

June 8, 2004

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

lewrockwell.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (50315)7/5/2004 11:53:11 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Message 20281248



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (50315)7/6/2004 8:48:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
America: the world's biggest hedge fund
_________________________________

Jun 30th 2004

From The Economist Global Agenda

Are markets about to start panicking about the dollar again—with good reason?

YOU, dear reader, along with everyone else from Tokyo to Tallahassee, will have been casting your gaze towards Washington this week, to see how large would be the puff of smoke emanating from the Federal Open Market Committee. Airwaves will be filled and forests felled with discussions, learned and otherwise, parsing the utterances of the members of that august committee of interest-rate setters, and particularly those of its chairman, Alan Greenspan, for clues as to how fast interest rates will rise in coming months. Precious few eyes, it is safe to aver, will have been on an annual survey of America’s net investment position released on Wednesday June 30th by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). But since everyone knew what the Fed would decide on the same day, Buttonwood wonders whether the BEA’s was not the more important statistic coming out of Washington this week, since it provided reasons aplenty why the dollar has further—a lot further, perhaps—to fall.

Last year and earlier this year, if memory serves, financial markets were abuzz with talk of the dollar’s dismal prospects, perhaps even its imminent collapse. There was much discussion of America’s humungous twin deficits (its budget deficit and current-account deficit); fuming about Asian central banks trying to stop their currencies rising against the dollar (though less fuming about how their purchases kept down long-term interest rates); and raging about how none of this was sustainable. The dollar, most right-thinking people agreed, needed to drop, though in an orderly fashion so as not to scare off those nice Asian central banks who had bought squillions of dollars’ worth of Treasury bonds. Buttonwood himself even weighed in with a few less-than-cogent thoughts, and discussed the advantages of America as a holiday destination with his daughters. Naturally, the dollar went up, and talk about it doing otherwise has dwindled to vanishing point.

Perhaps that is why, in recent weeks, the greenback has begun to slide again, while gold has staged a comeback to $400 an ounce. Since mid-May, the dollar has fallen by 4% on a trade-weighted basis. On the face of it, this seems peculiar. The dollar has started to fall again even as the chatter about interest-rate rises has got louder. Naively, you might expect a currency whose interest rates are about to rise to go up, not down. One explanation why the reverse has been the case is that the Fed has been late in stamping on inflationary pressures, so real interest rates—ie, adjusted for inflation—are falling even as nominal rates are expected to rise. There might, however, be another explanation: that rising rates will make an already awful current-account deficit worse still, and that markets are again starting to realise that the only way in which this can be corrected in the long term is by a sharply lower dollar.

The current account essentially comprises two things: the trade balance and overseas investment income. America’s trade deficit is bad and getting worse, even though the dollar has fallen by 23% from its recent high in February 2002. A $46.6 billion trade deficit in March had risen to $48.3 billion in April. In the absence of a net surplus from foreign investment, notes Jim O’Neill, the chief international economist at Goldman Sachs, this would mean a current-account deficit for the year of more than $600 billion, or getting on for 6% of GDP. No problem, say the more sanguine: America has long been able to finance its large and growing deficit because it is such a wonderful place in which to invest.

There are, however, a couple of snags with this argument. The first is that Americans find foreign climes more attractive to invest in than foreigners regard America: net foreign direct investment (FDI) has amounted to minus $155 billion over the last 12 months. And who can blame them? Returns on FDI into America were 5.5% in the first quarter, compared with returns of 11.7% on American firms’ foreign investment. Nor is this an aberration: the returns in America have been consistently lower for many years.

This gap has been plugged by portfolio flows (investment in such things as stocks and bonds) but of late the overwhelming majority of these have been due to foreign central banks, particularly Asian ones, trying to stop their currencies rising against the dollar, and buying Treasuries as a by-product of this intervention. Foreign central banks now hold $1.2 trillion of Treasury bonds. As growth and inflation rise in Asia (or in Japan’s case, as deflation eases), the arguments for intervening look much shakier. Japan, indeed, seems almost to have stopped wading into the foreign-exchange markets. Foreign central banks are, moreover, starting to fret about the amount that they hold in dollars. None of this bodes well for the dollar’s future value.

Nor does the net income that America makes on foreign investment. In the first quarter, this surplus amounted to almost 0.5% of GDP. This seems extraordinary, for reasons that have everything to do with the BEA’s annual survey. This showed that America's net foreign liabilities have continued to rise, standing at over 24% of GDP at the end of last year, up from almost 23% in 2002. Despite that, the country still managed to make more money from investing abroad than it had to pay to foreigners, for the simple reason that American investors’ domestic financing costs were so much lower than their overseas returns. In other words, says Mr O’Neill, the United States is like a giant hedge fund, borrowing huge wodges of cheap money at home and then investing it in higher-yielding foreign assets.

Which is where we return to the subject of higher interest rates. When interest rates go up, this net surplus on America’s investment income will turn into a deficit. A yield on ten-year Treasury bonds of 6%, says Goldman Sachs, would in the space of a few years add 1% of GDP to the current-account deficit, solely through higher interest charges. Whether or not yields reach such giddy heights depends mainly on two things: how much inflation is actually picking up; and foreigners’ continued willingness to supply the giant hedge fund known as the United States of America with cheap finance. Still, Mr O’Neill, for one, thinks it “virtually impossible to be a structural bull on the dollar”. Buttonwood finds it virtually impossible to disagree. His pony-mad younger daughter is enthralled by the idea of a holiday on a dude ranch.

economist.co.uk