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: russwinter who wrote (13374)	10/13/2004 11:18:02 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Forcing Kids Into a Mental Health Ghetto This was the subject of Ron Pauls article several weeks ago. house.gov Forcing Kids Into a Mental Health Ghetto A presidential initiative called The “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health” has issued a report recommending forced mental health screening for every child in America, including preschool children. The goal is to promote the patently false idea that we have a nation of children with undiagnosed mental disorders crying out for treatment. One obvious beneficiary of the proposal is the pharmaceutical industry, which is eager to sell the psychotropic drugs that undoubtedly will be prescribed to millions of American schoolchildren under the new screening program. Of course a tiny minority of children suffer from legitimate mental illnesses, but the widespread use of Ritalin and other drugs on youngsters who simply exhibit typical rambunctious, fidgety, and impatient behavior is nothing short of criminal. It may be easier to teach and parent drugged kids, but convenience is no justification for endangering them. Children's brains are still developing, and the truth is we have no idea what the long-term side effects of psychiatric drugs may be. Medical science has not even exhaustively identified every possible brain chemical, even as we alter those chemicals with drugs. Dr. Karen Effrem, a physician who strongly opposes mandatory mental health screening, warns us that “America's children should not be medicated by expensive, ineffective, and dangerous medications based on vague and dubious diagnoses.” She points out that psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective, as authors of the diagnostic manuals admit. She also is concerned that mental health screening could be used to label children whose attitudes, religious beliefs, and political views conflict with the secular orthodoxy that dominates our schools. The greater issue, however, is not whether youth mental health screening is appropriate. The real issue is whether the state owns your kids. When the government orders “universal” mental health screening in schools, it really means “mandatory.” Parents, children, and their private doctors should decide whether a child has mental health problems, not government bureaucrats. That this even needs to be stated is a sign of just how obedient our society has become toward government. What kind of free people would turn their children's most intimate health matters over to government strangers? How in the world have we allowed government to become so powerful and arrogant that it assumes it can force children to accept psychiatric treatment whether parents object or not? Parents must do everything possible to retain responsibility and control over their children's well-being. There is no end to the bureaucratic appetite to rule every aspect of our lives, including how we raise our children. Forced mental health screening is just the latest of many state usurpations of parental authority: compulsory education laws, politically-correct school curricula, mandatory vaccines, and interference with discipline through phony “social services” agencies all represent assaults on families. The political right has now joined the political left in seeking the de facto nationalization of children, and only informed resistance by parents can stop it. The federal government is slowly but surely destroying real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent. And a follow-up.... house.gov Mental Health Screening for Kids- Part II September 20, 2004 Last week I wrote about a presidential initiative called the “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,” which issued a report calling for the mandatory mental health screening of American schoolchildren. This new proposal threatens to force millions of kids to undergo psychiatric screening, whether their parents consent or not. At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children. I introduced an amendment to eliminate any funding for the proposal in a Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services spending bill. Although the amendment failed, the response to my office has been overwhelming and highly supportive. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government. Some members of Congress objected to my amendment on the grounds that the federal screening program does not yet exist, so it's premature to oppose it. But the whole point was to prevent the proposal from being implemented in the first place. Once created, federal programs are nearly impossible to eliminate. Congress had a rare opportunity to stop a bad idea in its tracks, before it becomes entrenched. Every member who opposes the idea of forcing kids to undergo mental health screening should have sent a strong statement by voting for my amendment. They will have another chance to kill the initiative when I introduce a stand-alone bill later this year. Furthermore, it's not true that no money has been allocated for the proposal. The Appropriations committee, which distributes your tax dollars to the various federal agencies, specifically allotted $20 million in the HHS/Education bill for state programs in support of the New Freedom commission report. These federally-funded state programs will be the precursors of the broader federal program recommended by the commission. Anyone who understands bureaucracies knows they assume more and more power incrementally. A few scattered state programs over time will be replaced by a federal program implemented in a few select cities. Once the limited federal program is accepted, it will be expanded nationwide. Once in place throughout the country, the screening program will become mandatory. This is why we can never trust new bureaucratic programs: no matter how benevolent their proponents claim them to be, most programs morph into something much larger than originally foreseen. Those who view my concerns as alarmism fail to understand the inevitable nature of bureaucratic growth. Soviet communists attempted to paint all opposition to the state as mental illness. It now seems our own federal government wants to create a therapeutic nanny state, beginning with schoolchildren. It's not hard to imagine a time 20 or 30 years from now when government psychiatrists stigmatize children whose religious, social, or political values do not comport with those of the politically correct, secular state. American parents must do everything they can to remain responsible for their children's well-being. If we allow government to become intimately involved with our children's minds and bodies, we will have lost the final vestiges of parental authority. Strong families are the last line of defense against an overreaching bureaucratic state.

To: russwinter who wrote (13374)	10/13/2004 11:23:04 AM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

The Paris-based International Energy Agency yesterday lowered its 2005 demand growth forecast because high prices will slow the world economy...``This has been an exceptional year and we have to be realistic that demand growth is probably going to slow next year, when we may see $40-a-barrel oil,' quote.bloomberg.com

To: russwinter who wrote (13374)	10/13/2004 11:26:54 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Sarkozy sees ´no chance´ that oil situation will improve on its own [This viewpoint from France seems reasonable enough - Mish] Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:36:38 AM afxpress.com Sarkozy sees 'no chance' that oil situation will improve on its own PARIS (AFX) - Finance minister Nicolas Sarkozy said there is "no chance" that record high oil prices will come down of their own accord and that major energy-saving measures must be put in place He ruled out, however, a reintroduction of the TIPP floating tax on oil and fuel products that was aimed at reducing volatility in energy prices Restoring the tax is "a decision which must be taken alongside European partners," Sarkozy told state radio France Inter Farmers however, will benefit from a temporary 4 cent per litre cut in the price of fuel for operating their machinery, he announced

To: russwinter who wrote (13374)	10/13/2004 11:37:35 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Sept. oil output at lowest monthly level in 50 yrs: API Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:22:39 PM afxpress.com SAN FRANCISCO (AFX) -- U.S. crude-oil production in September fell to its lowest monthly level in more than 50 years, according to a monthly report from the American Petroleum Institute issued Wednesday morning. Crude-oil output was down almost 15 percent at 4.85 million barrels per day that month compared with a year earlier, the report said. The decline was attributed to hurricane-related disruptions in the Gulf of Mexico and a fall in Alaskan output. At the same time, total September petroleum deliveries, a key measure of demand, rose 3 percent, the API said

To: russwinter who wrote (13374)	10/13/2004 4:32:27 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

McTeer to step down from FED. "Everything was fine when I left." WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Robert McTeer, the president of the Fed Bank of Dallas, has been named as the sole finalist for the chancellorship of the Texas A&M University system. Under Texas law, the Texas A&M System Board of Regents cannot vote on the nomination until Nov. 4 to allow for public comment. McTeer has headed the Dallas Fed since February 1991. He became known as the "Lonesome Dove" for being the only FOMC member to vote against Fed rate hikes in June and August 1999.

To: russwinter who wrote (13374)	10/13/2004 4:41:09 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

Working for a Pittance nytimes.com Here's a link to the complete report: www.aecf.org/initiatives/jobsinitiative/workingpoor/working_hard.pdf

To: russwinter who wrote (13374)	10/13/2004 4:45:25 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Smoke and mirrors cbs.marketwatch.com SAN DIEGO (CBS.MW) -- Intel's claim that inventory fell by $43 million last quarter from the second quarter may really be little more than smoke-and-mirrors. While the dollar amount of inventory may have fallen, the number of parts gathering dust may have ballooned -- and not necessarily by a small amount. The actual number is impossible to tell because as I noted Tuesday night in Herb Greenberg's RealityCheck, Intel CFO Andy Bryant went out of his way not to disclose the size of an inventory write-off and a higher-than-expected inventory reserve. Bryant said he couldn't give a specific number because the reserve and write-off (or product "revaluation," as he put it) involve more than one item. Not that that makes sense. "This is a company that makes microprocessors," says longtime Intel (INTC: news, chart, profile) bear Bill Fleckenstein of Fleckenstein Capital. "Are they telling us they can't add?" Actually, it may be telling you they can add, but don't want to shine a spotlight on the number because it's so large and would likely raise other questions. How large? Try between $400 million to $500 million -- or $472 million, to be exact. That's the amount of increase in cost of sales, which is where Intel records inventory write-offs and reserves. After hovering at around $3.2 billion for at least four quarters, it shot up last quarter by nearly 15 percent to $3.75 billion. In a business where costs are fairly stable, it would appear most of the rise is related to the write-off and reserves. Beyond that, it's impossible to tell how much was a write-off and how much was reserves. By obfuscating the issue, the company can make it appear as though its inventory problems under control. But Fleckenstein believes it also diverts attention from a more serious issue: Not only are customers saturated with too much inventory -- and not only is Intel facing competitive pressure from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD: news, chart, profile) -- but it appears the company simply has too much manufacturing capacity. (This has been Fleckenstein's argument for quite some time.) Indeed, in its 10-K, Intel says, "If our demand forecast for specific products is greater than actual demand and we fail to reduce manufacturing output accordingly, we could be required to record additional inventory reserves, which would have a negative impact on our gross margins." That appears to be just what's happening now. But the disclosure also suggests Intel could be forced to start making fewer chips, which translates into lower revenue and profits -- or perhaps no profits, depending on the size of any production cutback. A reduction by 25 percent, says Fleckenstein, would "wipe out" profits. That's before taking into account the impact of selling chips that based on the "revaluation" are being discounted. As for the higher-than-expected reserve, Fleckenstein is suspicious. Reserves would imply the company believes that going forward it will continue to be stuck with too much inventory that either can't be sold without a steep discount or are simply obsolete. (And to think this is the time of year sales should be perking up.) But taking an unusually high reserve could be a way for Intel to slowly leak the discounted inventory into the marketplace in coming quarters without taking a one-time, big-bath hit. Either way, the lack of Intel's willingness to provide details about the write-off and reserve, with management dancing around the issue, suggests what you see is definitely not what you get. Houdini would be proud.