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: maceng2 who wrote (18995)	12/19/2004 4:25:08 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Meanwhile Gordon Brown is out to fix the worlds problems.. reuters.com UK's Brown urges use of IMF gold for debt relief Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:03 PM ET NEW YORK, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Gordon Brown, U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer, repeated his proposal on Friday that developing nations' debt to the International Monetary Fund be written off by revaluing the institution's gold reserves. Brown's proposal has fallen on deaf ears among many global policymakers, leading some analysts to believe he would back down. But in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Brown again gave his backing to the idea, which he said would be part of a broader drive to wipe out all developing countries' multilateral debt. "I suggest that IMF debt write-off be financed using IMF gold and that donor countries make a unique declaration that they will, on this occasion, repatriate their share of World Bank and African Development Bank debts owed by eligible developing countries," he told the CFR. It will take a "bold act" to offer 100 percent relief for the total $80 billion debt owed to these three institutions, Brown said. Under a 1971 agreement, most IMF gold is valued at just $40 to $50 an ounce, about a tenth of the current market price of more than $438 an ounce (XAU=: Quote, Profile, Research) . The IMF holds 103.4 million ounces of gold. Britain wants the bullion revalued to release billions of dollars for debt relief. Brown said rich nations should make a "historic" offer in 2005 to wipe out the debts that cripple developing nations. This should include increasing aid, tearing down trade barriers and tariffs and opening up their markets. To this end, his plan for a temporary International Finance Facility (IFF) would raise an extra $50 billion a year by issuing bonds using donors' long-term funding commitments as collateral -- effectively securitizing national aid budgets. Brown said these measures are urgently needed if the Millennium Development Goals of halving world poverty, reducing infant mortality by two-thirds and providing primary education to every child by 2015 are to be met. At present, these goals will not be met for at least 100 years, Brown said. Brown also said that developing nations must do their bit too, like increasing transparency in government, legal institutions and financial and economic spheres.

To: maceng2 who wrote (18995)	12/19/2004 5:29:23 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 116555

Since the start of the year, employment measured by the survey of employers has fallen by 112,000 in the private sector, with only 115,000 extra public-sector jobs preventing a fall in total numbers in work. How the H is that rosy? I am going to repeat the section in question: ============================================================== However, this rosy picture of job market conditions was thrown into doubt by a separate official survey showing that employers have reported a sharp drop in total numbers in work. The quarterly workforce jobs survey of companies’ payrolls showed that employment tumbled by 41,000 in the third quarter. This marked the first quarterly decline since autumn 2001, in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the sharpest fall since spring 1998. The workforce jobs report showed a drop of 70,000 in private sector employment, offset by 29,000 extra taxpayer-funded jobs in the nation’s burgeoning public sector. Since the start of the year, employment measured by the survey of employers has fallen by 112,000 in the private sector, with only 115,000 extra public-sector jobs preventing a fall in total numbers in work. The gloomy survey data, updated only quarterly by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), called into question the more upbeat indications from headline figures which normally command greater attention and were yesterday hailed by ministers. The claimant count of unemployment fell by 3,400 in November to a new low of 833,200. The Government’s preferred jobs market figures, based on the Labour Force Survey (LFS) of individuals, also showed unemployment down, by 29,000 over the three months to the end of October. This was despite a continued steep loss of manufacuring jobs, down by 112,000 over the same period. The LFS data showed numbers of people in work at a record high of 28.4 million. ================================================ Pearly it would appear to me from that last paragraph in bold, that the Governments PREFERRED jobs numbers come from the LFS, Labor Force Survey. Isn't that the equivalent of the US "Household Survey"? Here in the US whatever numbers are better typically are the numbers that get touted, and note to that our unemployment numbers typically are based on the household data which has been growing gangbusters (no doubt with people attempting to sell on Ebay, and other such nonsense). Note we also have the birth/death model and I am not sure you have that in the UK at all. I presume you know what that is but if not, the govt assumes a certain number of jobs were created based on historical data about how far along the recovery is presumed to be (birth and death of businesses not individuals). Needless to say they have assumed a hell of a lot of jobs due to new business births vs deaths. So back to my question. It seem that Brown prefers to use the Labor Force Survey of INDIVIDUALS, whereas the "gloomy" report was a survey of actual businesses. As for me, I think the latter is far more accurate although in theory it can miss new businesses being created. Perhaps that is factored in properly in the UK while we ASSUME them here in the US. In that UK LFS, how much of that is part time jobs, selling stuff on Ebay, delivering newspapers just to get some money coming in, or attempting to flip real estate and calling it a job? Mish