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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (96580)	1/24/2005 2:39:28 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793698

Central banks shift reserves away from US By Chris Giles Published: January 24 2005 00:03 \| Last updated: January 24 2005 00:03 Central banks are shifting reserves away from the US and towards the eurozone in a move that looks set to deepen the Bush administration's difficulties in financing its ballooning current account deficit. In actions likely to undermine the dollar's value on currency markets, 70 per cent of central bank reserve managers said they had increased their exposure to the euro over the past two years. The majority thought eurozone money and debt markets were as attractive a destination for investment as the US. The findings emerge from a survey of central bank reserve managers published today and conducted between September and December of last year. About 65 central banks, controlling assets worth $1,700bn, took part and the results showed a marked change in attitude over the past two years. Any rebalancing of central bank reserve portfolios has serious implications for the global financial system as the US has become increasingly dependent on official flows of funds to finance its current account deficit, estimated at $650bn in 2004. At the end of 2003, central banks held 70 per cent of their official reserves in dollar- denominated assets and central bank purchases of US securities had financed more than 80 per cent of the the US current account deficit in 2003. Any reluctance to increase exposure to dollar assets further could cause the greenback to plunge on currency markets. "The US cannot take support for the dollar for granted," said Nick Carver, one of the authors of the study conducted by Central Banking Publications, a company that specialises in reporting on central banks. "Central banks' enthusiasm for the dollar seem to be cooling off." In a further worrying sign for the greenback, 47 per cent of reserve managers surveyed said they expected the growth of official reserves to slow to less than 20 per cent over the next four years. Between the end of 2000 and mid-2004, official reserves had increased by 66 per cent. Slower reserve accumulation growth implies the supply of official finance is likely to become more limited but few expect the demand from the US for finance to slow. The consensus among economists is that the US current account deficit will increase to $694bn in 2005. More than 90 per cent of central bank reserve managers said that the income from reserve management was "important" or "very important". In the two years since a similar survey was conducted, reserve managers had begun to seek higher returns for the money under management. For these managers, dollar assets have become less attractive because the fall in the dollar since 2002 has reduced the yield they received and, in some cases, has led to negative real returns. Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned in November that there was a limit to the willingness of foreign governments to finance the US current account deficit. The survey was conducted on the guarantee of anonymity for the banks involved. The 65 central banks that participated control 45 per cent of global official reserves. Individually, they had up to $250bn under management. Find this article at: news.ft.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (96580)	1/24/2005 3:11:53 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793698

What I assume is that "they", the ones who make social policy, will decide that males are wired one way and females wired another, on the basis of averages, instead of individual abilities. I fully appreciate your concern about misuse of the data. I don't think group averages matter in the least. Only individuals matter. I agree that it's individuals that matter. The way we best serve individual differences is to recognize that there are multiple ways to process information and to use the entire toolkit so we can reach each individual. We already cater to this to the extent that we know enough. For example, some people process words better and others process pictures better. We typically explain survey results, for example, in words and then supplement that with a graph so that both the "left brainers" and the "right brainers" have something that resonates. Some people learn better by doing. I happen to not be one of them so I am well aware of how problematic it can be to train people only that way. I'm fortunate that my school work was over while lectures were still the primary teaching tool. I can't learn anything unless I have a conceptual framework from which to work. I think top down. If I'm given a framework, I'll use it. If not, I fumble along until I get enough experience to construct one. Waste of time. And very awkward. I was struck by one difference in thinking during the second generation of computer systems development when systems became more complex and programming became modular and hierarchical. So many people in the biz were linear thinkers. They'd try to do flow charts that were miles long and they stumbled. The top down thinkers were the ones who advanced. Once I figured this out, hiring decisions became no-brainers. I mention these various anecdotes because I'm fascinated by the different ways that people approach problems and because, as a "minority" thinker, I appreciate how much our understanding of such things optimizes the individual both for his sake and for the sake of society. I hate to see studies designed to focus on differences between men and women at the expense of other variables. And I hate to see multi-dimentional studies corrupted by policy idiots and run-of-the-mill bigots. But we can't be flat-earthers, either. Too much lost opportunity.