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


To: regli who wrote (45076)1/24/2006 9:18:59 AM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
UK Jan manufacturing order books worst since Aug 2005 - CBI UPDATE
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:47:48 AM
afxpress.com

(Updating with more detail on quarterly survey)
LONDON (AFX) - The hoped for improvement in the UK manufacturing sector failed to materialise in January with order books falling back to lows not seen since the summer of 2005, a leading business lobby group said today

In its industrial trends survey, the Confederation of British Industry said that 42 pct of firms reported lower than normal order books while 14 pct reported higher orders. The resulting net balance of -28 pct compares with -22 pct the previous months and expectations of an improvement to -20 pct pct

The latest reading is also the weakest since August last year

Not all the news was bad, however, with export orders improving sharply

A total of 33 pct of firms said export orders were below normal while 23 pct said they were above normal, resulting in a net balance of -10 pct in January. In December the net balance was at -23 pct. The latest reading is the best since August 2004

Additionally, the output balance improved to -1 pct from -4 pct in December. Manufacturers also expect domestic price pressures to rise over the coming three months, with a net balance of 12 pct of manufacturers predicting gains in the January survey compared with zero in the previous poll

From a quarterly point of view, the CBI reported that 25,000 jobs were lost in the last quarter as employers sought to offset the profit squeeze faced by the sector

Over the past 12 months, the total number of jobs lost in the sector was 106,000

At the same time, price pressures continued to accelerate with a net balance of 23 pct of manufacturers reporting an increase compared with 20 pct in the previous quarter and 13 pct before that

But manufacturers were unable to pass this on as weak demand kept prices flat and squeezed already tight profit margins further. Demand was weakest in the home market with a net balance of -15 pct of firms recording a quarter-on-quarter reduction in domestic orders

Manufacturing output in the three months to January was also down, with a balance of -6 pct of firms indicating that it was lower than in the previous three months -- the fourth successive quarterly decrease

"Conditions for manufacturers are getting increasingly tough as costs continue their seemingly inexorable rise but weak demand keeps prices down, squeezing already thin profit margins even further," Ian McCafferty, CBI chief economic adviser said

"Economic growth remains below par, partly because of the slowdown in consumer spending, and this has continued to hit manufacturers' domestic order books although exports are slightly more healthy. Investment intentions are also very weak and what is clear from the survey is that manufacturers have very little cause for optimism," he added



To: regli who wrote (45076)1/24/2006 1:30:26 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
I think it may finally be time for AndyXie to shine.
He stuck to his guns unlike roach who seems to waver back and forth every other month.

Asia/Pacific: Do Imbalances Matter?
Andy Xie (Hong Kong)
morganstanley.com

Mish



To: regli who wrote (45076)1/24/2006 1:32:15 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
money.cnn.com

DaimlerChrysler will implement a new management structure that will include cutting 20 percent of its general and administrative staff, the world's fifth-biggest car manufacturer said Tuesday.

The cuts are expected to reduce the company's global white-collar jobs by about 6,000 over the next three years and result in a $1.2 billion a year savings.



To: regli who wrote (45076)1/24/2006 2:40:08 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555
 
Intervention cuts yen's global role-Fed's Olson
Tuesday 24 January 2006, 8:43pm EST

(Updates with background, additional comments, paragraphs 4 to end)

WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - U.S. Federal Reserve Board Governor Mark Olson said on Monday that currency intervention by Japan is one factor that has diminished the yen's global role in comparison with the U.S. dollar and the euro.

Speaking to an audience at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pa., Olson said he thought there were a number of reasons the yen did not circulate as broadly outside Japan as the dollar and the euro do outside their currency areas.

"Number one, I think is that it lacks some stability. Number two, the Japanese are very much involved with intervening on behalf of their currency at times ... it is subject to a lot more potential volatility. And third you don't have the liquidity in the market," he said in answer to a question from the audience. An audio feed of his remarks was monitored in Washington.

Tokyo spent a record 35 trillion yen in 2003 and the first three months of 2004 combined to stem the yen's rise. It has stayed out of the market since March 2004.

Asked about the inversion of the U.S. yield curve, Olson said the U.S. central bank was not in the business of trying to determine the shape of the U.S. yield curve, but that it was important to understand the factors behind market yields.

"Whatever is happening with respect to the (U.S.) yield curve. it is an international phenomenon," Olson said, adding that "you would find exactly the same line" in looking at yields in Germany, Britain and Japan.

"What we try to do is understand the reason, but we don't try to determine what it should appropriately be," he said.

Before taking questions, Olson spoke broadly on issues relating to productivity, globalization and inflation, but steered clear of commenting directly on the outlook for the U.S. economy and interest rates.

As he had in similar remarks on Jan. 11, he said an expanding global workforce as Russia, China and other countries turned toward free markets had helped dampen wage rates around the globe and lowered inflation pressures. He said, however, this "seminal" shift eventually would run its course.
today.reuters.com



To: regli who wrote (45076)1/24/2006 3:36:21 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
China to escape deflation in 2006 - government economist

BEIJING (AFX) - China will escape deflation this year despite a slow down in consumer price index (CPI) growth in 2005, an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Science (CASS) said in an editorial published in the China Securities Journal.

'Although there are signs of deflation, real deflationary conditions are not expected to be realized,' said Yi Xianrong, director of the finance research department at CASS.

China's CPI growth stood at 1.8 pct for the first 11 months last year, down 2.2 percentage points from 2004.

Yi said CPI did not reflect real price levels in China due to the country's hybrid pricing system.

China's government has the final say on prices for certain products such as coal, natural gas and pharmaceuticals.

Furthermore, house prices are not included in the CPI basket, so rises in the producer price index are not accurately reflected in the CPI measurement, Yi said.

'It's not enough to judge the Chinese economy by using CPI as the sole indicator of deflation,' Yi said.

Yi also said China's robust economic growth this year will also prevent the onset of deflation.

China's gross domestic product growth is expected to reach 9.8 pct for 2005, following the double-digit expansion of 2004, and is forecast to stay above nine pct in 2006, Yi said.
forbes.com



To: regli who wrote (45076)1/24/2006 3:49:03 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116555
 
Still another example of Washington's Orwellian Newspeak.
Ford Takes a Tax Holiday for 'Jobs Creation'
By Allan Sloan
Tuesday, January 24, 2006; Page D02

It's almost enough to make you laugh -- bitterly, of course. Here was Ford Motor Co. announcing yesterday that it had cut 10,000 jobs last year and that it will cut up to 30,000 more. But shedding jobs at muscle-car acceleration rates didn't stop Ford from pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars courtesy of the American Jobs Creation Act.

No, I'm not making this up. Right there, on page 2 of one of its news releases yesterday, Ford said that "repatriation of foreign earnings pursuant to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 resulted in a permanent tax savings of about $250 million."

Hello? How can you simultaneously cut jobs and benefit from the American Jobs Creation Act? Welcome to the wonderful world of Washington nomenclature.

Ford, understandably, declined to expand on its news release. But my calculations indicate that Ford last year brought into the United States about $850 million of profit that it had earned overseas but did not have to share with the Internal Revenue Service.

Let me hasten to say that I've got no problem with Ford bringing this money home. Ford is battling for survival, and every $850 million helps. It would have been remiss not to have taken advantage of the idiotic legislation that Congress adopted and that President Bush signed despite objections from his Treasury Department and Council of Economic Advisers.

My problem is with the legislation, and especially with its misleading name. Companies don't add jobs based on one-time chances to repatriate money from overseas.

Congress should thank its lucky stars that federal truth-in-labeling laws don't apply to names it accords to legislation, because almost every dispassionate analyst agrees that the American Jobs Creation Act didn't create jobs in the United States. The only possible exception: short-term paper-shuffling positions added to allow companies to produce documents that let them qualify for the tax break without doing anything differently than they'd have otherwise done it.

In case you've forgotten, this law gave U.S. companies a one-time chance in 2005 to repatriate profits made overseas and pay only 5.25 percent tax on them rather than the standard 35 percent.

It was a tax holiday, and the biggest celebrators were pharmaceutical and tech companies that had traditionally kept tons of profits overseas. But Ford saw its chance and took it.

Despite dozens of pages of regulations issued by the Treasury Department to restrict use of the money to uses approved by Congress, the whole thing was unenforceable. Money, you see, is what economists call "fungible." Any dollar is like any other dollar. Ford, for instance, could use its $850 million of repatriated profits for a permitted use such as buying equipment, freeing up $850 million for other, non-approved uses.

American Enterprise Institute fellow Phillip L. Swagel, formerly chief of staff of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, told my Post colleague Jonathan Weisman last August that "you might as well have taken a helicopter over 90210 [a Beverly Hills Zip code] and pushed the money out the door." That's a memorable quote -- and a dead-accurate observation.

I suspect that when the Treasury finishes analyzing its corporate income-tax receipts for 2005, it will discover that a significant part of last year's surge in collections stems from this one-time tax break. Companies took advantage of it because they prefer paying a small tax today to possibly paying a higher tax tomorrow. It's the same kind of thing car companies do when they make car-loan terms longer. They add sales today but at the expense of sales tomorrow.

I hope that Ford returns to prosperity and begins adding U.S. jobs again, the way I hope that General Motors and Chrysler do. But the Ford example shows how nonsensical the name American Jobs Creation Act truly is. The bottom line: When you see a piece of legislation carrying a name that sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true.

washingtonpost.com



To: regli who wrote (45076)1/24/2006 3:49:47 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Eat, Drink, and Buy Merrily

Celebrated Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s true legacy is one of debt and fiscal deceit. His successor aims to follow.

by Bill Bonner

Alan Greenspan, the most famous public servant since Pontius Pilate, leaves his post on Jan. 31. We stand back in awe and wonder. Is it not to him that we owe this long stretch of calm and prosperity, known to economists as the Great Moderation? Has he not ably served six administrations, tending the empire’s money? Did he not win a host of awards, including the prestigious Enron Prize for Distinguished Public Service?

If nothing else, the American empire has been a more entertaining place since Greenspan took over at the Federal Reserve 18 years ago. Without sinking into the esoterica economica of it, the Fed’s role is to maintain financial discipline, to “take away the punchbowl” before things get out of control. Greenspan’s approach has been different. Like a naughty schoolboy, he adds more gin. As he leaves office, financiers are tap dancing on tables on Wall Street, after passing out $21 billion in bonuses. In California, realtors slap each other on the back after another year of double-digit house price gains. And over on the other side of the world, Chinese manufacturers can’t remember ever having it so good.

Americans gave him the Medal of Freedom. The British made him a knight. The French inducted him into the Legion of Honor. To his peers he is the “greatest central banker who ever lived.” To the public, his powers are almost magical. So how did an appointed U.S. public official achieve such popularity? The answer is simple. He threw the biggest party the world has ever seen.

Setting short-term lending rates first below market levels and then even below the rate of consumer price inflation, his easy-money policies stifled a much-needed recession in 2001, stirred a real-estate bubble on both coasts, coaxed a generation of Americans deeper into debt, juiced the price of oil up 500 percent, and helped re-elect two presidents and hundreds of members of Congress.

From the time he entered the Fed on Aug. 11, 1987, to the time he leaves it, the tap has never stopped running.

Since 1987, outstanding home-mortgage debt has jumped from $1.8 trillion to $8.2 trillion. Total consumer debt has gone from $2.7 trillion to $11 trillion. Household debt has quadrupled.

In 2005, the party got so hot that the neighbors threatened to call the police. Real wages (adjusted for inflation) went down for the second year in a row, leaving people with little choice. If they wanted to continue living in the style to which they had become accustomed, they had to borrow. Spiders who tried to weave their webs in the doorways of America’s lending institutions got no rest in ’05; the savings rate went negative—for the first time since the Great Depression.

And government debt exploded too. The feds owed less than $2 trillion in the second Reagan administration, a figure that had been almost constant for the previous 40 years. But since Greenspan has been at the Fed, the red ink has gushed—to over $8 trillion.

Greenspan must have had a special place in his heart for politicians of both parties; he was always ready to back them with as much fresh credit as they required. During the two terms of George W. Bush, the federal government has borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than all other American administrations put together, from 1776 to 2000. And more debt will be added in the eight Bush years than in the previous 200. If you distributed the cost of the government’s programs, promises, and pledges to the voters, along with the nation’s private debt, the typical household, and the nation itself, would be broke.

On Greenspan’s watch, the homeland also lost ground to its rivals. The trade deficit more than quadrupled from $150.7 billion to $661.8 and will reach $830 billion in 2006. When he came to power, the U.S. was still a creditor. Now it is a debtor, with more than $11 trillion worth of American assets in foreign hands, a more than 500 percent increase since 1987.

Yet the maestro’s financial reign has entered the history books as the Great Moderation, though there is nothing in the slightest bit moderate about America’s binge borrowing. And still, it is widely believed that the drunken revelry, the sturm und drang, the boom and bust of the markets have all magically vanished. It is as though a marching band had switched to elevator music, with the parade that normally follows replacing its clowns and freaks in gaudy get-ups with accountants, economists, and investment quants with laptop computers. The thrill has gone out of the whole thing. But so, supposedly, has the risk. Now the only risk is making a bad calculation.

That is said to be Greenspan’s real legacy; he has finally made central banking work. And his successor, Ben Bernanke, pledges not to mess it up. By targeting inflation, he says, he will be able to make the financial world even more stable and predictable. And if the party ever starts to wind down, he has told fellow economists that he will drop money out of helicopters, if necessary, to keep it going.

Here is where the gods must start holding their sides and rolling on the ground. This is not the first time they have seen this movie, but they laugh hard every time. Since 1971, the world has had an “experimental” financial system, with currencies backed by nothing more than the full faith and credit of government. Too bad, but history shows that government faith and credit always runs out, usually sooner than you expect. There are no counterexamples. Even the most successful empires in history have not been able to make full faith and credit stick.

The Roman Empire followed a, shall we say, classical model of imperial finance: it was built on a foundation of forced tribute. As the empire matured, force gave way to fraud. A kind of habitual cheating that the Romans called consuetudo fraudium crept into every transaction. First, the imperial money lost its value. Then, eventually, the empire itself was lost. Nero had no helicopters, but he knew Bernanke’s trick. In AD 64, he decreed that the number of aureus coins minted from a pound of gold would increase from 41 to 45, making each coin about 10 percent less valuable. The silver denarius, meanwhile, lost 99.98 percent of its value in the five centuries before the sacking of Rome.

Paper money makes it easier to cheat. Without dumping it from the sky, the dollar has lost 95 percent of its purchasing power since the Fed was set up to protect it in 1913. The Roman Empire managed to stand for a while before it went down. The American empire, on the other hand, barely stands at all. It is already a rickety slum of debt, delusion, and swindle—built on a mountain of Mr. Greenspan’s easy money.

Down at the bottom are petty agents spreading deceit and misinformation. Financial planners, tax advisors, stockbrokers, and real estate agents tell the public what it wants to hear. A stock? A house? Just buy and hold for the long run. You can’t lose. Appraisers and analysts stretch valuations in order to help close a deal. Mortgage lenders know perfectly well that the appraisals are lies, but they wink at them with one eye and wink at the borrower’s phony income declaration with the other. Lenders no longer verify income claims.

In California, house prices have raced so far ahead of incomes that barely one in 10 buyers can afford the median house. Yet thanks to “creative financing,” more houses are sold than ever before. In New York, lenders do not stick around to see how the loans work out. Instead, they pretend the credits are good and package the debt into handy units for “investors” to buy. The financiers know that many home buyers can’t afford their houses and that the U.S. government can pay back its debts in dollars of almost any value it chooses to make—or not pay them back at all. But no one mentions it.

Further up the hillside are whole legions of strategists, kibitzers, economists, and full-time obfuscators whose role is to make us all believe six impossible things before breakfast and a dozen more before dinner. Economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, do to numbers what guards at Abu Ghraib did to prisoners. They rough them up so badly that they are ready to say anything. In mid-2005, for example, it was reported that productivity was increasing at a 2.9 percent rate—the fastest pace in 9 months. Productivity is supposed to measure output per unit of time. But the yardstick was bent. If a computer this year can process information 10 times as fast as one last year, the worker who assembled it has multiplied his output 1000 percent, they said.

But of all the twisted concepts that came out in 2005, the explanation of the world’s international financial system offered by Alan Greenspan’s replacement, Ben Bernanke, is perhaps the most elegantly preposterous. Americans are not spending too much, said Bernanke. The problem is that Asians are spending too little. As a result, they have a “savings glut” that Americans helpfully recycle into granite countertops and home entertainment systems.

Bernanke managed to condense a whole universe of lies, misapprehensions, and conceits into two short words. Yet as compact as they were, they covered up a grotesque system of global finance so out of whack that even congressmen are appalled: One nation buys things it doesn’t need with money it doesn’t have. Another sells on credit to people who already cannot pay—and builds more factories to increase output.

And the party goes on! Every level colludes with every other level to keep each from noticing that anything is wrong. On the banks of the Potomac, people of every class, rank, and station are pleased to believe that all is well. And there, at the Federal Reserve headquarters, is our caste of economic holy men. Fed economists and Fed governors themselves not only urge citizens to mortgage their houses, buy SUVs, and commit other acts of recklessness, they also make sure the nation’s money plays its role in the fraud. They do not even have to clip the precious metal out of the imperial coins as their Roman predecessors used to do; there is no precious metal to take out.

From the center to the furthest garrisons on the periphery, from the lowest rank to the highest, everyone willingly, happily, and proudly participates in one of the greatest deceits of all time. The wage slaves squander borrowed money on imported doodads and gamble their homes on adjustable-rate mortgages. The patricians gamble on hedge funds that speculate on treasury debt and Miami condos.

And right at the top is Alan Greenspan himself, with a smile on his face, passing the bottle to Ben Bernanke.

amconmag.com