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: Steve Lokness who wrote (53270)7/11/2006 8:42:45 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Bank warns of risk in corporate debt levels

By Peter Thal Larsen and Chris Giles in London

Published: July 11 2006 22:20 | Last updated: July 11 2006 22:20

Pressure on companies to take on more debt in order to fend off possible takeovers is one of the main threats to Britain's financial stability, the Bank of England will warn on Wednesday.

The central bank's warning, published in its annual review of the risks facing the financial system, comes amid signs that British companies are reviewing their debt levels after companies such as BAA, the airports operator, and Associated British Ports, the ports group, succumbed to highly leveraged takeovers.

The rest of this article is for FT.com subscribers only

registration.ft.com



To: Steve Lokness who wrote (53270)7/11/2006 10:07:01 PM
From: Ncohrnt  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555
 
Actually, Mr. Lokness, I'm quite the visionary. I'm very pie-in-the-sky, literally and figuratively...I'd love to see money poured into orbit, rather than rearranging Iraq's skyline...actually, I'd kinda like to restore our own. God, I'd love to put the Towers back...maybe with one floor more as an f-you to AQ and UBL. Also, I'm just back in the office from happy hour, so please excuse occasional emotions. Actually, being a small-government kind of guy, I’d like to see the government set up some more X-prize matching funds...they’re starting to do this, with things like the DARPA Grand Challenges, but I’d like to see more. I mean, imagine the raw materials available in the asteroid belt, or the raw solar energy that pours past our planet every second. Anyway, I have visions and high hopes.

Regarding the neocons and power games and all that stuff...you really have to remember to draw the very-real lines among all the players. There is a tendency among nearly everyone in this country to group all the causes, parties, and politicians they support into a single amorphous blob of 'good guys,' and do the same with all they oppose into a big blob of 'bad guys.' The good guys are selfless and want what’s best for the country, the bad guys are selfish and want what’s best for themselves.

The reality is vaguer, yet simultaneously more cut-and-dry. As an example, here in Northern Virginia a few Democratic politicians got together with Republican ones to force the Pentagon to place its personnel in greater danger, at greater expense, to keep jobs in those politicians’ districts. Other examples are thrifty Republicans building bridges to nowhere, or peace-loving Democrats forcing the Pentagon to keep open unnecessary military bases, both again at great expense, to help their constituents.

As for Mr. Shedlock’s suggestions, I fear getting dragged into a big...ha!...quagmire, but here goes...they’re rearranged a bit...

I would pull all of our troops out of Europe - Europe can defend itself - the fact is Europe doesn't need defending
I would pull all of our troops out of Japan - or nearly all of them


This is interesting, b/c we’re headed in that direction. The political climate and strategic situation has, obviously, changed, and logistics and transportation have made it easier to reduce our footprint abroad.

I would slash the military budget by 40% to start and another 30% down the road.

This is a really big, general statement. I can reduce a human being by 40% to disarm him, but it may not be necessary, or the best course of action. There is a lot of ill-spent money in the military (as noted above, much of it is due to political considerations)...much of it is simply trying to comply with the unbelievable regulations that are part and parcel of working with and / or for the government. I think an awful lot of money could be saved by giving the Pentagon greater authority over its budget...something like the version 2.0 line-item veto bill that’s starting to wend its way through the Hill. Not enough authority to compromise checks-and-balances, but enough that we can get rid of the Navy base in North Dakota.

We have enough nukes I would not spend money on more

I think we could upgrade and reduce our stockpile. These things really do have a finite shelf life.

I would announce a pullout date in Iraq and leave at that date (less than a year)

I wouldn’t, for the standard but still-valid concern that the bad guys would go to ground until after you leave and come out the morning after. I really believe we owe it to the Iraqis to give them some more time to try to stand up a government.

I would have a more even handed policy towards Israel

Crikey. My gut says Israel’s a great ally, Hamas is a bunch of terrorists, blah blah blah...but I’m going to put my gut on hold and think some more about this.

I would hold discussions with Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

Sure, discussions are great. I don’t know anything about Venezuela, but I have to say I greatly admire our insistence on having NK’s neighbors sitting at the discussion table as well. I really hope we don’t engage Iran in more than discussions.

I would apologize to the people of Iraq for the mistakes we have made

Yeah, I would too...I think most professional politicians would disagree, though. And I suspect my list of mistakes would be shorter. :-)

I would stop trying to overthrow regimes we do not like
I would reduce the size of our army


If you’re not going to overthrow regimes, you can dial the army back a bit. As it turns out, regime change takes a bigger army than you might think.

I would slash the budget at the CIA

I strongly disagree here. The budget is small, and if it wasn’t 9:30 at night I’d do one of those “You’d save more money by <insert inane money saving measure here>!!” We need mechanisms and organizations to gather intel...we simply can’t fly blind in this world. A larger budget might’ve kept us out of one or more conflicts in which we’re currently engaged...which is not to say that many other, cheaper things couldn't have done the same thing, but you get my point. Had we, in the 90’s, spent a small fraction of our 02-06 war budget on the CIA, we might’ve had eyeballs on Saddam and Osama 24/7, averted 9/11, and be back on the moon. :-)