@eurozone inflation falls to a 7-year LOW -- trotsky, 11:28:53 11/01/06 Wed
yes, that's right - 'price inflation' as measured by the state's statistics minions in Europe has just plummeted to its lowest point since 1999:
"....the fall in the inflation rate, to 1.6 per cent in October from 1.7 per cent in September, added to the presentational problems facing the European Central Bank."
LOL.
ft.com
@MNG -- trotsky, 11:24:10 11/01/06 Wed
in June of 2005, after MNG had just drilled a step-out hole at Hope Bay's Madrid deposit showing 66 meters of over 8g./ton, people were berating me on the old K1 forum for arguing it was a good buy at 88 cents. it was a lengthy and almost acrimonious debate as i recall.
well, the market has settled the argument:
stockcharts.com
@the coming fiscal crisis of Japan -- trotsky, 10:17:17 11/01/06 Wed
for all those who have forgotten about Japan's dire situation, here is a reminder. when the stock market and real estate bubbles of Japan burst in the 1990's, the government foolishly took the advice of Keynesian economic advisors and proceeded to 'act countercyclically' - which is to say, instead of allowing the malinvestments of the boom to be liquidated, it began to go into debt and print a lot of money, in order to keep said malinvestments on artificial life support, and on top of that, create new ones. remember the countless bridges to nowhere?
this has gone on for some 17 years now, all told. the result of these policies was to unnecessarily lengthen and deepen the depression, as the market was simply not allowed to clear. now, you may have heard that Japan has been in 'recovery' for over 50 months now. however, what a strange recovery it is. for instance, consumer spending plunged by 6% last month alone, the 9th consecutive monthly decline.
naturally, consumer spending is not necessarily a sign of an economy's health, but it does signify that the population of Japan doesn't trust the official story and fears a relapse. so when did Japan's recovery begin? oddly enough, it was in the same year that the country adopted US statistical methods of 'measuring' the economy. this is to say, hedonic indexing, imputed income and chainweighting were introduced. it's no big surprise therefore that the people of Japan remain skeptical - they don't 'see' the recovery, except in the official data.
there is however a more sinister threat lurking in the wings. the Keynesian recipe applied to Japan's wounds has not only led to one of the longest and most intense economic downturns of an industrialized nation in the post WW2 period, it has also led to the government's debt soaring to previously unimaginable heights. consider the following: in spite of paying the lowest interest rates in the world, Japan's government must spend a full 70% (!) of its tax revenues on servicing its debt.
no wonder the minister of finance continues to urge the BoJ to leave its low interest rate policy in place. the government simply can not afford to pay higher rates.
it is however more than clear that this situation is untenable. it will in time lead to a fiscal crisis. this coming fiscal crisis of Japan could be the 'left-of-field' event ('who could have known! nobody thought of that!') that derails the global fiat money and derivatives bubbles for good.
i recommend to keep a close eye on Japan, its currency and its interest rates. the crisis will preannounce itself via a sudden increase in market rates on Japanese government debt.
imo it WILL happen - the only question is WHEN, but clearly, the clock is ticking, as the share of Japanese tax revenue devoted to debt payment is soaring in exponential fashion. the government already relies on Ponzi finance, taking on fresh debt merely to pay interest on the existing one.
tick-tock, tick-tock.
better have some gold, just in case.
mozel@OT - recent comments on US politics -- trotsky, 19:47:19 10/31/06 Tue
let me make clear that i share your disdain for the Democratic party , such as it is. however, i don't think your idea of somehow 'reforming the right' stands even the ghost of a chance. the fact of the matter is this: under Republican administrations post WW2, the state expands not only just as much, but actually MORE than under Democratic ones.
today i heard Pisani on CNBC talking about how all of Wall Street is pro-Republican, because they think the party of State Capitalism is 'better for business'. oh really? what a hoot. apparently they haven't looked at the statistics yet. and i'm talking about the type of statistic that matters MOST to Wall Street, namely, under what type of political leadership does the stock market do best?
you'll be surprised to learn that when BOTH the administration AND Congress are in Republican hands, the stock market tends to deliver what can only be called an atrocious performance. it is FAR BELOW the historical 'anytime' average. so when does the stock market do best? when the presidency is in Democratic hands, and Congress belongs to the Republicans. second best? when it is vice versa, or both are in Democratic hands.
in any case, a Democratic administration is on average apparently what's 'best for business', contrary to the myth. the cohabitation phases are presumably so good because the so-called 'political process' tends to be paralyzed to some extent while they take place, so it hinders the politicos to do anything at all, which primarily means they can do no harm.
here are the sobering statistics over the past 106 years, as presented by Ned Davis Research (political dispensation and the average annualized return of the DJIA next to it):
Democratic President 7.19%
Republican President 3.85%
Democratic Congress 6.46%
Republican Congress 3.51%
Dem Pres, Dem. Cong 6.53%
Dem Pres, Rep Cong 9.60%
Rep Pres, Rep Cong 1.54%
Rep Pres, Dem Cong 6.37%
All Periods Buy & Hold 5.34%
so why are the Republicans such a catastrophe? please note in this context that the stock market is THE primary barometer of the 'social mood' - when it performs badly, it means that people are unhappy. it has only a loose connection to economic fundamentals, because said fundamentals ALSO flow from the social mood.
in my opinion, the gap between word and deed is a major reason. ostensibly, Republicans want 'small government' - and then they go and expand the State at breakneck speed. since this is in contradiction with their purported desire to be the 'anti-government' party, they then proceed to exercising the worst possible stewardship of the state they have thus expanded.
this theme has been the subject of a Lew Rockwell essay that everyone should read and think about. it was written just before the last presidential election and is entitled 'the myth of a Kerry calamity'.
Kerry himself is however not really the subject of the essay, but it is rather about the strange fact that the arguments with which many libertarians reflexively support the 'lesser evil' in elections fly completely in the face of reality. the Republicans are NOT the 'lesser evil', at least not when the facts are considered (as opposed to what most people consider in the voting booth, which is usually nothing at all - mostly, they let their emotions do the electing).
The Myth of the Kerry Calamity
there are more Rockwell essays that look at various aspects of what could be termed the 'problem with the Republicans', and in some instances, the problem with the political establishment as such , and all are well worth reading:
The Future of the Republicans
Which Way for Liberty?
Are Conservatives Crazy?
last but not least, Rockwell's article on conservatism in - The American Conservative magazine
from this last article a brief quote:
"To be a conservative in this country means to hold a deep and implacable attachment to the regime insofar as it is run by the Republican Party. Note that I’m not saying that this is a corruption of the term “conservative” or a misunderstanding. This is what the word means in reality, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
I think there are intellectual reasons for this. A crude form of Hobbesianism has corrupted every conservative thinker in this country. They sincerely believe that it is not liberty that gave rise to civilization but state-generated law, without which society would crumble. So when push comes to shove, they defend the state, no matter how bloody it becomes.
Do you protest? Have I misstated your own political views? You truly love liberty and hate the state and all its works? Good. Bail out of conservatism. Call yourself a libertarian, a liberal, an anarchist, an independent, a revolutionary, a Jeffersonian radical. Or make up your own name. But please, wake up and smell the massivo espresso: when it comes to mindless party loyalty, conservatism today is as bad as communism ever was."
now, in this context, one should perhaps consider an idea mooted by Justin Raimondo just recently. apparently he has also concluded that the Right, such as it is, is UNreformable. he then went on to note that the Democratic Party is a rudderless shadow of its former self. its welfare/warfare-oriented leadership is hopelessly out of touch with its own base (especially as regards war, and these days more specifically, THE WAR, a.k.a. the quagmire in the desert), and perhaps this represents a chance to take the party from them, ditch its socialism, and return it to its roots as a Jeffersonian Democratic Party.
i know , it sounds hopeless as well at first blush, but there is clearly MORE hope to achieve this than to achieve a reform of the Right.
the difference is the issue of party discipline.
you only have to compare the mindless adulation that the bungler in the White House receives from his party faithful to the biting criticism that prominent Democrats have to endure from their followers. this goes so far that the too pro-war apparatchik Joe Lieberman got booted from its ticket in a primary. this was a noteworthy event - an American Likudnik found out that the Dem base wouldn't take his bloodthirsty BS anymore.
i have often remarked that i regard the two parties as simply two faces of the same party, with their differences largely a smoke-screen to make it appear as if there were a choice. i stand by this, but i also acknowledge that the gap between the Democratic establishment and the party's support base appears to offer an opportunity, if someone can be found to grasp it. i see no such thing in the Republican party with its Soviet-style party discipline. the dissidents, all 5 of whom appear to write the articles for the 'American Conservative' (Buchanan and co.) ,i.e. the paleos who represent the party's past as the anti-FDR, 'isolationist' wing, don't stand a chance with this uncritical mob. lastly, the apocalypse-oriented evangelicals that congregate around Mr. Hagee (who makes ungodly amounts of money while the world still stands)and similar figures seem to be even worse than the white trash populating sites such as LFG when it comes to leaving their brain at the door. 'i will vote for whoever the reverend tells me to vote' is their refrain. yeah, that bunch will surely reform the Right. |
