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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (362929)12/15/2007 4:35:28 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576101
 
"I already pointed it out. "Zero cost.""

Umm, let's see. He puts down "zero cost" like that to indicate that it isn't really "zero cost" and you consider that nuance.

Ok, I guess we are deep in the neocon dictionary.

"I know what the two of you are hinting at, but I'll wait until you define your positions a little more before commenting further."

What hints? Both of us have been pretty unambiguous.

Running a larger than normal deficit is a common way to curtail a recession. Cutting taxes has the same effect. In both cases there is more money in circulation than would normally be the case. And that causes the economy to be stimulated.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (362929)12/15/2007 6:02:46 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576101
 
Money Goes Far in New York, if You’re European

By KATE HAMMER and JULIA WERDIGIER
nytimes.com
( It's like us going to...well, there really ISN'T any place we can go to. A buddy of mine is bitching about how expensive Latin America has become!)

Margaret Dragonette arrived in New York last week — three nieces, a cousin and loads of empty luggage in tow. By the time Ms. Dragonette, an administrative assistant for a nonprofit in Liverpool, was heading home, her group had filled six large suitcases and five carry-on bags. The bags were so stuffed with Juicy Couture T-shirts, Guess watches and Croc sandals that her nieces would have to wear the Ugg boots she was giving them for Christmas on the plane.

“Your money just keeps on going,” said Ms. Dragonette, awed at the buying power of her British pounds, each worth $2.03 at the time.

The dollar was so weak, said her cousin, a 27-year-old nurse, “We had trouble spending all our money.” Add a new superlative to New York’s long list: world’s most fabulous discount mall.

With the dollar near its lowest rate against the pound in 26 years, and its lowest rate against the euro ever, many Europeans are looking at the United States the way some Americans have long viewed Latin America and the Caribbean and, once upon a time, Europe — a cheap place to flex their strong currency.

The situation is more than a potential blow to Americans’ self-image, it could be a blow to the world economy as some central bankers worry about “currency tension,” and many countries move trillions of dollars out of their reserves and buy euros instead.

The dollar’s fall has been so drastic, it has seeped into the popular consciousness. In his last video, rapper Jay-Z cruised the streets of New York flashing not a stack of Benjamins, but a fistful of euros.

The dollar had been at relatively low levels against the pound and euro for most of this year, but in April it broke the $2 for £1 barrier and the exchange rate started to make headlines in Britain. Travel soared.

“You already got high-quality holidays and friendliness and now you even got the good prices,” said Alan Waddell, chief operating officer of Visit USA in London, which promotes British travel to the United States.For a new breed of European tourists, working-class and first-time visitors, the weak dollar is more than an everything-off coupon. “It means we can come,” said Inaki Benito, a 27-year-old bus factory worker from Vitoria, Spain, who never thought he would be able to afford a two-week stay in New York.

Even with the weak dollar, Mr. Benito and his traveling companion, Eneko Ruiz-de-Samanie, a tire factory worker, had to rent an apartment in the Bronx rather than stay in hotels, so they would have money during for shopping and Broadway shows.

“This year is unbelievable," said George Chaves, the guest relations manager at Fitzpatrick Hotels, two Manhattan hotels catering to British and Irish tourists, for the last six years. “We’re seeing families of modest means, they’re here for the first time and they can’t believe the purchasing freedom and the spending power they have."

A standard room at one of the Fitzpatrick hotels costs about $460 a night.

Though statistics are not kept by tourists’ economic class or income level, anecdotal evidence from travel agents and hoteliers, as well as New Yorkers, suggested there was a huge wave of new visitors to New York over the summer. The number of tourists from Britain, for instance, was up 22 percent in August 2007, compared with August 2006.

The year-over-year increase for September was only 6 percent, but indications were that this fall’s travelers were more well-traveled and even less budget-conscious.

More guests at Mr. Chaves’s hotels are seeing Broadway shows, from the orchestra seats, and he is making more reservations for them at expensive uptown steakhouses like Bobby Van’s, Maloney & Porcelli and Smith & Wollensky. (No word on whether the flush Europeans are tipping.)

Matthias Jungkind, a 34-year-old financial controller from Düsseldorf, Germany, finds the low exchange rate laughable, literally. Every time he saw the dollar price tag on an item, he said, he giggled involuntarily.

But monetary authorities are not laughing. The dollar has been so low for so long, Europeans are worrying about how expensive their exports are becoming for American consumers when priced in dollars, and how much that hurts European growth.

Last month, Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, warned that an appreciating pound and euro, combined with most oil-producing countries and China linking their currencies to the dollar, creates “great currency tension.”

Such tension could hurt the dollar further as countries like China, which holds the largest reserves of American currency outside the United States, see their dollar reserves sink in value and hurry to move them to other currencies. A Chinese official threatened to do that last month, though other leaders contradicted him.

Still, an estimated $1.2 trillion in dollar holdings will move to other currencies over the next five years, economists at Merrill Lynch said. In May, Kuwait dropped its currency’s link to the dollar, and in October, Iraq said it wanted to diversify its heavily dollar-dominated reserves. Other countries, including Qatar, have complained about the negative effect of the weakening dollar on their reserves.

“The current currency system is quite fragile and will break down as it leads to imbalances and capital losses” among countries with dollar reserves, said Nouriel Roubini, a professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University.

It is still less clear whether one or several currencies will replace the dollar as the main reserve currency. “With the euro, the world has gained an alternative reserve currency but other currencies have also won in strength,” said Chris Munns, a lecturer at the London School of Economics.

Whatever the long-term effect of the strong euro (and the weak dollar), in the short run the current exchange rate could serve American interests, not only because it helps reduce the current- account deficit, but also because Europeans could help save what is expected to be a somber holiday shopping season, even though retail sales figures for November, released Thursday, were better than anticipated.

Europeans are descending on the nation’s shopping malls and department stores at the highest rate in seven years.

International travelers are expected to spend $92 billion in the United States in 2007, 7.5 percent more than last year, according to the Commerce Department. The number of visitors from abroad, including those from Canada and Mexico, is expected to rise 5 percent to 53.6 million this year, but Europeans make up the largest group of overseas visitors to the United States, with about 35 percent of them visiting New York City.

Low prices should keep them coming. Increasing demand tied to the weak dollar has set off a price war among trans-Atlantic airlines, pushing prices to new lows, said Sean Tipton, spokesman for the Association of British Travel Agents in London.

Holly Lancaster, a 52-year-old airline customer service agent from Miami, said she was experiencing tourist envy after a November trip to Greece. “I just couldn’t do as much with my money as I wanted,” she said.

Phillip Kwong, a 29-year-old systems analyst from Queens is just happy somebody — anybody — is spending money this holiday season. “It’s actually better for our economy that more Europeans are coming here to spend their money,” he said. Most surprising, despite the visible increase of European tourists in places like New York, overall travel to the United States is still below pre-Sept. 11 levels, according to Cathy Keefe of the American Travel Industry Association. Overseas travel is down 17 percent from its peak in 2000. Without the positive effects of the weak dollar, “we can’t imagine what the numbers would be right now,” she said.

Many airlines say that the travel frenzy among Europeans is a wash, since the weak dollar means fewer Americans are traveling in the other direction.

Until that two-way traffic returns, European travelers can take advantage of a favorable exchange rate and cheap flights to get an effectively free holiday, once you factor in what they save on shopping. “You just have to shop enough,” said Mr. Tipton of the British travel agency association.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (362929)12/15/2007 7:44:44 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576101
 
The Republicans’ Expensive Tax Promise

By TOM REDBURN
nytimes.com

For decades, ever since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, promising to cut taxes has been an essential element of every successful Republican campaign for the presidency. Republican politicians still vividly remember that George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton after agreeing to a modest tax increase as part of a broad budget deal — and most have vowed never to make that mistake again.

But there is a crucial twist to the campaign this time around. All of the Republican candidates have pledged to extend President Bush’s tax cuts from the early 1990s beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010. That promise, however, does not carry the same weight as in the past.

That’s because, rather than delivering any additional benefit that voters can actually take to the bank, carrying out such a pledge would do nothing more than maintain the status quo. Nobody’s taxes would be cut further; they would at best stay the same. There’s not as much political payoff in that.

And preventing anybody from being worse off is going to be incredibly costly. Indeed, it requires running faster and faster just to stay in the same place. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office on the long-term budget outlook, delivered to Congress on Thursday, makes clear the depth of the fiscal hole the next president will inherit from President Bush.

Simply to extend the Bush tax cuts indefinitely into the future and, as both Republicans and Democrats have vowed, prevent the alternative minimum tax from imposing an increasingly heavy burden on tens of millions of middle-class and upper middle-class taxpayers would cost the government, over the next decade, roughly $2.5 trillion in revenues now expected under current law. And that’s just the beginning.

Even without taking on any additional tasks, merely meeting the government’s existing obligations — mostly to pay for the military and to keep up with the health care and retirement needs of the elderly — would send the budget deficit soaring, pushing overall federal debt held by the public from under 50 percent of the size of the nation’s economy today to over 300 percent by 2050.

“The combination of roughly constant revenues and significantly rising expenditures would quickly create an unstable fiscal situation,” the budget office report notes alarmingly, but in its characteristically dry and understated manner.

How would the Republican candidates deal with this problem? Most say they would try to hold down spending — and cut taxes even more.

Indeed, without providing many specifics about his proposed spending cuts, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in a recent op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, wrote that he was “committed to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, while aiming at still-lower marginal rates. We’ll give the death tax the death penalty, index the Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation as a step toward eliminating it entirely, expand tax-free savings accounts, and expand health-care choice through tax reform. We also need to reduce the corporate tax rate.”

Fred D. Thompson recently unveiled his own tax proposal, which would not only match the Giuliani promises, but would also allow taxpayers to choose between paying under the current system or opting for a “flat tax” with lower rates that would eliminate nearly all deductions. The simplified tax system would have just two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center analyzed Mr. Thompson’s overall proposal and found that it would “represent, by far, the largest tax cut in history — much larger than the tax cuts enacted in 2001 or 1981. Over 10 years, individual income and estate taxes would fall by about $6 trillion to $7 trillion — or as much as 20 percent of overall revenues — before allowing for any behavioral responses.”

Mr. Thompson predicted that the tax cut would largely pay for itself by stimulating economic growth and discouraging tax avoidance. If not, he suggested, any additional savings could be achieved by limiting Social Security benefits.

But the Tax Policy Center report found that any improvements to the economy from lower tax rates would be modest. As a result, the Treasury would recover no more than about $1 trillion over the decade, resulting in an overall revenue loss of $5 trillion to $6 trillion. The tax cuts would fall far short of paying for themselves.

And nearly all the money, like the earlier rounds of tax cuts this decade, would flow to those at the top of the income ladder.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee has proposed yet a third alternative, endorsing the so-called “fair tax,” which vows to replace all federal revenues — income taxes, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, estate taxes, etc. — with a national sales tax on everything except education.

Proponents say that a sales tax rate of 23 percent on just about all goods and services would generate the same revenues as the current system, but tax experts like Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under President Ronald Reagan, say that it would effectively mean raising the cost of everything people buy by at least 30 percent.

And even if such a tax could be practically instituted, it would still not close the fiscal gap that is about to explode over the next few years.

“Campaigns bring out the Santa Claus in politicians,” said Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, which is associated with the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. “But the numbers just don’t add up. By promising more tax cuts than we can afford, they are really misrepresenting the choices the nation faces.”

Democrats certainly have their own problems balancing their spending proposals — particularly for health care — with the revenues available to pay for them, but the Republican candidates, by vowing to extend President Bush’s tax cuts, have left themselves with a far bigger fiscal gap to fill.

So before the Republicans make any new tax promises, it might help if they first told voters how they plan to pay for the old ones.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (362929)12/16/2007 1:22:52 AM
From: bentway  Respond to of 1576101
 
New study says Hispanics and Asians are acting white

236.com