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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ron who wrote (125943)2/1/2008 4:51:27 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362941
 
re
Looks like the Bush-Cheney energy policy is working.

THE FALLING WHEAT-OIL EXCHANGE RATE
From Chapter 2. Beyond the Oil Peak

Lester R. Brown, Plan B 2.0:
Rescuing a Planet Under Stress
and a Civilization in Trouble
(NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 2006).

While we focus on the oil used to produce food, the amount of oil that food will buy is falling precipitously. The shift in terms of trade between wheat and oil is both dramatic and ongoing. From 1950 to 1973, the prices of both wheat and oil were remarkably stable, as was the relationship between the two. At any time during the 23-year span, a bushel of wheat could be traded for a barrel of oil in the world market. (See Table 2–1.) 32

Since 1973, however, the relative values of wheat and oil have shifted dramatically. In 2005, it took 13 bushels of wheat to buy a barrel of oil. The two countries most affected by this dramatic shift are the leading exporters of these two commodities: the United States and Saudi Arabia. 33

The United States, both the largest importer of oil and the largest exporter of grain, is paying dearly for this shift in the wheat-oil exchange rate. The 13-fold shift since 1973 is contributing to the largest U.S. trade deficit in history and a record external debt. In contrast, Saudi Arabia—the world’s leading oil exporter and a leading grain importer—is benefiting handsomely. 34

While the exchange rate between grain and oil was deteriorating, U.S. oil imports were climbing. During the early 1970s, before the OPEC oil price hikes, the United States largely could pay its oil import bill with grain exports. But in 2004, grain exports covered only 13 percent of the staggering U.S. oil import bill of $132 billion. 35

The first big adjustment between oil and wheat came when OPEC tripled the price of oil at the end of 1973. During 1974–78, it took roughly three bushels of wheat to buy a barrel of oil. Then after the second OPEC oil price hike, which boosted oil from $13 per barrel in 1978 to $30 in 1980, it took eight bushels of wheat to buy a barrel of oil. 36

This steep rise in the buying power of oil led to one of the most abrupt transfers of wealth in history. The coffers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and Iran began to overflow with dollars while those of oil-importing countries were being emptied.

No one knows exactly what will happen to the wheat-oil exchange rate in the years ahead, but as the number of grain-based ethanol distilleries producing automotive fuel grows, the profitability of converting grain into fuel may stabilize the wheat-oil exchange rate.

The United States is pressing the Saudis to produce more oil. Yet the answer is not for the Saudis to produce more, even if they can, but for the United States to consume less. Unless the United States assumes a leadership role, Saudi Arabia will continue to dictate not only the exchange rate between oil and grain but also U.S. gasoline prices.



To: Ron who wrote (125943)2/1/2008 5:15:04 PM
From: ThirdEye  Respond to of 362941
 
BANANA REPUBLIC, WITHOUT THE BANANAS...OR THE REPUBLIC
by Bill Bonner

The dollar is falling against almost everything...even against Iraq’s dinar.

Both Bernanke’s rate cuts and Bush’s ‘tax rebate’ plan have a fruity odor to them. The tax ‘rebates,’ for example, will not return any money to its rightful owners. The U.S. government can’t afford it. Instead, they’ll send out checks to 117 million people – including many who never paid any tax in the first place, encouraging people who have already spent too much to spend even more. Where will the money come from?

The Bernanke/Bush team isn’t saying. They’re so eager to avoid a serious correction that they are throwing caution to the wind – and the dollar too. Let it fly wheresoever it wouldst – as long as it goes down. Besides, who cares? Most of the world’s dollar reserves are held by foreigners. And foreigners don’t vote in U.S. primary elections. “It may be our dollar,” Treasury Secretary John Connelly once shrewdly observed, “but it’s your problem.”

But overseas dollar holders are beginning to notice the tropical flavor of U.S. finances. The dollar has lost 30% of its purchasing power during the last 7 years. Against gold, oil and other key commodities – and other major currencies – it is down much more. In many sunny places with shady finances, this must seem all-too familiar. The ‘banana republics’ did business this way themselves – running up huge debts to overseas lenders...selling off their capital assets to foreign savers...printing money by the boatload...and generally making themselves look ridiculous. Now, the kvetchers are labeling the United States as “the world’s largest banana republic.” One calls the dollar a “Bernanke peso.” Another says the United States is following “Zimbabwe economics.”

Here at The Daily Reckoning , we have been critical of the U.S. economy in the past. But today, we rise not to carp and criticize, but to defend it: The United States has little in common with a banana republic. It has no bananas. It is not a republic. And its weather is not as good.

That said, there are similarities. Real wages for men are lower today than they were 37 years ago. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, writing in the Financial Times, explains that Americans were only able to increase their standards of living by putting their wives to work, putting in more hours on the job, and finally, going deeply into debt.

In the last seven years of the Bush administration, the federal debt increased by two-thirds while U.S. household debt doubled. Despite all this extra spending, median real incomes have continued to go down. Practically all new jobs have been created either by government, or in housing, health care, bars or restaurants. Jobs in manufacturing are now at levels not seen since just after WWII.

“This is the profile of a third world economy,” says former Under Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts.

How does an economy like this keep going? It depends on the kindness of strangers and the stupidity of friends. Who but a fool or a friend would buy a U.S. 30-year treasury bond at a 4.28% yield? This number is only a few basis points from the number for annual increases in consumer prices. Which means, if all goes well, investors can expect to make a return of zero on their investment over the next 30 years. And if all this talk of Zimbabwe economics and banana republic finances turns out to be true, they can expect to suffer another round of losses – measured in the trillions. And why shouldn’t it be true? The American Empire is a bit like General Motors, says Martin Hutchinson. It has heavy fixed costs, an aging workforce, worn-out equipment, mammoth debts, and it is losing market share. At immense cost, America maintains its legions in more than 100 overseas garrisons. At home, the mobs call for bread. And every candidate for office – save the forgotten man, Dr. Ron Paul – offers more of it. “We cannot afford another year without decent wages because our leaders could not come together and get it done,” said Barack Obama in South Carolina.

GM, of course, cannot print money. But as Ben Bernanke himself put it, the United States, like Zimbabwe where inflation is running at 150,000%, “has a technology called the printing press.” What can you expect? We would modestly predict that those 30-year T-bonds, sometime between now and 2048 when they mature, will become worthless.

Maybe sooner rather than later. Because both friends and strangers are wising up. The Gulf Sates have the largest foreign currency reserves in the world. But at the end of November, Sultan Nasser al-Suweidi, governor of the central bank of the UAE told The Wall Street Journal , “the connection to the dollar has contributed much to our economy...in the past. Nevertheless, we come to a bifurcation...” Kuwait already switched away from the dollar; for its reserves it now uses a basket of currencies.

Meanwhile, China is said to have about 70% of its $1.53 trillion pile in U.S. dollars. Cheng Siwei, Vice President of the Popular National Congress: “In terms of the structure of our international reserves, we must take advantage of the appreciation of strong currencies in order to offset the depreciation of weak currencies.” ‘Sell the buck,’ he must have whispered to his broker.

And in even the formerly weak currency zone of Latin America – the home of the real ‘banana republics’ – the dollar is wilting. Central banks in Argentina, Peru and Colombia have had to intervene to hold up the greenback. According to Mario Bodersohn, in the Buenos Aires paper, La Nacion , there’s “no precedent for such an intense sell-off of a reserve currency.” Usually, it’s their own pesos, reals, colons, and australs that people are laughing at. Now, it’s the gringo notes that get the punch lines.

Until next week,

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning

Editor’s Note: Bill Bonner is the founder and editor of The Daily Reckoning . He is also the author, with Addison Wiggin, of the national best sellers Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century and Empire of Debt: The Rise of an Epic Financial Crisis .



To: Ron who wrote (125943)2/1/2008 6:43:35 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362941
 
Obama Endorsed by Anti-War Group

ap.google.com

By NEDRA PICKLER – 02/01/08

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Barack Obama picked up the endorsement of a leading anti-war group Friday and said Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton still has not adequately explained her vote to go into Iraq.

Obama told reporters in a news conference that, even though Clinton explains how she would like to end the war, her explanation for her vote leading into the war is disingenuous. He said his opposition against the war from the start will make him the stronger rival to Republican front-runner and war backer John McCain in the general election.

Obama's long-standing opposition to the war helped him pick up the backing of MoveOn.org, a liberal network which counts 3.2 million members and decided to support him by a vote of 70 percent to 30 percent for Clinton. The group said Friday that it has 1.7 million members in the 22 states scheduled to vote in the race Tuesday, and it would immediately begin a campaign to get them behind Obama.

Obama also picked up the support of a large union in California which had endorsed rival John Edwards, who dropped out of the race this week.

MoveOn.org executive director Eli Pariser said the country needs a president to end the war, provide universal health care, address climate change, restore America's standing in the world and "change business as usual in Washington." In his statement, Pariser thanked all the other candidates who ran in the Democratic primary for their contributions to the race.

Obama criticized Clinton's answer during a debate Thursday night when she was asked why she voted against a 2002 amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. The amendment would have given weapons inspectors more time in Iraq and required President Bush to first obtain U.N. approval before using force. Clinton argued that a vote for the Levin amendment would have subordinated U.S. authority in Iraq to the U.N. Security Council and called it a troublesome precedent.

She reiterated her explanation of the 2002 vote to give Bush authority to use military force to oust Saddam Hussein. But she added, "If I had known then what I know now, I never would have given President Bush the authority. It was a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time and what I believed he would do with the authority he was given. He abused that authority; he misused that authority."

She declined to say the vote was a mistake. Obama criticized her explanation in his news conference, the third he's held this week leading into the Super Tuesday contests. Clinton holds a lead in the polling in most of those states.

"I think there continues to be a suggestion that it was not a vote for war, and I thought that her explanation with respect to the Levin amendment was inaccurate," Obama said. "Anyone who looks at the Levin amendment knows that we were not ceding sovereignty in some fashion to the United Nations."

Responding to Obama Friday, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Obama's early opposition to the war was not borne out by his actions in the Senate.

"The reality is that once he got sworn in, he explicitly called for keeping troops in Iraq and opposed a timeline for withdrawal, only changing his position when he became a candidate for the White House," Singer said.

In Sacramento, one of California's largest unions, the Service Employees International Union', decided to throw its support to Obama. The 650,000-member union's backing could help Obama cut into Clinton's lead in California polls of Democratic base voters, many of whom are union members. The SEIU includes city, county and state workers, as well as in-home support and health care workers.

Union officials will urge their members to vote for Obama but do not plan to do a wider get-out-the-vote effort.

Obama was also endorsed Friday by the New York City-based Transport Workers Union, which also had originally sided with Edwards. "With Senator Edwards out of the race, our officers found it an easy decision to lend our support to the Obama campaign," said union president James C. Little. The 200,000-member Transport Workers Union is the first national AFL-CIO-affiliated union to endorse Obama.

Obama said he has spoken to former presidential candidate Bill Richardson about getting his endorsement.

"We have no plans of receiving an endorsement, but I would love to be pleasantly surprised," he said.

The New Mexico governor has spoken to former President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, who endorsed Obama on Monday. Richardson was unclear on whether he would made an endorsement before Democratic caucuses in his state Tuesday.

"I asked all my supporters in New Mexico to make their own choice, but don't be guided by me. And I mean that. I think we have a good selection of candidates," he said.