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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: energyplay who wrote (34157)4/29/2008 10:53:24 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum  Respond to of 217736
 
ep, two things leap out at me...

1) I've mentioned before that China is not burdened by democracy.. (once I recall in comment to Mq re: kleptocracy).. I dunno if China will ever be a democracy in the sense of the west.. might be a good thing.

2) Why compare to Mugabe ? I wonder at times if our democracies really serve the people.. presently our Liberal party in Canada is not toppling the Conservative government's policies that they disagree with simply because they are not confident of winning an election..

The Black Swan



To: energyplay who wrote (34157)4/30/2008 12:50:14 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 217736
 
it bloomberg.com is correct

an update would be events, and matters are moving right along to miracle, part ii



To: energyplay who wrote (34157)4/30/2008 6:24:07 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 217736
 
missing in most analysis is the impact of inflationary monetary policy.

Loose money in the 1960s and 1970s drove up the price of everything. A barrel of oil, which sold for $2.92 in 1965, rose to $40 in 1980. Most people believed that rising commodity prices indicated that the world was running out of resources. The Club of Rome predicted global ruin, and then President Jimmy Carter said that "peak oil" was right around the corner.

Déjà Vu: The Fed's Interest Rate Dilemma
By BRIAN WESBURY
April 30, 2008; Page A17

Despite record passenger traffic, airlines are bleeding cash and going bankrupt. Food riots have cropped up around the world, Canada is paying farmers to kill pigs because feed costs too much, and rice, it seems, is in very short supply.

While ethanol subsidies have created havoc, they don't explain everything – like huge increases in precious metals prices, the sharp decline in the value of the dollar, or record-high fuel prices.

What's missing in most analysis is the impact of inflationary monetary policy. Since 2001, and especially since September 2007 – when the Fed started cutting rates in response to credit market issues – excessively easy monetary policy has driven oil and other commodity prices through the roof.

The good news is we've been here before, and we know – well, at least 1980s Fed Chairman Paul Volcker knows – how to get out of this mess. Loose money in the 1960s and 1970s drove up the price of everything. A barrel of oil, which sold for $2.92 in 1965, rose to $40 in 1980. Most people believed that rising commodity prices indicated that the world was running out of resources. The Club of Rome predicted global ruin, and then President Jimmy Carter said that "peak oil" was right around the corner.

Oklahoma-based Penn Square Bank handed out oil loans freely, and sold off pieces of its loans in packages called "participations." Seafirst Bank in Seattle and Continental Bank in Chicago were two good customers. These banks thought oil prices would remain elevated and paid a huge price for their mistake.

Today, Bear Stearns, Countrywide and subprime lending are a repeat of Penn Square, Continental and oil loans. Bad decision making, based on a money-induced mirage, is the culprit. We are not running out of food or natural resources; this is an entirely man-made disaster caused by the Fed opening wide the monetary floodgates.

Money is the ultimate commodity because all prices have only money in common. And it is the only thing that a central bank directly controls. Unfortunately, because of globalization and financial-market innovation, money itself has become hard to measure and useless as a forecasting tool. So analysts use interest rates.

The "natural rate of interest" is the theoretical interest rate at which monetary policy does not artificially boost the economy, nor hold it back. It is also the rate at which money is neutral on inflation. There have been many attempts at measuring this. Some economists look at real interest rates. Others use the Taylor Rule, which includes a target rate for inflation and real growth.

And while these methods are helpful, they rely on estimates. I devised a much simpler system back in 1993, based on actual economic data, that has proven extremely useful. It predicted the sharp increase in long-term interest rates in 1994; it also predicted the recession of 2001, the deflation of the early 2000s, and the inflation of recent years.

This model shows that a neutral federal funds rate should be roughly equal to nominal GDP growth. Nominal GDP growth (real growth plus inflation) measures total spending in the economy, or to put it another way, it reflects the average growth rate for all companies in the economy.

If interest rates are pushed well below nominal GDP growth, money is too easy and it encourages leverage. If interest rates are pulled above nominal GDP, money is too tight, and average companies cannot overcome borrowing costs.

Between 1960 and 1979, the federal funds rate averaged 5.6% and nominal GDP growth averaged 8.4%. With the funds rate 280 basis points below GDP growth, monetary policy was highly accommodative. The result: a falling dollar, rising commodity prices and fears that resources were being used up.

In 1980, then Fed Chairman Volcker lifted the fed funds rate significantly above GDP growth and held it there long enough to end inflation. This policy instigated a steep decline in oil prices, and drove a stake through the heart of stagflation.

Oil and inflation stayed low in the 1980s and '90s, when the Fed held the fed funds rate 74 basis points above GDP growth on average. By 1999, with oil prices still low, the Economist magazine wrote that the world was "drowning in oil."

Low inflation turned to deflation in 1999 and 2000, when the Fed mistakenly pushed the funds rate above nominal GDP growth again. This deflation spooked the Fed and led to a radical reduction in interest rates. Since then, the fed funds rate has been well below GDP growth – an average of 210 basis points – the most accommodative six years of monetary policy since the 1970s. No wonder inflation is on the rise and commodity prices are setting new records.

The Fed lifted the funds rate from 1% to 5.25% between 2004 and 2006, but monetary policy was never tight because the rate never went above nominal GDP. This suggests that housing market problems were not caused by tight money in 2006-07 , but by excessive investment during the super-easy money of the years before.

Nonetheless, the Fed opened up the old playbook and cut rates aggressively when subprime loans blew up. This cemented higher inflation into place, crushed the dollar, pushed commodity prices up sharply, and created major problems in the energy, airline and agricultural marketplaces. And just like the 1970s, it is now popular to argue that the world is running out of resources again.

The answer to all of this is for the Fed to lift rates back to their natural rate, which is somewhere north of 5%. Tax-rate reductions and interest-rate hikes cured the world of its ills in the early 1980s. They can do so again.

Mr. Wesbury is chief economist at First Trust Advisors, L.P.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.



To: energyplay who wrote (34157)5/2/2008 11:55:45 AM
From: elmatador  Respond to of 217736
 
Argentina's new president is leading her country into economic peril and social conflict

Cristina in the land of make-believe
May 1st 2008 | BUENOS AIRES
From The Economist print edition

Dashing hopes of change, Argentina's new president is leading her country into economic peril and social conflict

EPA
SHE romped to an easy victory in last year's presidential election by promising to maintain Argentina's impressive economic performance while easing its social tensions and rebuilding its foreign relations. Yet just five months after Cristina Fernández succeeded her husband, Néstor Kirchner, in the Casa Rosada, Argentina is worse off on all three counts. Already, her government looks in disarray. It has provoked a tax revolt by farmers. On April 24th, it lost its most important new face when Martín Lousteau resigned as economy minister over a policy disagreement. The price of Argentina's bonds has plunged as investors show little confidence in the government.

With the economy having grown at over 8% a year since 2003, when it began a vigorous recovery from an earlier financial collapse, Mr Kirchner basked in popularity. He was helped by record prices for Argentina's farm exports but pumped up the economy further, with dollops of public spending and an undervalued currency. He brushed off worries about inflation, strong-arming businesses into freezing prices and ordering an underling to doctor the consumer-price index.

During her campaign, Ms Fernández led some analysts to believe that she would be more moderate than her combative husband. But any such hopes have been quickly dashed. She has kept most of his ministers, his policies and his rhetoric. According to unofficial calculations, inflation has reached 25% (officially, it is 9%).

Ms Fernández shows little sign of curtailing the dash for growth at any price. Mr Lousteau's mistake seems to have been his intention to act on her campaign promise to restore credibility to official statistics. His replacement, Carlos Fernández, is a non-entity. In practice, Mr Kirchner himself seems still to be in charge of economic policy. “We don't want a cooling of the economy because that always brought us unemployment, poverty, exclusion and economic concentration,” he told a recent rally of the ruling Peronist movement.

But overheating and inflation are already bringing Argentines some of these woes—and if unchecked will in time bring all of them. The statistics agency has stopped releasing poverty figures. Using an independent estimate of inflation, the poverty rate has risen from 27% in 2006 to 30%, with 1.3m Argentines descending into poverty last year, according to calculations by Ernesto Kritz, a labour economist in Buenos Aires.

To tame inflation and stabilise the economy, the government needs to allow the peso to appreciate, curb spending growth and energy subsidies, and raise interest rates. The longer such measures are postponed, the more painful and unpopular they will be.

Ms Fernández is already in a weaker position than her husband was. Several recent opinion polls give her an approval rating of only 35%. Mr Kirchner used lavish fiscal transfers to buy the support of provincial governors and mayors. But it is getting harder for his wife to match that.

To compensate for Mr Kirchner's pre-election spending binge, in March she raised taxes on agricultural exports. Buoyed by record world commodity prices and a favourable exchange rate, farmers had hitherto grudgingly accepted the levies. But the tax increase, together with rising inflation, cut the profit margin on soyabeans to just 6%, for example. The farmers launched an unprecedented campaign of strikes, roadblocks and pot-banging protests in city centres.

Taken aback, Ms Fernández's response was tellingly authoritarian and unstatesmanlike. She accused the farmers of greed and, improbably, of seeking a military coup. Government rent-a-mobs of piqueteros (unemployed protesters receiving state welfare payments) were unleashed against the farmers and their supporters. That backfired. “Cristina managed to do in three weeks what Argentina's farmers couldn't over 50 years: unite them,” says Gustavo Martínez of Salvador University in Buenos Aires. The farmers suspended their protests to allow talks to take place. The government seems to be seeking a way to back down.

Even in foreign policy, in which Mr Kirchner showed no interest, Ms Fernández has had little success. Her expressed desire to improve relations with the United States foundered on a complicated campaign-finance imbroglio. Last year customs officers at a Buenos Aires airport impounded $800,000 in cash being brought in by Guido Antonini Wilson, a Venezuelan-American who had arrived on a private plane rented by the Argentine government. Two days after Ms Fernández's inauguration, American prosecutors charged five men who they said threatened Mr Antonini, who lives in Miami, and claimed to have evidence that the money was for her presidential campaign.

The president seemed to blame the United States government, rather than its courts, for what she called “a garbage operation” against her. A planned visit to Europe last month was curtailed because of the farmers' protests. While foreign investment pours into neighbouring Brazil, Ms Fernández has done nothing to assure investors that they will enjoy predictable policies while she is in power. The government signed a contract this week for a $3.7 billion high-speed train from Buenos Aires to Córdoba, the first of its kind in Latin America, but it will be paid for with debt.

Ms Fernández still has plenty of time to correct her mistakes. She is blessed with a weak and divided opposition. Her husband has installed himself as president of the Peronist party, still Argentina's most formidable political machine. But the first couple's support is narrowing to not much more than the urban underclass organised by that machine.

After her bumpy start, Ms Fernández is being compared to Michelle Bachelet, the similarly hapless president of neighbouring Chile, with whom she is friendly. But at least Ms Bachelet is making her own mistakes. The suspicion in Buenos Aires is that Cristina is paying the price for her husband's pigheadedness, even if that is something she shares. “The Kirchners' golden age is over,” says Sergio Berensztein, a political consultant. “Now they'll have to get used to it.”