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: i-node who wrote (402460)7/28/2008 12:09:27 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1576349
 
Unhappy America

Jul 24th 2008
From The Economist print edition

If America can learn from its problems, instead of blaming others, it will come back stronger

NATIONS, like people, occasionally get the blues; and right now the United States, normally the world’s most self-confident place, is glum. Eight out of ten Americans think their country is heading in the wrong direction. The hapless George Bush is partly to blame for this: his approval ratings are now sub-Nixonian. But many are concerned not so much about a failed president as about a flailing nation.

One source of angst is the sorry state of American capitalism (see article). The “Washington consensus” told the world that open markets and deregulation would solve its problems. Yet American house prices are falling faster than during the Depression, petrol is more expensive than in the 1970s, banks are collapsing, the euro is kicking sand in the dollar’s face, credit is scarce, recession and inflation both threaten the economy, consumer confidence is an oxymoron and Belgians have just bought Budweiser, “America’s beer”.

And it’s not just the downturn that has caused this discontent. Many Americans feel as if they missed the boom. Between 2002 and 2006 the incomes of 99% rose by an average of 1% a year in real terms, while those of the top 1% rose by 11% a year; three-quarters of the economic gains during Mr Bush’s presidency went to that top 1%. Economic envy, once seen as a European vice, is now rife. The rich appear in Barack Obama’s speeches not as entrepreneurial role models but as modern versions of the “malefactors of great wealth” denounced by Teddy Roosevelt a century ago: this lot, rather than building trusts, avoid taxes and ship jobs to Mexico. Globalisation is under fire: free trade is less popular in the United States than in any other developed country, and a nation built on immigrants is building a fence to keep them out. People mutter about nation-building beginning at home: why, many wonder, should American children do worse at reading than Polish ones and at maths than Lithuanians?

The dragon’s breath on your shoulder

Abroad, America has spent vast amounts of blood and treasure, to little purpose. In Iraq, finding an acceptable exit will look like success; Afghanistan is slipping. America’s claim to be a beacon of freedom in a dark world has been dimmed by Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and the flouting of the Geneva Conventions amid the panicky “unipolar” posturing in the aftermath of September 11th.

Now the world seems very multipolar. Europeans no longer worry about American ascendancy. The French, some say, understood the Arab world rather better than the neoconservatives did. Russia, the Gulf Arabs and the rising powers of Asia scoff openly at the Washington consensus.
China in particular spooks America—and may do so even more over the next few weeks of Olympic medal-gathering. Americans are discussing the rise of China and their consequent relative decline; measuring when China’s economy will be bigger and counting its missiles and submarines has become a popular pastime in Washington. A few years ago, no politician would have been seen with a book called “The Post-American World”. Mr Obama has been conspicuously reading Fareed Zakaria’s recent volume.

America has got into funks before now. In the 1950s it went into a Sputnik-driven spin about Soviet power; in the 1970s there was Watergate, Vietnam and the oil shocks; in the late 1980s Japan seemed to be buying up America. Each time, the United States rebounded, because the country is good at fixing itself. Just as American capitalism allows companies to die, and to be created, quickly, so its political system reacts fast. In Europe, political leaders emerge slowly, through party hierarchies; in America, the primaries permit inspirational unknowns to burst into the public consciousness from nowhere.

Still, countries, like people, behave dangerously when their mood turns dark. If America fails to distinguish between what it needs to change and what it needs to accept, it risks hurting not just allies and trading partners, but also itself.

The Asian scapegoat

There are certainly areas where change is needed. The credit crunch is in part the consequence of a flawed regulatory system. Lax monetary policy allowed Americans to build up debts and fuelled a housing bubble that had to burst eventually. Lessons need to be learnt from both of those mistakes; as they do from widespread concerns about the state of education and health care. Over-unionised and unaccountable, America’s school system needs the same sort of competition that makes its universities the envy of the world. American health care, which manages to be the most expensive on the planet even though it fails properly to care for the tens of millions of people, badly needs reform.

There have been plenty of mistakes abroad, too. Waging a war on terror was always going to be like pinning jelly to a wall. As for Guantánamo Bay, it is the most profoundly un-American place on the planet: rejoice when it is shut.

In such areas America is already showing its genius for reinvention. Both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates promise to close Guantánamo. As his second term ticks down, even Mr Bush has begun to see the limits of unilateralism. Instead of just denouncing and threatening the “axis of evil” he is working more closely with allies (and non-allies) in Asia to calm down North Korea. For the first time he has just let American officials join in the negotiations with Iran about its fishy nuclear programme (see article).

That America is beginning to correct its mistakes is good; and there’s plenty more of that to be done. But one source of angst demands a change in attitude rather than a drive to restore the status quo: America’s relative decline, especially compared with Asia in general and China in particular.

The economic gap between America and a rising Asia has certainly narrowed; but worrying about it is wrong for two reasons.
First, even at its present growth rate, China’s GDP will take a quarter of a century to catch up with America’s; and the internal tensions that China’s rapidly changing economy has caused may well lead it to stumble before then. Second, even if Asia’s rise continues unabated, it is wrong—and profoundly unAmerican—to regard this as a problem. Economic growth, like trade, is not a zero-sum game. The faster China and India grow, the more American goods they buy. And they are booming largely because they have adopted America’s ideas. America should regard their success as a tribute, not a threat, and celebrate in it.

Many Americans, unfortunately, are unwilling to do so. Politicians seeking a scapegoat for America’s self-made problems too often point the finger at the growing power of once-poor countries, accusing them of stealing American jobs and objecting when they try to buy American companies. But if America reacts by turning in on itself—raising trade barriers and rejecting foreign investors—it risks exacerbating the economic troubles that lie behind its current funk.

Everybody goes through bad times. Some learn from the problems they have caused themselves, and come back stronger. Some blame others, lash out and damage themselves further. America has had the wisdom to take the first course many times before. Let’s hope it does so again.

economist.com



To: i-node who wrote (402460)7/28/2008 12:13:43 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1576349
 
We interrupt regular programming to announce that the United States of America has defaulted …" Part 1

By: Satyajit Das

On 30 October 1938, the American Radio Drama series Mercury Theatre aired "The War of the Worlds", directed by Orson Welles. Adapted from H.G. Welles’ novel, the first half of the broadcast was scripted as a series of dramatic news bulletins of a Martian invasion. Listeners who had missed or ignored the opening credits assumed that the invasion was real. People fled their homes in panic. Phone calls swamped police. Today the financial equivalent of this broadcast would be the announcement: "we interrupt regular programming to announce that the United States of America has defaulted on its debt!"

Default entails failure to honour contractual obligations; in the case of debt, non-payment of interest or principal payments due to the lender. The financial impact of default is the loss suffered by the lender.

Lenders to the United States government have suffered significant losses .The losses have not been from non-payment but because repayments have been in a constantly debased currency – the dollar.

Assume a Japanese investor bought 30 year US Treasury bond in 1985 when the US$/ yen exchange rate was US$1 = Yen 250. Based on a current exchange rate of US$1 = Yen 105, the investor has lost 58% of the investment. The investor can take comfort that at the low of US$1=Yen 84, the investor would have lost 66%. European investors who bought US government bonds in recent years would have also suffered significant losses. Based on the highest US$/ Euro exchange rate (Euro1 = US$ 0.85) and the current trading levels (Euro1 = US$ 1.56), the investor would have lost (up to) 46%.

Given that in a typical sovereign default the investor loses 50% to 80% of the value of the investment, the losses suffered are not far short of default. Despite "strong dollar" official policies, a case can be made that the US is in the process of defaulting on its obligations via a systematic devaluation of its currency. The problems of the US are evident in a number of other indicators.

The US national debt as of March 2008 stands at US$9.4 trillion (that’s 12 zeros to the right of the decimal). This equates to over US$30,000 per person in the U.S. population or a little over US$60,000 per head of the U.S. working population. The US national debt has grown by US$3 trillion (50%) since 2000, when it was $6 trillion. In 2007 alone, it grew by $500 billion, from $8.7 to $9.2 trillion. In 2005, it was 67% of U.S. GDP, up from 51% in 1988. The Office of Management and Budget projects that total debt will rise to $12.3 trillion in 2013.

Of the US$4.7 trillion in private hands, US$ 2.4 trillion (51%) is held by foreign investors. Japan holds around US$600 billion (24%) and China holds US$500 billion (around 20%). U.K., Brazil and the oil exporting countries own about 6%. Middle East and Russian holdings may be higher as Belgium, Caribbean Banking Centers and Luxembourg (8%) may be vehicles for investments by oil-exporting countries wishing to avoid disclosure. As James Fallow writing in The Atlantic noted: "every person in the (rich) United States has over the past 10 years or so borrowed about $4,000 from someone in the (poor) People’s Republic of China."

The debt figures also do not include "off-balance sheet" liabilities - the US$5 trillion plus in debt and guarantees of the government sponsored enterprises ("GSE") - Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)- that is supported by modest levels of capital (about US$81 billion). In July 2008 these obligations became de facto part of US national debt with astonishing speed. Any problem with the solvency of either institution may have implications of the AAA credit rating of the US.

US national debt is also shortening in maturity. In December 2000, the average length of US public debt held by private investors was 70 months. As at March 2008, the average length had shortened to 53 months (a decline of 24%). 71% of this debt is due in less than 5 years; 39% is due in less than 1 year. In the Clinton/ Rubin years, the Treasury stopped issuing 30 year bonds (the decision was reversed by the Bush administration). The ostensible rationale was that projected US budget surpluses would allow the government debt to be retired. Shorter dated bonds took advantage of lower shorter interest rates to reduce the interest cost and boost surpluses. The Treasury Secretary would have been aware of this variation of the "carry" trade from his investment banking days. The US must now "roll over" significant amounts of debt in the coming years.

High levels of debt are compounded by the "twin deficits" – the 2008 budget deficit forecast is US$380 billion (2.4% of GDP) and the current account deficit is expected to exceed US$ 700 billion (4.6% of GDP). The US savings rate is extremely low. US consumers have relied on asset appreciation (primarily housing and also stocks) as saving. In recent years, borrowing against asset values to fund consumption has reduced even this.

One mainstay of the US economy has been its financial system – "financial" engineering has long overtaken "real" engineering. Lawrence Summers, a former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury, proudly extolled the merits of the US financial system in a 2001 speech at the London Stock Exchange in the following terms: "… the United States is the only country in which you can raise your first US$100 million before you buy your first suit." He gave short shrift to critics who felt that US financial sophistication was synonymous with financial instability: "[That belief] is observed in inverse proportion to knowledge of these matters."

The US financial system has been badly affected by losses on sub-prime mortgages and the current credit crisis. Losses incurred are in excess of US$ 250 billion. There is every likelihood that the losses will increase. The banking system needs additional capital despite having raised over US$200 billion to date. The Federal Reserve has bailed out Bear Stearns and further bailouts are possible. The Fed has provided over US$400 billion in funding support to the financial system. The US national debt statistics set out above do not take into account borrowings required to support the financial system.

Confidence in US financial markets has suffered. The unregulated growth of the network of securitisation and off-balance sheet vehicles – the "shadow banking" system – to the point where it now threatens the financial system has perplexed foreign observers. Byzantine US GAAP accounting practices (especially off-balance sheet debt, mark-to-market and derivative accounting) and the failures of rating agencies (a substantially US phenomenon) have also affected confidence.

The veracity of economic information has been questioned. Bill Gross of Pimco and other commentators argue that the official measure of "inflation" significantly understates actual levels because of statistical adjustments made over the past 25 years.

Mohamed El-Erian, Pimco Co-Chief Executive of PIMCO summed it up on 25 June 25, 2008: "What has suffered most is the credibility of the most sophisticated financial systems in the world."

In a 1998 speech during the Asian financial crisis, Lawrence Summers preached the merits of American-style "transparency and disclosure". It is the US that now needs "transparency and disclosure".

There are other dimensions to the malaise. John Gapper, a columnist for the Financial Times observed on 8 May 2008: "If anyone doubts the problems of US infrastructure, I suggest he or she take a flight to John F. Kennedy airport (braving the landing delay), ride a taxi on the pot-holed and congested Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and try to make a mobile phone call en route. That should settle it, particularly for those who have experienced smooth flights, train rides and road travel, and speedy communications networks in, say, Beijing, Paris or Abu Dhabi recently. The gulf in public and private infrastructure is, to put it mildly, alarming for US competitiveness."

The factors identified are well known. Lawrence Summers once observed: "In this age of electronic money investors are no longer seduced by a financial dance of a thousand veils. Only hard accurate information on reserves, current account and fiscal and monetary conditions will keep capital from fleeing precipitously at the first sign of trouble." Why haven’t the "electronic herd" abandoned the US? Fact it seems don’t matter, at least until they do.

eurointelligence.com



To: i-node who wrote (402460)7/28/2008 12:30:31 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1576349
 
Another McCain Gaffe? Calling Gen. Petraeus the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Posted July 28, 2008 | 03:36 AM (EST)

I'm actually not very high on judging candidates by their gaffes. I don't think it makes one scintilla of a difference whether John Kerry thinks the Packers play on Lambeau Field or Lambert Field. How would that have affected the way he governed as president? Not at all.

I think journalists over-emphasize gaffes because they think it is a point of fact they can point to without being criticized by either side for being biased. They feel they're not allowed to say that someone's tax cut plan is terrible and will put a huge hole in the national budget. That might be true, but conventional wisdom says an objective reporter is not allowed to say that. Gaffes, on the other hand, are clear and can be pounced on.

So, with all of that being said, I am ironically going to point out a second possible gaffe for John McCain in a row. Why? Because John McCain has had so many gaffes in the last couple of weeks, let alone the whole campaign, that it has gotten to the point where you have to question if there is something wrong with him.

One or two gaffes in the course of a campaign are perfectly normal. Half a dozen in a week is crazy. That's outside of the normal range of mistakes. Does he remember things clearly? Does he not know the material in the first place?

So, here is his latest possible gaffe, brought to our attention by a Young Turks listener, Rich Kelly. Senator McCain said this to George Stephanopoulos in his interview on Sunday:

MCCAIN: I believe that, when he said that we had to leave Iraq, and we had to be out by last March, and we had to have a date certain, that was in contravention to -- and still is -- the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General David Petraeus.

Of course, Gen. Petraeus is not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Mike Mullen is. That is a terrible mistake, if he really meant that. This is supposed to be his field of expertise and he has talked about Gen. Petraeus approximately one billion times.

I went back and watched the video of the interview about four times. It is possible to argue that he meant Gen. Petraeus and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But that is not what he said.

You could give him the benefit of doubt and I don't think he actually thinks Petraeus is the chairman of JCS. But within the context of all of his other gaffes, one has to wonder. Is he slipping and making simple mistakes on a regular basis?

Again, if this was an isolated incident by itself, I'm not sure I would even bring it up. What is much more relevant is the claim Senator McCain made in the interview that if we had listened to Sen. Obama and started making preparations to leave Iraq last year, there would have been chaos and genocide. At the same time, he believes it was the right decision to invade Iraq in the first place. We invaded Iraq and caused the country to teeter on the edge of chaos and genocide but it was still a good idea to go in? That seems to be an unbelievable comment to make.

But within the context of all of McCain's other gaffes, his Gen. Petraeus comment has to be questioned as well. I'm not sure we can trust him to be on top of his game on even the simplest things at this point.

huffingtonpost.com