Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Elroy Jetson who wrote (49502)	5/1/2009 2:40:39 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218431

Decoupling is a process. I am a specialist in translating very complex phenonema and processes in very simple terms. I excel on that... Decoupling: Starts and progresses (read posting 49468) creates collateral effects, this is what 49469 deals about) and speeds up at times, slows down, bumps along the road. But one single is clear, it never stops or goes back. The article alludes to collateral effects of decoupling, that is emerging markets need to upgrade. That is alll the article tell you. Note that LATAM economies are singled out there in the charts. If they will be plotted along with the OECD the picture would daunting. As you can see I give the lesson and teach how it should be read me.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (49502)	5/22/2009 2:26:58 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218431

Decoupling 2.0. Remember the debate about decoupling? A year ago, many commentators—including this newspaper—argued that emerging economies had become more resilient to an American recession, thanks to their strong domestic markets and prudent macroeconomic policies. Naysayers claimed America’s weakness would fell the emerging world. Over the past six months the global slump seemed to prove the sceptics right. Emerging economies reeled and decoupling was ridiculed. Yet perhaps the idea was dismissed too soon. economist.com Looks like Elmat is being proved (again) right...

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (49502)	5/22/2009 2:41:16 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 218431

Since we talked about hard lessons: “the real money is where the pain is”, says Jean Ross of the California Budget Project, a research firm in Sacramento. In health care, for instance. Just as Mr Obama is trying to give more people access to medical care, California will be taking it away: by cutting funding for Medi-Cal, the state’s programme for the poor, and changing eligibility rules for another programme so that 225,000 children are likely to lose coverage. And this at a time when many of their parents are losing their jobs and their employer-sponsored insurance. Other programmes, from help with birth-control and HIV-prevention to counselling against drug abuse and domestic violence, will be made smaller or eliminated altogether. Child-welfare programmes will be cut by 10%. This means fewer investigations into allegations of child abuse and less supervision of foster care, even as more children are likely to be abused in difficult economic times, says Linda Canan at the Napa County Health and Human Services Agency. Cuts in the education budget will probably shorten the school year by a week, require teachers to be laid off and cause classes to get bigger. The University of California, a network of ten campuses, will face cuts equivalent to 50,000 fewer students and perhaps 5,000 fewer staff. It doesn’t end there. A plan, previously rejected, to drill for oil off the coast near Santa Barbara will be revived. And a statewide yard sale will be held. State properties, from a big coliseum in Los Angeles to concert halls and fairgrounds, will be auctioned off. Even the San Quentin prison, built during the gold rush and housing the state’s death row, may go. Jeff Denham, a Republican state senator who votes resolutely against any attempt to raise taxes, has for years wanted to move the prison to a cheaper place inland in order to sell its “ocean-front property” in the bay north of San Francisco. He may now get his way. economist.com