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 : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (259)	6/24/1998 10:16:00 AM
From: Chip McVickar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3536

Henry, For Keynes, government was the solution. That like himself the noble elite 'wisemen' would always be able save the world through economic intervention. Friedman and the moneterists advanced the 'floating currency' era and supported the importance of the federal reserve system to set monetary supply and to a great extent monitary polices. Reganomics(in its broadest sense), I believe, brought the G7 cartel together for pegging the dollar and setting international monitary polices. But these are still interventionists market principles. This is a pact of a few powerful poeple and countries, that in and of itself removes any presumable free foreign exchange markets. Leaving companies who wish to compete in the international market place scavenging for tips and inside information on how to value there products and services. Along with this you have the fairly new world of professional currency traders who are creating more powerful vehicles and have been competing if not defeating the policies of the G7 and monetary interventionists. Currancy traders spend there time looking for imperfections and windows of opportunity to exploit currency imbalances. Much of the impetus for this came from the necessity of the financial industry and larger corporations to defend themselves against the G7. EMU is going to be another form of interventionist cadre of elitists. But this new system is something closer to Open Pegged Rates, where atleast the rate of exchange is set out in specific terms. But this is going to require an unheard of amount of cooperation and civility. A union very much in question as shown by the Duisenberg's article and already existing complications like debt and unemployment. I put those 2 articles together to open a line of conversation and try to gain an insight into whats ahead for monitary policy. It is obvious that there is a certain "dirty" aspect in todays international monetary relations....Asia is an example and Japan may become an example for the whole unstable system in place today. I believe you favor 'currency regulatiry boards' as in Argentina, but does this carry over to free market policies? Also if you favor a pure Adam Smith-style of economics have you also adopted more modern thinkers? Chip