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.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Gabriela Neri who wrote (17336)9/3/1998 10:03:00 AM
From: Don Green  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 116762
 
>naive understanding of the role of gold.

Not at all, I am just saying Gold is going lower Much lower.

Regards
Don



To: Gabriela Neri who wrote (17336)9/3/1998 10:05:00 AM
From: Alex  Respond to of 116762
 
The World is Interdependent After All

"IMF head Michel Camdessus should be replaced, along with
Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers."

So U.S. stocks could not go ever upward while the rest of the world falls apart. We have interdependence after all, and what the markets' remarkable volatility--plunging 500 one day, rising 288 the next--is telling us is that the world economy has been terribly mismanaged.

Secretary Robert Rubin dropped by the Treasury press room after the 512-point drop Monday to say that the fundamentals "are strong due in part to the sound policies we've been following." The market is telling us that the market was too high, he suggests, neither he nor the Federal Reserve feels the need to do anything about it, fishing in Alaska was fun, and Congress should pony up the next installment of funding for the International Monetary Fund.

There is of course a lot to be said for refusing to panic because of a market drop. Stocks will fluctuate as we've seen in recent days and several hundred points aren't what they used to be. But the Dow Jones industrials are still off nearly 16% from their July high. Historically, a plunge in the stock market predicts recession in the real economy only about half the time. In the other half, economic policy makers get the message in time.

The last market crash in 1987 reflected disturbances in the world financial mechanism, as is so often the case, arguably as far back as 1929, when the issues were international liquidity and impending protectionism. In 1987, the market crashed when Treasury Secretary Baker went on television to argue with the Bundesbank about which side should adjust to keep the mark and dollar in reasonable alignment. The markets stayed sick through year-end, but recovered when the world central banks staged a huge joint intervention showing that international cooperation had been restored. With this timely demonstration, the real economy escaped without damage.

This time around the international influences are even more palpable. The Russian devaluation, coming as President Yeltsin was losing power and President Clinton was self-destructing, was clearly the immediate spark. In and of itself, neither the value of the ruble nor the output of Russia is important to world commerce. But the message was that we are not yet out of the round of competitive devaluation that started a year ago in Thailand. A continuing world-wide cycle of devaluation and a world-wide collapse in liquidity would be a big event indeed, from which the real economy in the U.S. could not be immune.

The most likely form of panic right now would be for the Congress to yield to Secretary Rubin's entreaties on the IMF funding. The IMF and what it represents is the problem, not the solution. If we were the Congress, there would be no funding for the IMF without a change in management. IMF head Michel Camdessus should be replaced, along with Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, the U.S. point man in international finance. The needed rethinking is impossible so long as they are there to defend the errors that caused the present world-wide mess.

It is, of course, always true that economies [Media] around the world have their own share of mismanagement. Indonesia has been an exemplar of crony capitalism, and Russia has its tycoonocrats instead of the rule of law. Japan "pricked the bubble" into its current deflationary impasse--an example U.S. policy makers should heed well. But such problems have persisted for decades; they were pushed over the brink and into crisis by specific policy errors.

The first of these was the Mexican bailout masterminded by Mr. Summers. The 1994 devaluation was a disaster for Mexico, where workers still have not reclaimed their share of world purchasing power, especially with the peso just now on another sharp decline. Yet the Wall Street lenders and Mexican billionaires did just fine with their tesobonos--short-term dollar-denominated Mexican government paper--because Mr. Summers arranged to have them bailed out, including interest at risk-screaming rates like 14%. The lesson the markets had to draw was: Wheee! Cross-border loans are a one-way bet. Throw money at the world. Russia, even.

This enormous escalation in moral hazard was compounded by sheer intellectual error at the IMF, which persisted against all evidence in believing that devaluations can rebalance economies. Devaluations cause inflation, with all of its economic and social dislocation. What's more, devaluations tend to spread as each country feels it has to "remain competitive" in international markets. Mr. Camdessus is on record as repeatedly having advised Thailand not to get its banks and property companies under control, but to devalue the baht. When he got his way, the current crisis dawned.

What is to be done, now that we see even the U.S. cannot escape unscathed? The first priority is to stop the cycle of devaluation somewhere. Unhappily, Hong Kong authorities have been behaving foolishly, pouring monetary reserves into the stock market. But central bank purchases of shares, like purchases of any other asset, inject Hong Kong dollars into the markets; you defend a currency by restricting domestic liquidity, not creating it. Brazil, the key to whether the cycle will spread to Latin America, seems to understand better.

The Federal Reserve could ease much of this pressure by creating more American dollars. It is certainly true that the Fed should not be using monetary policy to support the stock market at current levels, any more than it should use monetary policy to combat "irrational exuberance." But the case for easing rests on nothing more or less than a commitment to price stability, since Alan Greenspan's own advance indicators of the price level--foreign exchange, gold and the yield curve--are all signaling deflation ahead. The demand for dollars is clearly on the rise, and Mr. Greenspan should accommodate it, rather than restricting the supply of dollars to keep short-term interest rates from falling as the market drives long rates down.

The saving grace of market drops is that they provide time for policy to adjust before the real economy is affected. But around the world ordinary producers and consumers are already suffering, and trouble lies ahead in the U.S. as well if the Treasury, Fed and IMF fail to use this time to get international financial management back on an even keel.

Wall Street Journal, September 2, 1998



To: Gabriela Neri who wrote (17336)9/3/1998 2:34:00 PM
From: Alex  Respond to of 116762
 
Despite calls for action, Fed unmoved

By Peter G. Gosselin, Globe Staff, 09/03/98

<Picture>EW YORK - With investors shaken by the recent stock plunge and much of the world slipping into an ever-deeper financial morass, Americans are turning to the institution that has bailed them out of economic trouble so often in the past - the Federal Reserve.

In growing numbers in recent days, political leaders, economists and even ordinary shareholders have called on the Fed to cut short-term interest rates to ward off what some see as a lurking danger of recession and steady the world economy.

But, according to a wide variety of analysts, neither Fed officials nor policy makers elsewhere are likely to act anytime soon. Indeed, say these analysts, for the first time in the post-Cold War era, the nation and the world appear headed for a period of substantial upheaval with no one ready or able to guide the course of economic events.

''We're in the midst of a global crisis that's more severe than anyone expected, and there's no big brother out there to fix it,'' said David M. Jones, a veteran Fed watcher and chief economist with Aubrey G. Lanston & Co. in New York.

''The free marketeers are getting their wish with a vengence,'' said Gary C. Hufbauer, director of studies for the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. ''There's not a lot of political will in any of the advanced nations to manage this crisis so the markets are going to carry us where they will,'' he said.

Analysts said that the Fed is reluctant to act because, despite the recent spate of bad stock market news, many Fed officials still fear the US economy is growing unsustainably fast and must be slowed to avoid rekindling inflation. Cutting interest rates would have the opposite effect of speeding the economy up by reducing the borrowing costs of companies, home buyers and others.

Rate-cut advocates argue that the central bank is unduly nervous about inflation and doesn't appreciate the havoc that the recent stock sell-off may cause by making middle-class Americans feel poorer and therefore less ready to spend, a combination that they worry will push the United States into recession and other countries into chaos.

''We can't keep up the miracle combination of negligible inflation and robust growth going without easing'' interest rates, said Roger M. Kubarych, a former senior Fed official who is now a partner with the New York financial firm of Kaufman & Kubarych. In addition, he said, the United States can't fill the role the rest of the world needs it to fill - as ''importer of last resort'' - without lower rates.

''The Fed is acting a lot like petrified wood. They need to cut rates to restore confidence,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat and longtime Fed critic.

In itself, Fed officials' reluctance to act might not be so worrisome, according to analysts, if it were not for the fact that no other policy maker here or abroad appears up to the job of managing the latest economic crises in Asia and elsewhere, and ensuring they don't turn into a global rout.

Indeed, from President Clinton to Russian President Boris Yeltsin; from Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the world seems woefully short of strong leadership and less prepared to cope with economic trouble than it has in years, said these analysts.

''You look at the G7 countries and there's not a lot of strength,'' said Hufbauer, referring to the so-called Group of Seven nations, including the United States, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom, that have the world's largest economies and at least until recently provided the world's economic leadership.

The International Monetary Fund, which has spent the last year and close to $100 billion trying to prop up the Asian economies and Russia, is ''close to being discredited for its mishandling'' of those crises, Hufbauer said. ''The World Bank is not particularly strong.''

Only the Fed and its counterpart central banks in the other industrial nations retain substantial clout, Hufbauer said, and ''they don't want to use it.

''They believe we were in a financial bubble and that this correction is exactly the tonic that's needed,'' he said.

To be sure, analysts said, managing global economic crises has never been easy, and the task has only grown harder as nations' economies have become more entwined since the end of the Cold War. But in virtually every other crisis in recent years, one or another of the major economic powers has stepped in to try to guide events.

When Thailand, South Korea and other Asian nations first hit the skids last year, for example, the IMF under close US direction stepped in with money and policy prescriptions. When Mexico became economically unhinged in 1994 and 1995, US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin almost single-handedly pumped billions of dollars of loans into its economy. When Latin America was unable to repay its debts in the early 1980s, the Fed boosted US growth to help pull the region out of trouble.

If Fed officials and other policy makers now take a hands-off policy toward Asia, Russia, Latin America and other current economic trouble spots, said Jones, the veteran Fed watcher, ''this will be the first time we've tested the system without any intervention.''

This story ran on page D01 of the Boston Globe on 09/03/98.
c Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company.

boston.com