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.

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

To: EyeDrMike who wrote (21870)	10/17/1998 4:25:00 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 116753

They are running scared, no doubt, they can't be even sure they can bail Brazil out...forget about the rest...This silly attempt to invent New Paradigm defies history, logic, law of economics...Paper Rules! Treasury's Rubin Says Tough Choices Required to Protect Global Economy Rubin Says Tough Choices Required for Global Economy (Update2) (Adds Rubin comments in 6th-8th paragraphs.) New Haven, Connecticut, Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Governments around the world must make tough economic decisions, often at odds with their short-term political interests, to protect the increasingly interdependent global economy, said Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. ''The world is now experiencing its most serious financial crisis, in many respects, of the last 50 years,'' Rubin said in a speech at Yale Law School, where he received a law degree in 1964. ''One of the great political challenges in the decades ahead is for democracies to be able to make the unpopular economic decisions requisite for success in a transnational, interdependent global economy.'' At the heart of the challenge is bridging the gap between the sovereignty of national governments and the demands of the global economy, Rubin said, blaming the current crisis on ''excesses in investment and credit extension from developed nations into developing nations without adequate weighting of risk.'' That requires building political support for unpopular reforms, Rubin said, citing the efforts of South Korea President Kim Dae Jung to bring together businesses and labor unions and help stabilize his country's currency crisis. ''A similar process occurred in Thailand, though in both cases great challenges remain ahead,'' he said. That hasn't been the case in Russia and Indonesia, however, Rubin said. In those countries, ''the political systems never took ownership of reform, the economic policy decisions in the proposed reform programs consequently became irrelevant, and the economies are in dire straits,'' Rubin said. Inadequate Legal Protections In a global market, problems can arise when individual countries' legal systems are inadequate or undisciplined, and capital flows into the country without regard to risk, Rubin said. World leaders must focus on ''overcoming the effectiveness of countries that choose to provide safe havens from regulation, a potential problem, for example, with respect to the possible regulation of hedge funds,'' he said. The lack of strong bankruptcy laws has hindered economic recoveries in Korea and Thailand, he said. ''Government decisions will greatly affect how these markets will treat a country's economy,'' Rubin said. Industrialized countries, as well as emerging markets, have trouble making what Rubin said were the right economic choices. The failure of Japan's government to gain support for overhauling its banking system and cutting taxes ''has led to seven years of extremely slow growth and three quarters now of recession.'' And Rubin said it took a year to persuade the U.S. Congress to agree to support an $18 billion infusion of capital into the International Monetary Fund. And, he said, ''we still must pay off our arrears to the United Nations, and support trade liberalization at a time when protectionist pressure may be building.'' The current crisis ''presents unprecedented and enormously complex challenges to the nations involved and the international community,'' Rubin said. There are ''no magic wands or easy answers,'' he said, and the problem will take time to work out. bloomberg.com

To: EyeDrMike who wrote (21870)	10/17/1998 4:31:00 PM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116753

"And Rubin said it took a year to persuade the U.S. Congress to agree to support an $18 billion infusion of capital into the International Monetary Fund. And, he said, ''we still must pay off our arrears to the United Nations, and support trade liberalization at a time when protectionist pressure may be building.'' The current crisis ''presents unprecedented and enormously complex challenges to the nations involved and the international community,'' Rubin said. There are ''no magic wands or easy answers,'' he said, and the problem will take time to work out. " bloomberg.com What is he saying? That 18bln more would have been waisted? 18 bln were waisted but coffers need to be replanished to waist more? He is very smart and perhaps brilliant man, but he lost me here ...Maybe Rubin caught in Twilight zone and he knows it....searching for exit...

To: EyeDrMike who wrote (21870)	10/17/1998 8:54:00 PM
From: PaulM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116753

EyeDrMike, re: M1, M2 and M3 I'm no expert. I do know that these are three measures of the money supply, each progressively less liquid starting with M1, the most liquid. M1 is the total amount of U.S. currency and checking account deposits in the country--in the US. M2 is M1 plus some other things. The total amount in savings accounts for instance. Generally, money not as easily accessible as M1. M3 is the broadest measure of the money supply. Its is M2 plus some other things. Generally, total amount of money even less accessible than M2 (e.g., money tied up in a CD or something of the sort). The exact components of M1, M2 and M3 are in the fine print in the Fed link I posted. Neither M1, M2 or M3 include money floating around outside the U.S. So what the Fed report shows is the domestic anual rate of increase of these money supply measures over various time periods (e.g., last three months). As I mentioned in my earlier post, M1 decreasing relative to M2 and M3 does not suggest a "liquidity crisis" because liquidity crises have traditionally boosted demand for M1--hard, immediately spendable currency--relative to less accessible measures of the money supply. All that is my understanding anyway.