Politics | Why Is George Bush Evil


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (210)3/25/2003 4:46:03 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps   of 278
 
The money was stolen to fund other programs including defense.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: 10K a day who started this subject3/26/2003 8:48:32 PM
From: Ron   of 278
 
Not only is he evil he's STUPID! With a Republican majority in the senate, he has so royally screwed up the budget, that we will not get the elimination of the tax on dividends! Just think how disappointed all those laid-off K-Mart workers will be when they discover they'll have to keep paying taxes on all those stocks they own!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Ron who wrote (212)3/27/2003 10:00:23 AM
From: 10K a day   of 278
 
i don't know maybe they'l go back to school....so i shorted coco...Lol

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: 10K a day who started this subject4/7/2003 5:45:21 PM
From: Baldur Fjvlnisson   of 278
 
The Dollar Crisis: Causes, Consequences, Cures by Richard

Duncan

Reviewed by David Peters

atimes.com 

The US economy is on the verge of collapse, and the whole world is going down with it. Or so Richard Duncan would have us believe. His new book The Dollar Crisis: Causes, Consequences, Cures offers an unabashedly alarmist view of the imminent unraveling of the global economy - an outcome he argues has now become unavoidable.

And as a longtime financial analyst in Asia who predicted the impending collapse of the Thai economy as early as 1993 and worked as a consultant for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during the height of the Asian crisis, he knows a thing or two about financial crashes.

Duncan traces the current "crisis" to the end of the Bretton Woods monetary system in 1973. With the global monetary base indirectly tied to gold, the total volume of reserve assets worldwide grew by just 55 percent between 1949 and 1969 - an average of 2.2 percent per year. Since then, reserve assets have mushroomed by almost 1,900 percent, or about 9.7 percent annually.

The system that replaced Bretton Woods saw major foreign currencies floating against the dollar. Because the world's reserve currencies were pure fiat money, the author argues, this system had no built-in check on the growth of the global money supply. As long as the world's central banks were willing to hold US-dollar- denominated debt as reserves, the United States could run an almost endless series of large trade deficits without paying the monetary consequences in terms of a collapse of the dollar.

But having sown the wind for 30 years, the US is now about to reap the whirlwind.

Duncan argues that the current international monetary system has three fatal flaws that make it inherently unstable: "First, it allows certain countries to sustain large current account and capital or financial account surpluses over long periods, but it causes those countries to experience extraordinary economic boom-and-bust cycles that wreck their banks and undermine the fiscal health of their governments. Its second flaw is that this system has made the well-being of the global economy dependent on a steady acceleration in the indebtedness of the United States, a state of affairs that is obviously not sustainable. The third flaw is that it generates deflation."

Duncan explains, for example, that Japan's large trade deficits with the US in the 1970s and 1980s caused a rapid and inordinate rise in Japan's total reserve assets. Those reserves entered the Japanese economy as high-powered money, causing a huge monetary expansion and credit spree. Asset prices rose until the over- indebtedness of the business sector caused the bubble to burst. Because of over-investment during the boom relative to increases in people's purchasing power, the market had excess supply. Deflation set in, which further hurt the business sector, but because of the lack of good investment opportunities, the banks were ultimately caught in a liquidity trap.

Like most countries that run a current account surplus with the US, Japan plows most of it back into US-dollar assets. Duncan contends that this massive capital flow in turn prompted a credit spree in the US during the 1990s, fueling a parallel asset-price bubble.

Time is running out on this cycle, he argues. The first stage of the US bust - marked by the collapse of creditworthiness in the corporate sector - was mitigated by a continuing consumption orgy led by households drunk on low mortgage rates. But that bubble is also bursting, as consumer debt surges to dangerous levels. Many assets, especially stocks and real estate, remain overpriced, and over-investment has made the economy vulnerable to deflation. When the second bust comes, monetary policy will be to no avail, since interest rates are already at their lowest point since the era of US president Dwight Eisenhower.

To make matters worse, few US securities are generating positive returns these days. And if the rest of the world stops buying US assets, how will the United States fund its US$500-billion-a-year trade deficit? The dollar will have to collapse, turning an incipient depression into a global crisis of monumental proportions.

Duncan argues his position forcefully and clearly. If anything, the reader gets the point all too early in the book, and ultimately tires of having the same argument beaten into his or her head again and again. The Dollar Crisis contains 177 tables and graphs, which apart from some troubling typographical errors (were total US credit market assets really only US$25 billion by the third quarter of 2001?) are helpful in amplifying the author's points.

But in the end, what is most frustrating about Duncan's work is the single-minded way he ignores any nuances that might detract from his argument. For instance, he describes how China's large trade surpluses with the US have led to a credit boom, without ever mentioning that China's state-owned banking sector allocates credit based on non-market criteria.

He repeatedly stresses that the post-Bretton Woods monetary system has no in-built adjustment mechanism, when in fact the adjustment is supposed to come from the free floating of currencies. It's not that there was no adjustment mechanism, countries just chose to circumvent it by intervening in the foreign-exchange markets, because they had other policy priorities. A central bank may simply place more value on fighting inflation or on keeping exchange rates stable to facilitate foreign investment than on retaining the option to use monetary policy to smooth out the business cycle.

But such concerns do not register on Duncan's radar. The world he describes is one in which inexorable macroeconomic forces operate in a policy void, and with no microeconomic complications.

He argues that Thailand's credit boom was due simply to the presence of a capital account surplus. But would that surplus have wreaked the same havoc had the country not been pressured to liberalize its capital account before its central bank could provide adequate prudential oversight? And what if the banks had not been allowed to take short-term deposits in the international interbank market with no reserve requirements and lend long-term at home?

Policy matters, and that is precisely why the path from the author's observations to his specific predictions may not follow as straight a line as he tries to make it seem.

Duncan has little faith in markets. He asserts, "If all trade barriers were removed in 2003, practically nothing would be manufactured in the 'industrialized', advanced countries by 2010." Free trade, in his view, does little more than create a structural imbalance in the global economy that is highly deflationary, due to the low wages of workers in the developing world.

Even ignoring the proposition that a group of countries could have no comparative advantage whatsoever, Duncan still neglects to mention that wages are, to some extent at least, governed by productivity differences. The average worker in a Thai factory is considerably less productive than her counterpart in the United States, because she is probably working in a less capital-intensive environment.

The first of his two policy suggestions to mitigate the coming collapse touches on this issue, advocating a global minimum wage, enforced by international treaty. But since labor productivity varies widely among developing countries, creating an artificial price floor would have disastrous effects on some nations' competitiveness. Yet he blithely asserts, "The only conceivable reason that any government would object to a plan designed to raise the wages of its people in a deflationary age is for fear that other countries could cheat by paying their workforce less."

Countries don't pay workers, companies do, and one group that would certainly object is those who foot the bill, who undoubtedly wield some political influence. In fact, the truly big winners from such a policy would be factory owners in industrialized countries, who would suddenly find themselves more competitive without having to invest in increasing their productivity.

Duncan's other policy suggestion is to create a global central bank (he nominates the International Monetary Fund for the job), which could engineer a controlled increase in the global money supply by allocating new reserves according to criteria that could include development priorities. However, many countries world be wary of entrusting such responsibility to a largely unaccountable organization whose policymaking system is structurally dominated by the industrialized countries.

The Dollar Crisis: Causes, Consequences, Cures, by Richard Duncan, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, Singapore, 2003. ISBN: 0-470-82102-7. Price: US$29.95, 269 pages.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Baldur Fjvlnisson who wrote (214)4/7/2003 6:26:32 PM
From: Mephisto   of 278
 
" And if the rest of the world stops buying US assets,
how will the United States fund its
US$500-billion-a-year trade deficit? The dollar will have to collapse,
turning an incipient depression into a global crisis of monumental proportions. "

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Good article. Also see:

"BUT IF FOREIGNERS got windy about the prospects for share
and property prices and stopped buying, or began to withdraw
some of the trillions they have invested in the US economy, then
the dollar would collapse."

Why Bush is sunk without Europe
observer.co.uk 
Will Hutton
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer
Message 18505443

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Mephisto who wrote (215)4/8/2003 9:31:32 AM
From: Baldur Fjvlnisson   of 278
 
Exactly Mephisto and of course the world is seriously "over

dollarized" as a result of the monumental deficits and insatiable hunger for credit to finance that.

This leaves the currency wide open to manipulation by cabals and foreign governments. There has been talk in OPEC of adopting Euros for oil trade and central banks are dumping dollars.

The world can quite easily bring Uncle Sam to its knees. The dollar collapses, foreign capital flees the US and the resulting crisis amplifies a multitude of underlying crises.

Given two more years of the Bush organized incompetence and criminal negligence as the economy is concerned - I´m afraid that the chance of a civil war in the US in the near future is very high. Internal security is a joke in spite of homeland security. The US public sits on 200 million firearms and mountains of munitions, ordnance and diverse weaponry. Lots of stuff has vanished over the years. Where's the anthrax killer?

Regards,

BF

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: 10K a day who started this subject4/8/2003 9:37:42 AM
From: Baldur Fjvlnisson   of 278
 
US Fed piecing together emergency economy plan

WASHINGTON (AP) - Confronting new fears of recession, the Federal Reserve is refining an emergency economic rescue plan that includes further interest rate cuts and billions of dollars in extra cash for the banking system.

The Fed's effort would be aimed at pulling the country out of a nosedive that has seen 465,000 jobs evaporate in just the past two months, raising fears among economists that the weak recovery from the 2001 recession is in danger of stalling out altogether.

"Clearly, the Fed is in uncharted territory,'' said economist David Jones. "I think they will try some experimental moves.''

One key element hasn't been used successfully in a half-century.

Based on comments by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and other Fed officials, the central bank is expected to move beyond its traditional buying and selling of short-term Treasury securities held by banks to the direct purchase of longer-term securities in an effort to influence long-term interest rates.

Also, Fed officials have indicated they are prepared in the event of an unexpected shock to the system to lend massive amounts of money directly to commercial banks to make sure that financial markets do not freeze up.

And as a third policy option, Fed officials have indicated they would explicitly state that if the federal funds rate is moved below its current 41-year low of 1.25 percent, it is likely to stay at the lower level as long as needed to get the economy on its feet - which would help investors' worries about a sudden jump in interest rates down the road.

The fact that Fed officials have been so open in discussing these options underscores the need the central bank sees to restore investor confidence that has been shaken by the fact that the Fed's aggressive two-year campaign to cut short-term rates has yet to produce a sustainable economic recovery.

The Fed's target for the federal funds rate, the interest that banks charge for overnight loans, is now at a 41-year low of 1.25 percent.

"The Fed is trying to buck up fragile confidence,'' said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.

"They know that everyone is asking the question: what can be done if the U.S. economy slides back into a recession and it ignites a deflationary cycle?''

Greenspan in a speech in December in New York noted that the Fed from 1942 to 1951, as part of an agreement with the White House, successfully capped long-term Treasury yields at 2.5 percent as a way to hold down borrowing costs to finance World War II.

However, private economists note that a later Fed effort dubbed "Operation Twist'' - in which the central bank sold short-term Treasury securities and bought long-term securities in the early 1960s in an effort to influence rates at both ends of the yield curve - was judged to be a failure because the central bank did not make the transactions in large enough amounts.

"If you want to produce results, you have to convince markets that you are serious and will do whatever it takes to alter the rate structure,'' said former Fed board member Lyle Gramley.

The Fed made just such a massive response on Sept. 12, 2001, the day after the terrorist attacks, when it lent a record $46 billion to banks in a single day to keep the financial system functioning.

Fed officials have indicated that their battle plan has been influenced heavily by reviewing the mistakes made by the Bank of Japan, which has been unable to jump-start that country's economy over a decade despite driving short-term interest rates to zero.

Fed officials believe the Bank of Japan's biggest mistake was being slow to respond after that country's real estate bubble burst in the late 1980s.

Vincent Reinhart, the Fed's top monetary policy staffer, told an economic conference recently that the Fed is striving to act pre-emptively before falling prices become entrenched.

"The best policy for dealing with deflation is to avoid it strenuously by acting pre-emptively,'' he said.

Because of this, some economists believe the Fed will not wait until its May 6 meeting to put its plan into effect, opting to cut the federal funds rate through an emergency conference call, possibly as soon as this week.

However, other analysts argue that the Fed will likely wait, hoping that the favorable tide of the war will bolster markets in coming weeks and restore confidence.

"I think they will hold off cutting rates again to see if an early, successful conclusion to the war has the desired effect everybody is hoping it will have,'' said Zandi. - AP

Another perspective from The Straits Times, a partner of Asia News Network.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Baldur Fjvlnisson who wrote (204)4/8/2003 11:34:35 AM
From: jlallen   of 278
 
Sorry....they are cheering....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Baldur Fjvlnisson who wrote (197)4/8/2003 3:21:48 PM
From: TimF   of 278
 
1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

Nothing "rogue state" like about that. We signed an agreement that included a provision to withdraw with notice. We gave notice, then we withdrew.

2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections.

In other words we didn't make an agreement for onsite inspections and then violate it. We decided not to join the agreement (for onsite inspections not the original '72 convention) in the first place.

3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.

1 - We aren't violating any agreement because we did not sign up for it.

2 - Our 2nd amendment rights (this is small arms not a WMD treaty) should not be subject to UN review.

4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)

The death penalty is an internal matter, it doesn't make us a rogue state.

The drugs cost money to develop. The US opposed making the (mostly American) countries that developed them sell them at a below market price. If anyone in other countries does want to subsidize them for the poorest people or countries they are free to do so. In fact Bush has proposed doing this, and even before the proposal the US spends a lot of money on AIDS treatment and research.

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US).

Refusing to pass sovereignty on to international organizations doesn't make us a rogue state.

6. Land Mine Treaty

The US has been rather responsible about its use of mines, esp. in recent decades. But putting mines in known and recorded locations, in an almost uninhabited DMZ, with a half million man army belonging to a totalitarian state right across the border is just being prudent.

Kyoto Protocol of 1997

Again no violation of a signed and ratified treaty. Actually few countries ever ratified it. The US certainly didn't. Declaring it dead was just recognizing reality.

US "Echelon" program

I could see an argument that it is not a good thing or that such behavior is bad, but they spy on us we spy on them and the Echelon program is just one new way to do it. Nothing really out of the ordinary and nothing that amounts to making the US in to a "rogue nation".

September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa

One of the most useless conferences to come around in awhile.


To this point I have answered each and every statement. But the post is getting to long and many of the answers are the same thing (that not participating in some international talks doesn't make us a rogue nation, in fact that claim is just rediculous).

I'll answer a few more points, and if there is any I missed that you really think are important you can reply asking about them.


UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.


Again a refusal to move sovereignty over US actions to the UN or other international body doesn't make us a rogue nation.

Is the status of "we're number one!" Rogue overcome by generous foreign aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid providers, measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26).

If we gave $0 of aid it would not make us a rogue nation but we give the most aid in absolute terms. The idea is just nonsense.

Also we aid countries around the world in other ways. Many of the countries that are high on the list in terms of percentage of GDP going to aid don't have to spend as much on defense because of US security guarantees or just because of the fact that if there was a grave threat to our shared interests the US would be the country that took care of it.
In addition to that Americans usually pay the full costs of medicines that many other countries force below market rates for or just copy without asking the company that created the drug. American drug consumers thus subsidize the rest of the world by paying for the cost of the research to make the drugs.

Tim

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: 10K a day who started this subject4/8/2003 3:22:54 PM
From: Baldur Fjvlnisson   of 278
 
31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service

Revision 3.2

certified by

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Citizen of California, Federal Witness,

Private Attorney General, Author and

Webmaster of the Supreme Law Library

Internet URL of home page:

supremelaw.org 

Internet URL of this file:

supremelaw.org 

Common Law Copyright

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

supremelaw.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.