Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A "propellor-head" at full throttle in the White House - International Herald Tribune
why is the Bailout not going to work?
1. the policymaker is STRETCHED TOO THIN.
A "propellor-head" at full throttle in the White House - International Herald Tribune: ", Summers sometimes seems to be doing a hundred things at once: zipping off to Capitol Hill at a moment's notice, brushing up on policy in matters as varied as health technology and digital television, holding midnight conference calls to noodle around ideas he does not have time to think about during the day."
2. this is politics, and politics as usual, Obama proclaimed's CHANGE is only a rhetoric, a "make belief" to win more votes.
" doing what he does best, which is help you think through something, and judgements that you can save yourself from."
3. policymakers' main interest is to save himself.
they lectured countries all over the world on what to do, ...did not "follow through with their own prescriptions."
so is the economy going to be better in the fall, as mainstream newspaper said?
1. the policymaker is STRETCHED TOO THIN.
A "propellor-head" at full throttle in the White House - International Herald Tribune: ", Summers sometimes seems to be doing a hundred things at once: zipping off to Capitol Hill at a moment's notice, brushing up on policy in matters as varied as health technology and digital television, holding midnight conference calls to noodle around ideas he does not have time to think about during the day."
2. this is politics, and politics as usual, Obama proclaimed's CHANGE is only a rhetoric, a "make belief" to win more votes.
" doing what he does best, which is help you think through something, and judgements that you can save yourself from."
3. policymakers' main interest is to save himself.
they lectured countries all over the world on what to do, ...did not "follow through with their own prescriptions."
so is the economy going to be better in the fall, as mainstream newspaper said?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Nationalization of U.S. banks gets a new, serious look - International Herald Tribune
Nationalization of U.S. banks gets a new, serious look - International Herald Tribune: "The case for full nationalization is far stronger now than it was a few months ago,' said Adam Posen, the deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'If you don't own the majority, you don't get to fire the management, to wipe out the shareholders, to declare that you are just going to take the losses and start over. It's the mistake the Japanese made in the '90s.'
'I would guess that sometime in the next few weeks, Obama and Tim Geithner,' he said, referring to the nominee for Treasury secretary, 'will have to come out and say, 'It's much worse than we thought,' and just bite the bullet.'"
the good bank, bad bank separation need to be done. banking not working means economy is not working, the longer they decide on, the worse the situation will be; and the less asset would worth, it is a downward spiral.
the gov't could take in all the bad assets, freeze them for 5yrs or so, pay them at the price the banks demanded them. BUT in 5yrs time, if those assets do not worth the price, plus interest,
(interest could be something aligned to the treasury bill rate, or whatever seem appropriate)
the banks have to pay them back.
on the meantime, the economy would start working again, and the banks are given a chance to repent to their crimes, this time do what they can to solve the economy, in order to save their shirt, they have to save everyone else first.
the moral hazard, not voilated.
and the taxpayers' money are guaranteed.
of course, this deal has to stipulated that the banks would not cash out the economy.
so the banks would not be tempted,
1.to revivial only certain economy sectors where the toxic assets are located.
2. earn exorbitant profits to buy back in order to save their skins, while making everyone else worse off.
it seem unlikely to be possible but given how twisted the bank brightest minds are, it is to be safe than sorry.
maybe a review another 3yrs later, that the assets were not inflate to meet the requirement.
--------------
the policy makers cannot make up their minds
because a policy maker is not a banker, a banker is not a policymaker, tho it is not mutual exclusive, but it is ridiculous to ask policy maker to do banker's job, vice versa...
BANKERS need to be part of the solution. in good times, if some guys thinks he deserves millions for his job, then prove your millions are worth it by saving the economy, or are you just a fraud!!
'I would guess that sometime in the next few weeks, Obama and Tim Geithner,' he said, referring to the nominee for Treasury secretary, 'will have to come out and say, 'It's much worse than we thought,' and just bite the bullet.'"
the good bank, bad bank separation need to be done. banking not working means economy is not working, the longer they decide on, the worse the situation will be; and the less asset would worth, it is a downward spiral.
the gov't could take in all the bad assets, freeze them for 5yrs or so, pay them at the price the banks demanded them. BUT in 5yrs time, if those assets do not worth the price, plus interest,
(interest could be something aligned to the treasury bill rate, or whatever seem appropriate)
the banks have to pay them back.
on the meantime, the economy would start working again, and the banks are given a chance to repent to their crimes, this time do what they can to solve the economy, in order to save their shirt, they have to save everyone else first.
the moral hazard, not voilated.
and the taxpayers' money are guaranteed.
of course, this deal has to stipulated that the banks would not cash out the economy.
so the banks would not be tempted,
1.to revivial only certain economy sectors where the toxic assets are located.
2. earn exorbitant profits to buy back in order to save their skins, while making everyone else worse off.
it seem unlikely to be possible but given how twisted the bank brightest minds are, it is to be safe than sorry.
maybe a review another 3yrs later, that the assets were not inflate to meet the requirement.
--------------
the policy makers cannot make up their minds
because a policy maker is not a banker, a banker is not a policymaker, tho it is not mutual exclusive, but it is ridiculous to ask policy maker to do banker's job, vice versa...
BANKERS need to be part of the solution. in good times, if some guys thinks he deserves millions for his job, then prove your millions are worth it by saving the economy, or are you just a fraud!!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
On Madison Avenue, luxury shops pack their hand-tooled bags - International Herald Tribune
On Madison Avenue, luxury shops pack their hand-tooled bags - International Herald Tribune: "Retailers typically expect their rent to equal about one-tenth of their sales volume. 'In a prime location like Madison Avenue, most retailers will change that to 25 percent,' said Joel Isaacs, the president of Isaacs & Company, a retail brokerage. Even under that formula, a tenant paying $1.25 million for 1,000 square feet would need to have nearly $5 million in annual sales."
The risk of a new protectionism - International Herald Tribune
The risk of a new protectionism - International Herald Tribune: "That worry is widespread. 'Large economies are accessing international capital markets for themselves,' said Trevor Manuel, the finance minister of South Africa. He wants the big countries to share the borrowed wealth, but fears they will not.
Adair Turner, the chairman of Britain's Financial Services Authority, voiced the same concern, calling it 'the risk of a new mercantilism,' centered on credit availability rather than trade.
'It is not easy to avoid this,' he added. 'It could get out of hand.'"
Adair Turner, the chairman of Britain's Financial Services Authority, voiced the same concern, calling it 'the risk of a new mercantilism,' centered on credit availability rather than trade.
'It is not easy to avoid this,' he added. 'It could get out of hand.'"
So much for austerity chic - International Herald Tribune
So much for austerity chic - International Herald Tribune: "but high fashion is just that evanescent vapor of glamour and romance. You either get it or you don't - and Mabille catches the elusive perfume of haute couture."
Arms control treaties: The rules of the game - International Herald Tribune
Arms control treaties: The rules of the game - International Herald Tribune: "President George W. Bush, and his aides, could hardly wait to get rid of all those tiresome arms-control treaties when they took office.
They tore up the 1972 antiballistic missile treaty to make way for a still largely pie-in-the-sky missile defense system. They opposed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and never made a serious effort to win a ban on the production of fissile material (the core of a nuclear weapon).
Bush grudgingly signed his one and only arms-reduction treaty with the Russians in 2002. That means that today - 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall - the United States and Russia still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons, with thousands ready to launch within minutes.
The bad news, of course, didn't stop there."
They tore up the 1972 antiballistic missile treaty to make way for a still largely pie-in-the-sky missile defense system. They opposed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and never made a serious effort to win a ban on the production of fissile material (the core of a nuclear weapon).
Bush grudgingly signed his one and only arms-reduction treaty with the Russians in 2002. That means that today - 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall - the United States and Russia still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons, with thousands ready to launch within minutes.
The bad news, of course, didn't stop there."
Brooks: What life asks of us - International Herald Tribune
Brooks: What life asks of us - International Herald Tribune: "This approach is deeply consistent with the individualism of modern culture, with its emphasis on personal inquiry, personal self-discovery and personal happiness. But there is another, older way of living, and it was discussed in a neglected book that came out last summer called 'On Thinking Institutionally' by the political scientist Hugh Heclo.
In this way of living, to borrow an old phrase, we are not defined by what we ask of life. We are defined by what life asks of us. As we go through life, we travel through institutions - first family and school, then the institutions of a profession or a craft."
In this way of living, to borrow an old phrase, we are not defined by what we ask of life. We are defined by what life asks of us. As we go through life, we travel through institutions - first family and school, then the institutions of a profession or a craft."
Bowring: The global imbalance - International Herald Tribune
Bowring: The global imbalance - International Herald Tribune: "Some of the gains from lower commodity import prices for China (and other exporters of manufactured goods) are nothing to worry about. The oil exporters of the Gulf, Norway and elsewhere do not need more income that they cannot spend. But the simultaneous contraction of deficits in a developed country, particularly the U.S., with the rise in the deficits of the developing world will put new strains on the global system.
The U.S. can run a deficit simply by printing more dollars. The likes of India, Brazil South Africa and Indonesia cannot. They will have to borrow to sustain economic growth when their export prices fall. With private sector finance now hard to find, and given the limited resources of multilateral institutions like the World Bank, the dangers of a downhill snowball effect are clear"
The U.S. can run a deficit simply by printing more dollars. The likes of India, Brazil South Africa and Indonesia cannot. They will have to borrow to sustain economic growth when their export prices fall. With private sector finance now hard to find, and given the limited resources of multilateral institutions like the World Bank, the dangers of a downhill snowball effect are clear"
The mission at Davos: Avoid a crisis of capitalism - International Herald Tribune
The mission at Davos: Avoid a crisis of capitalism - International Herald Tribune: "But, again, the governments must resist the temptation to pin everything on the convenient banking scapegoat. They have also got to put their own houses in order. Credible promises to balance budgets as soon as the crisis is past - even as deficits mount in the short run - should be high on the agenda. So should commitments by central banks to take account of credit growth and asset prices, rather than just looking at consumer prices, when they set interest rates."
World worries how U.S. will pay for stimulus - International Herald Tribune
World worries how U.S. will pay for stimulus - International Herald Tribune: "The focus in Washington has been on putting together a stimulus package that will attract broader political support when it comes up for a vote in the Senate. But here in Davos the talk has been about the coming avalanche of Treasury debt needed to pay for the plan, on top of the bailout measures approved last autumn, like the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP."
Our forgotten crisis - International Herald Tribune
Our forgotten crisis - International Herald Tribune: "We are concerned that development assistance for agriculture has been falling off steadily, from 13 percent in the early 1980s to 2.9 percent in 2005-6. We are concerned that food systems are failing, with falling grain reserves, soaring prices and food riots. We know that the world will face ever-more severe food crises unless and until there is public action to stabilize food supplies and protect those who are most vulnerable. We cannot wait for the story to repeat itself"
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
A model nuclear-power deal? - International Herald Tribune
A model nuclear-power deal? - International Herald Tribune: "There are some objections to the agreement. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, has questioned security at the U.A.E.'s port in Dubai, a nexus for the proliferation network once run by the Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan that supplied Iran, North Korea and Libya with sensitive nuclear material"
IRONIC.... but very good news!!!
IRONIC.... but very good news!!!
some crazy ideas of how limiting countries debt, n save the world trade order
i have just got this crazy idea that might work. i was reading about fallen states in the economist msg.
they categorized into 3 types, hobbes-ian, brutal nasty old rule, modern n post-modern.
post-modern is european union where they sacrificed a certain amount of their soverignities in order to be in an union. they get the same money, euro; n have certain restricted to their bugetary policy, like the national debt would not be more than for example, 4% of GDP.
of course, some EU countries do not always obey the law, n everyone just want to devaluate their money to get out of an economic crisis. (sorry, i am not going to explain the economic theory, too tired to, just sth to do with export, raise output....)
anyway, i was reading this other articules on japan, how even their banks got fucked, not because of the american toxic assets, they have very little of that,
more of the jap banks have stakes in the japanese companies, like sony, sharp, toyota....
so when the stock market was down, because less products are sold in america & others...
the jap banks got hitted very hard, suddenly their balance sheet got fucked up too. (jap economies, half of jap GDP is export, so imagine when the export is down by half, that means 25% of GDP is down,
economy works in cycle, less money coming back, more laid off, less money to spent at home..... so maybe another 15-20%off, it will be like 60ish GDP of a year ago, that is alot!!!!)
n they hit out in the banks as the banks own the economy, no money to lend out, less investment, less job, second cycle of laid-off.......yes, very crap.)
anyway. so what is my idea? u know there is a failed Doha round.
basically countries come together to arguing, trying to divide the cake, who gets what, how much tarriff they can impose on their imports, how many products go from chile to america for example....
the point is that we have no international rule, arbitrary of saying if someone breaks the rule they will be punished, but the Doha round is the nearest thing we have.
it is basically bigger countries rule, i have more power over u, n u have to obey my rule if u are going to do biz with me.
but what if we set some sort of EU for the world, we are not going to talk about human rights....
but say that all countries cannot go beyond certains percentage of debts of their GDP if u want to join in the union.
1.u see, if u want to subsidary ur goods, say that a corn costs $3, gov't A gives $1 to the farmers, then if it is sells $3, the farmers will still get $1 of profit, while drive other countries farmers bankrupt, n
country A has a bigger share of the market...monopoly, raise the price of corn later, n bigger say in the Doha round, more unfair rules...vicious cycle.
but if every gov't cannot go beyond a certain debt level, they paying subsidy to one thing, means less on the other thing. in normal time, they would prefer to run in bigger debt, get bigger GDP, then the debt can be paid off later. now they cannot do that.
2. if the country is not in debt, the interest rate is stable, so the currency is stable, n so financial markets would not play in hedging currency, so no hot money or flight of money.
(hot money, i.e. Soros in 1997 asia financial crisis) , so no further currency stability.
ok, interest rate stable, do u get what i mean, if ur bank account n credit history is good, the bank would not view u as dangerous, run n not pay back, so they do not charge a higher interest rate, to offset their risks. u are good biz, they would like to keep u as client, so lower interest rate for u.
3. other countries know that u have the money to pay back, they would like to do more biz with u. n so u do more biz with other countries.
if u want to run into unreasonable debt to expand ur biz too quickly, u cannot, as u would be kicked out of the union n no biz at all for u. so it is very safe.
4. if they try to heat up the property/ stock market to raise consumption, thus GDP, by letting their households borrow from their houses to buy goods n stock..., n so stock/property goes up, borrow more, more for consumption, bigger GDP...stock goes up again...
they cannot, because they are not allow to run beyond certain amount of debts.
5. if the company n gov't has excess saving, like in china, even when the ave. workers paycheck has been less n less.... those gov'ts would not know what to do with their saving, because nobody can borrow from them, so they would need to invest back to their own economies, raise the workers' wages for more buying, thus bigger GDP.
so the disturbed present cycle could not have been possible. all the countries would have developped more normally, n evenly, so eventually between the poor n the rich is not so big, n so fairer societies for all.
--
i am sure my model could have some falses. i have not thought everything thru...
but the first problem i see in implementation, they are going to argue what is the wrong amount of debt.
2. should developed, n developping countries have the same percentage of debt of GDP, afterall developping countries need more money to develop...etc, it is not fair...etc.
3. some countries would start to do insider deal, hey, i have excess saving, do u want some?
i won't tell anyone, esp if it is big, like america n china, nobody would dare to say anything.
yes, in union, we are strength, in parts, we fall.
4. some countries would try to cook up numbers, what is count as debts, what isn't.... statistic, accounting... u will be amazed by what some experts' hand can do.
5. how to count the debt level, an ave out of 5yrs, is every yr being too strict? but if every 5yrs, some countries would use political influence to delay or cheat, round out numbers....etc, n say it is almost alright, ppl turn a blind eye from it.
hey, i help u out, u help me out; hey if it is not today, u never know when u would need my help, so...
they are all so lowlifes, i swear, freaking politicians.
even if it works, maybe it is like in the starworld, a good republic, until some forgones all the rules, it is so peaceful, nobody have anymore anti-bodies to fight if they are attacked by the diseases.
i don't know, history is a funny thing, maybe i have thought too many steps ahead. only God knows!!!
----------------
IMF, bretton woods, UN... most of them were built after the WW2, are they not outdated?
Cold war, 1989, 9/11... is it not the time to build something that reflect our times?
the idea i have got properly would not work out in one rule fit all..., but should not we move more gradually to trade with countries that are fiscally responsible?
we buy from brandnames that give us a sense of confidence, quality, safety...
in an unfair, injustice world, it would seem stupid to play it fair, but everything is so distorted, nothing seems to make sense, everyone feels disoriented one way or another.
someone called it post-modern angst, but what is the point?
who is really winning here? u win some, u lose some.... in- between anxiety and stress have aged u decades in a few yrs. i am talking about wallstreet, washington. they are so overworked, overloaded in monitoring every bit of distortions.
that they cannot think straight, not until the day u have left the gambling table, u would not know if u have won or lost. but by then.... what have u really done for the world, maybe even for urself?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
An anatomy of Asian economic woes | Troubled tigers | The Economist
An anatomy of Asian economic woes Troubled tigers The Economist: "So if Asia is to shift the mix of growth towards consumption, the usual prescription of urging households to spend more will not be enough. A raft of government policies will have to change to lift households’ share of national income. They include: reducing the bias towards capital-intensive manufacturing; speeding up financial liberalisation to lift the cost of capital; scrapping subsidies and tax breaks which favour manufacturing over services; and attacking monopolies and other barriers to services. Stronger exchange rates would also shift growth away from exports and boost households’ real spending power by reducing the cost of imports in local currency terms."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)