Financial Crisis

[flying]

I cant see how Thailand can achieve the 6% growth predicted for this year with this going on,

One thing China seems to be latching onto ....Food & Energy...well ok 2 things

And why not? Trade a chunk of their wealth for these two knowing full well they will need them as will everyone.

But according to this Thailand may have energy problems or no?

15 Drill-Crazy Countries That Are Rapidly Running Out Of Oil

Thailand -- 1 year remaining

Barrels per day: 1,073,000

Proved reserves: 441,000,000

Key figure: Prasert Bunsumpun, CEO of PTT

Outlook: Domestic production is living on borrowed time thanks to recent discoveries. Within 1-2 years it may fall to nil, and Thailand will depend entirely on imports. State-owned PTT is moving heavily into natural ga

Edited June 28, 2010 by flying

[sokal]

how many support a nuclear Israel

The Middle East is a powderkeg

You're very one-eyed on this, Sokal

No, you are just unrealistic on this. The Iranian president himself doesn't even use that lame argument.

[midas]

how many support a nuclear Israel

The Middle East is a powderkeg

You're very one-eyed on this, Sokal

No, you are just unrealistic on this. The Iranian president himself doesn't even use that lame argument.

You are wrong again sokal! You really should check your facts before posting

Ahmadinejad Criticizes Nuclear ‘Double Standards’ (Update2)

Israel “has over 200 nuclear warheads and has created several wars, and the U.S. and its allies give their support and extend aids,” Ahmadinejad said at the opening today of a conference on nuclear disarmament in Tehran.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-17/ahmadinejad-criticizes-double-standards-on-nuclear-technology.html

[flying]

You are wrong again sokal! You really should check your facts before posting

[Abrak]

On the double dip scenario, the numbers are increasingly sliding that way. Here are a few comments from David Rosenberg.

For the week ending June 11th, the ECRI leading index (growth rate) slipped for the sixth week in a row, to -5.7% from -3.7%. Only once in the past – in 1987, but the Fed could cut rates then – did this fail to signal a recession. But a -5.7% print accurately signaled a recession in the lead-up to all of the past seven downturns.

"The consensus is looking at 3% real GDP growth for the second half of the year, but as Chart 2 suggests, the two quarters following a move in the ECRI to a -5% to -10% range is +0.8% at an annual rate on average. So right now the choice is really either a 2002-style growth relapse or an outright double-dip recession – pick your poison."

Obviously you could also add that with the planned tax increases at the end of this year, which equate to about 1% of GDP and a fiscal multiplier (or is that divider) of 0.4x, then in the US you will be struggling against considerable headwinds.

However before getting too hot and bothered in a thread that is naturally bearish, there are indicators such as the manufacturing index numbers that point to 6% GDP growth this year, which if it was the case, would certainly not indicate a recession next. Personally, I feel that there are a number of reasons why this growth might be overstated (very much along the lines of why the UK Government halved the 'output gap' that they believed in before the recent budget.)

[AlexLah]

Uuuuuuurrrrrrrrrr, Abrak I really like your postings but could you enlighten us as to where that growth is coming from?

Oh wait maybe it's because of Sokal demanding more bunker busters to be produced and shipped to Diego Garcia and that place he is so highly sensitive of?

Lana thanks for explaining that when running an insurance bizz you do not actually need the cash to cover all the contracts in case they blow up, highly interesting and I wonder (not really) why they approved all of that.

Just check who are the "They"

Biden recently spoke out and I am sure Prince Obama would like to put some duct tape over his mouth but here it is:

"There's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

"There is no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost."

[jcon]

So I think the downfall of all classical economics is largely due to 'aggregation' - namely the sum of the individual parts does not equal the whole. That is why I like the 'evolution' comparison. I'm gonna have to agree wholeheartedly here. And this is the point where economics and biology (here, evolution) part ways in that aggregation in biology results in something rather elegant - atoms, molecules, etc. working in concert to create incredibly complex life - while aggregation in economics creates an incredibly complex ''monster.'' Nature is incredible to the extent that the goals are aligned with the actions (goal being reproduction and the action/mechanism being any form of natural selection that creates the most favorable outcomes). While the evolution comparison works on a more abstract level, it cannot work if one were to say, apply the laws of nature (a hard science) over economic theory. I'm sure there is a lot more to go into here, but alas it's 2am....

The really interesting stuff to me is the work that is done on the very basis that we are not 'independent' entities. Possibly quite the opposite. (A purely sexist example here.) But does say your girlfriend when she buys a dress say 'I really like this' or 'I really think that other people will think I look good in this.' Or do you buy something because it is cheap or because you believe that the price will go up because other people will see it is as cheap.

Now this problem of non-independency is central to Marx, Hagel, Popper and according to this thread a theory by Soros that he calls 'reflexivity'!!

'Chaos' almost by definition involves insolvable equations. Co-dependence, the basis for 'behavioral economics' is mathematically incredibly difficult because of non-linearity. Conceptually it is very easy to grasp because all you really need do is to work backwards.Start at the end and work backwards.

Anyways, at one end you have the Austrians who believe in Rothbard's 'Robinson Crusoe' economics (his name not mine) as to how choices are made on the basis of noone else being around and then aggregated. At the other side you have Marx to a large degree who looked at the end result of aggregation and ultimately looked at extinction (well dialectics before extinction.)

Still I really like the 'evolution' comparison. We are all individuals pursuing our own individual goals of survival and reproduction. The end result of aggregation is not always good for the community as a whole. The 'peacocks' feathers were hardly based on a 'referendum'. But neither is 'co-dependent' thought. In fact if peacocks thought very much about anything they would think that great big feathers look really good in other peoples eyes although I cant really run, I cant fly but at least I get a decent shag. And the chick thinks well it is pretty cool he has the great big feathers (it is a bit like a Gucci hand bag), my parents will be impressed, I am impressed and my kids will also have incredibly nice feathers so everyone will be impressed. He is pretty fit isnt he?

Now the 'nice feathers' get a good 'shag' is half the equation. On the other hand, cant fly, bling overdose, can hardly walk, so in the long run you are totally screwed is just the other half.

(Incidentally I am not trying to give peacocks thoughts here just explaining why if they they had any, they would still act as complete morons. And to explain why the likes of Marx would say, well in the end, they they will be extinct.)

The rest of your post I'm going to pull a ''lanna'' and say that I'd give you the thumbs up in general agreement but I just can't put it into words as to why at the moment. As with many of your postings, Abrak - this is actually the case. I read it, and in my head I think "Yeah, that's basically exactly what I think, but I couldn't say it as well as that.'' So instead of replying, I just read and nod my head!

I also agree with lanna about the choices part (opt-in or opt-out) - and at the moment I also have one foot in and one foot out (it's the being co-opted part that scares me). It's grinding on my sanity more and more because I think it's just rotten to the core but I'm not planning on going into policy otherwise I'd probably shoot myself.... This Biology discussion is seriously making me consider my 3rd career as a Biology professor!!!! Or perhaps Astronomy and just getting stoned and looking at the stars all night long!!!

Midas, there has been tons of rain in BKK the past few days - hope some of it makes its way to your farm - I think the rest of the summer we'll see some nice rains, hopefully at least

[Bizz]

I cant see how Thailand can achieve the 6% growth predicted for this year with this going on,

One thing China seems to be latching onto ....Food & Energy...well ok 2 things

And why not? Trade a chunk of their wealth for these two knowing full well they will need them as will everyone.

But according to this Thailand may have energy problems or no?

15 Drill-Crazy Countries That Are Rapidly Running Out Of Oil

Thailand -- 1 year remaining

Barrels per day: 1,073,000

Proved reserves: 441,000,000

Key figure: Prasert Bunsumpun, CEO of PTT

Outlook: Domestic production is living on borrowed time thanks to recent discoveries. Within 1-2 years it may fall to nil, and Thailand will depend entirely on imports. State-owned PTT is moving heavily into natural ga

yes but you did not quote moving into gas big time.

we look at Asia the future of success at your own peril.

Success breeds confidence, and rapid success produces arrogance. That, in a nutshell, is the problem that both Asia and the West face in China, and which has been demonstrated once again at the G20 summit in Canada.

Rising economic and military power is emboldening China’s government to pursue a more muscular foreign policy. Having earlier preached the gospel of its “peaceful rise,” China is now beginning to take the gloves off, convinced that it has acquired the necessary muscle.

That approach became more marked with the global financial crisis that began in the fall of 2008. China interpreted that crisis as symbolizing both the decline of the Anglo-American brand of capitalism and the weakening of American economic power. That, in turn, strengthened its two-fold belief – that its brand of state-steered capitalism offers a credible alternative, and that its global ascendance is inevitable.

Chinese analysts gleefully point out that, after having sung the “liberalize, privatize, and let the markets decide” song for so long, the United States and Britain took the lead in bailing out their financial giants at the first sign of trouble. By contrast, state-driven capitalism has given China economic stability and rapid growth, allowing it to ride out the global crisis.

Indeed, despite perpetual talk of an overheating economy, China’s exports and retail sales are soaring, and its foreign-exchange reserves now approach $2.5 trillion, even as America’s fiscal and trade deficits remain alarming. That has helped reinforce the Chinese elite’s faith in the country’s fusion of autocratic politics and state capitalism.

The biggest loser from the global financial crisis, in China’s view, is Uncle Sam. That the US remains dependent on China to buy billions of dollars worth of Treasury bonds every week to finance its yawning budget deficit is a sign of shifting global financial power – which China is sure to use for political gain in the years ahead.

The current spotlight may be on Europe’s financial woes, but the bigger picture for China is that America’s chronic deficits and indebtedness epitomize its relative decline. Add to the picture the two wars that the US is waging overseas – one of which is getting hotter and increasingly appears unwinnable – and what comes to mind among China’s leaders is the historian Paul Kennedy’s warning about “imperial overstretch.”

Against that background, China’s growing assertiveness may not surprise many. Deng Xiaoping’s advice – “Hide your capabilities and bide your time” – no longer seems relevant. Today, China is not shy about showcasing its military capabilities and asserting itself on multiple fronts.

As a result, new strains are appearing in China’s relationship with the West, and were in full view at last year’s Copenhagen climate-change summit, where China – the world’s largest polluter with the fastest-growing carbon emissions – cleverly deflected pressure by hiding behind developing countries. Since then, China has added to the strains by continuing to manipulate the value of the renminbi, maintaining an abnormally high trade surplus, and restricting goods manufactured by foreign companies in China from entering the domestic market.

On political and security issues, China has aroused no less concern. For example, China’s expanding naval role and maritime claims threaten to collide with US interests, including America’s traditional emphasis on freedom of the seas.

Yet the plain truth is that America’s economic and military travails are crimping its foreign-policy options vis-à-vis China. The US seems more reluctant than ever to exercise the leverage that it still has to press China to correct policies that threaten to distort trade, foster huge trade imbalances, and spark greater competition for scarce raw materials.

By keeping its currency undervalued and flooding world markets with artificially cheap goods, China pursues a predatory trade policy. This undercuts manufacturing in the developing world more than in the West. But, by threatening to destabilize the global economy, China threatens Western interests as well. Furthermore, its efforts to lock up supplies of key resources mean that it will continue to lend support to renegade regimes.

Still, America shies away from exerting any kind of open pressure on China. US policy today is a study in contrast relative to America’s unabashed exercise of leverage in the 1970’s and 1980’s, when Japan emerged as a global economic powerhouse. Japan kept the yen undervalued and erected hidden barriers to foreign goods, precipitating strong pressure – and periodic arm-twisting – by the US for Japanese concessions.

Today, the US cannot adopt the same approach with China, largely because China is also a military and political power, and the US depends on Chinese support on a host of international issues – from North Korea and Burma to Iran and Pakistan. By contrast, Japan has remained a fully pacifist economic power.

It matters greatly that China became a global military player before it became a global economic player. China’s military power was built by Mao Zedong, enabling Deng to focus single-mindedly on rapidly building the country’s economic power. Before Deng launched his “four modernizations,” China had acquired global military reach by testing its first intercontinental ballistic missile, the DF-5, with a range of 12,000 kilometers (7,500 miles), and developing a thermonuclear warhead.

Without the military security that Mao created, it might not have been possible for China to build economic power on the scale that it has. In fact, the 13-fold expansion of its economy over the past three decades generated even greater resources for China to sharpen its military claws.

China’s rise thus is as much Mao’s handiwork as it is Deng’s. But for Chinese military power, the US would treat China like another Japan.

My link

[Bizz]

Outlook: Domestic production is living on borrowed time thanks to recent discoveries. Within 1-2 years it may fall to nil, and Thailand will depend entirely on imports. State-owned PTT is moving heavily into natural ga

my apologies misspelling by you failed to spell gas as ga

[midas]

The rest of your post I'm going to pull a ''lanna'' and say that I'd give you the thumbs up in general agreement but I just can't put it into words as to why at the moment. As with many of your postings, Abrak - this is actually the case. I read it, and in my head I think "Yeah, that's basically exactly what I think, but I couldn't say it as well as that.'' So instead of replying, I just read and nod my head!

I also agree with lanna about the choices part (opt-in or opt-out) - and at the moment I also have one foot in and one foot out (it's the being co-opted part that scares me). It's grinding on my sanity more and more because I think it's just rotten to the core but I'm not planning on going into policy otherwise I'd probably shoot myself.... This Biology discussion is seriously making me consider my 3rd career as a Biology professor!!!! Or perhaps Astronomy and just getting stoned and looking at the stars all night long!!!

Midas, there has been tons of rain in BKK the past few days - hope some of it makes its way to your farm - I think the rest of the summer we'll see some nice rains, hopefully at least

" Or perhaps Astronomy and just getting stoned and looking at the stars all night long!!! "

I like that suggestion

even though we dont agree on everything at least thanks for being so civil about it

and we didnt degenerate into this ...:

Edited June 28, 2010 by midas

[flying]

Outlook: Domestic production is living on borrowed time thanks to recent discoveries. Within 1-2 years it may fall to nil, and Thailand will depend entirely on imports. State-owned PTT is moving heavily into natural ga

my apologies misspelling by you failed to spell gas as ga

:lol: yeah I wonder who stole that s?

PS: I wonder where technology stands these days in regards to ....

How much oil based energy does it take to mine natural gas? Transport it...store it etc.

I hear many folks talk about natural gas as if it is a replacement for the need .....Yet natural gas will never make all the products oil does will it? It takes 7 gallons of oil to produce one passenger car tire if I remember correctly....

From your article...

The current spotlight may be on Europe’s financial woes, but the bigger picture for China is that America’s chronic deficits and indebtedness epitomize its relative decline. Add to the picture the two wars that the US is waging overseas – one of which is getting hotter and increasingly appears unwinnable – and what comes to mind among China’s leaders is the historian Paul Kennedy’s warning about “imperial overstretch.”

Is it not truly amazing that everyone else can see this but the US chooses not to see it at all. For what ever reason

Edited June 29, 2010 by flying

[midas]

From your article...

The current spotlight may be on Europes financial woes, but the bigger picture for China is that Americas chronic deficits and indebtedness epitomize its relative decline. Add to the picture the two wars that the US is waging overseas one of which is getting hotter and increasingly appears unwinnable and what comes to mind among Chinas leaders is the historian Paul Kennedys warning about imperial overstretch.

Is it not truly amazing that everyone else can see this but the US chooses not to see it at all. For what ever reason

They must see it and they have had so many warnings by now and surely even a school student of economics can see it so I only

reach one of two conclusions :-

( a ) Obama intentionally wants to crash the system

( b ) they are petrified and are stuck in a hole. As long as they

keep the Dow above 10,000 its steady as she goes. But now they really must be careful after yesterdays

Supreme Court ruling it looks like EVERYONE can legally own a gun

" "This decision and its predecessor -- the District of Columbia v. Heller -- have essentially disregarded the precedent of 71 years embedded in the United States v. Miller, a 1939 case," she said. "I find that shocking as a former mayor. I believe the proliferation of guns have made this nation less safe, not more safe. We now have more guns than people in this country. They are sold everywhere: on street corners, in gun shows, with no restraint whatsoever, any type of weapon. They fall into the hands of juveniles, criminals, and the mentally ill virtually every day of the year. And the Supreme Court has thrown aside seven decades of precedent to exacerbate this situation."

Edited June 29, 2010 by midas

[midas]

Thailand Public debt rises to 42.39% of GDP

The country’s outstanding public debt at the end of March was 4.12 trillion baht, or 42.39 per cent of gross domestic product, up 49.57 billion baht from a previous month, the Ministry of Finance reported on Thursday.

Of the total, 372.30 billion baht or 9.03 per cent was foreign debt, while the balance of 3.75 trillion baht or 80.97 per cent was domestic debt, the ministry said.

A total of 2.76 trillion baht were loans directly acquired by the government, 1.10 trillion baht were loans sought by non-financial-institution state enterprises, 188.57 were loans acquired by financial-institution state enterprises guaranteed by the government, and 70.11 billion baht were loans acquired by the Financial Institutions Development Fund (FIDF).

The government’s directly acquired loans were up from February by 49 billion baht, while the debt of non-financial-institution state enterprises increased 2.55 billion baht and FIDF’s debt rose 482 million baht.

The debts of financial-institution state firms guaranteed by the government were down 2.46 billion baht.

The increase in the government’s directly acquired debt was mainly caused by the issuance of 36 billion baht of government savings bonds, to raise funds to compensate for the budget deficit, the ministry said

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/180000/public-debt-rises-to-42-39-of-gdp

[12DrinkMore]

This BIS has issued its annual report and is available here

http://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2010e.pdf?noframes=1

Although they are stating the blindingly obvious

It said: "Events coming out of Greece highlight the possibility that highly indebted governments may not be able to act as a buyer of last resort to save banks in a crisis. That is, in late 2008 and early 2009, governments provided the backstop when banks began to fail. But if the debts of the government itself become unmarketable, any future bailout of the banking system would have to rely on external help."

Presumably the Aliens are coming as "Lenders of the Ultimate Resort", although why they should bother themselves with this particularly nasty and destructive species is a question I can find no answer to.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-might-not-cope-with-another-bank-emergency-2013049.html

Here's an article by Martenson

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-destined-fail-–-magical-thinking-g20

"All we need is growth, growth is all we need".

Yeah, right, for the Yanks that means starting with "Growth through Debt" and for the Rest of the West it means "Growth through Austerity". But as Martenson asks, where on earth (back to the Aliens again, maybe they can help out by buying a few LCD TVs or even investing in "Font of Western Wealth", real estate?) is all this Growth going to come from? Bernanke is itching to pull the "Anti-Deflation" lever and squirt another USD 3,500,000,000,000 into the US Economic Arteries, but inflation is not growth, and just because this is his BIG BABY, doesn't mean to say that we should all be subject to his experiment in trying to defeat the gravity of Debt Deflation.

The Austerity Challenge at the Public Sector level has also been taken on by the Private Sector, which is not exactly what the Leaderz want, but through raising taxes, reducing benefits and pushing out retirement ages is taking even more money out of the private sector and giving it to the government to spend wisely on our behalf. They just can't get their heads around the big issue; the public sector is far too big for the private sector to support. The UK now has 1,000,000 more valued and efficient Public Servants than 10 years ago. They are breeding out of control, and need to be culled across the board, like some sort of parasite. To save all the bickering, why not just take a couple of pay grades at random and sack everybody on those levels?

[Gambles]

before this " financial crisis " is fully over,

I predict sooner than later the Obama Regime will curtail civil liberties and freedom

even more.

What is sedition?

Sedition is the illegal promotion of resistance against the government, usually in speech or writing. What is illegal depends on the government and its regard for freedom of speech. The crime of sedition is alive and actively prosecuted in many countries today

The Montana Sedition Project

It's interesting the way that people think. I was talking to someone somewhat older and much smarter than me who has lived through staggering events of the best part of the last hundred years that have involved Governments expropriating fundamental rights from their own people (quite apart from interference in international affairs which have seen many constitutional regimes supplanted by unconstitutional ones):

Prohibiting alcohol

Confiscating privately owned gold

Prejudicial legislative practices denying the basic human rights of a wide range of racial/ethnic groups (remember that in Germany concentration camps were in the lifetime of any below the age of 65, you were alive at the time of the gulag if you are 50 and people in their 30s lived through the British Governments' internment policies)

Widespread violation of private property rights

Wire-tapping and other privacy infringments

Don't get me wrong, I'm no conspiracist but I think that it's important to remember that as we sit n civilised comfort in 2010 that even during the modern era of peace and prosperity we've had 2 world wars, dozens of regional ones and hundreds of instances of governments throughout the world choosing to attack rather than defend the rights of their own citizens. We've had key US business leaders plotting to overthrow USG, we've had the UK military and members of the royal family implicated in a plot to overthrow Harold Wilson's government and today the world looks on while human rights are currently being attacked in over 90 countries apparentlly (personally I don't fully trust the likes of HRW either but everyone should read their 2010 report, just remember to read it very criticially) including USA, UK, Germany and Thailand.

So yes, governments are one of the biggest threats to property, wealth, freedom and human rights if their past and current records are anything to go by.

However many people seem to trust governments more not less these days even though the evidence suggests that they are constantly taking measures to increase their ability to attack private wealth through taxation, currency devaluation, asset confiscation, abuse of emminent domain, attacks on personal privacy and expropriation of property rights. The widespread complacency about this is astonishing.

Abrak made a very interesting comment recently picking up on this idea of which assets are safe from government intervention and which jurisdictions are now the best to keep them (for much of the last century Switzerland was perceived as one of the most secure and still retains substantial assets because of of this) but is now much more vulnerable. There's been a popular move to regarding Singapore and Hong Kong as being the 21st century asset havens but I think that could be a huge oversimplification and this whole topic probably deserves a thread of its own which I'll get round to starting when I've finished my current globe trot.

[Abrak]

They are breeding out of control, and need to be culled across the board, like some sort of parasite. To save all the bickering, why not just take a couple of pay grades at random and sack everybody on those levels?

Well given these 'public servants' would almost certainly be unemployable and unemployed in the private sector, their upkeep, post redundancy might be prohibitively expensive. It might be more productive (if a little messy) for the public sector to play a very large game of Russian Roulette*.

* Rights for this idea are reserved for a future 'social action bond'.

[Gambles]

From the UK budget

1.98 The Government will review the taxation of non-domiciled individuals. This will assess whether changes can be made to the current rules to ensure that non domiciled individuals make a fair contribution to reducing the deficit.

By the way the word 'fair' is used at least 100 times in the budget report.

As in...

The Government is committed to a fair and responsible budget, to increase the incentives to work and to reduce the benefits of non-work dependency.

First time I have heard unemployment referred to as 'benefiting from non-work dependency'

Failing to correct the leverage (too much debt AND still overvalued assets) through a shortish but horribly sharp recession and failing to buy into the short-termism of Fed policy leaves UKG sitting on a very uncomfortable Japanese style fence IMHO - (the following was written before the England-Germany debacle....but seems even more valid now; after all Capello has to be paid GBP 6 million p.a. for each of the next 2 years)

Dear all,

Please find below the latest update from MBMG International.

New Chancellor of The Exchequer George Osborne's initial budget highlighted his inexperience. Osborne seemed much more concerned, both in his budget and his subsequent comments, with scoring cheap political points than with any kind of meaningful measures to tackle the UK's economic problems.

The difficulties that remain are:

* The high level of annual deficit

* The record levels of wartime debt

* The additional capital needed by the state-owned banks

* The reluctance to write down asset prices to realistic levels

* The anaemic performance of the UK private sector

* Severely damaged economic confidence

Osborne addressed the additional capital requirement by creating a banking levy - this recognises the problem but offers a solution which implies that he's completely out of touch with the realities of the moral hazard of modern banking. In a non-zero failure world, banks will fail sometimes but a regulatory framework that prevents the build-up of systemic banking and shadow banking sector risk remains the most important priority and one which hasn't been addressed.

The annual deficit is being addressed by a series of cuts and also by increasing capital gains tax and VAT. A higher consumption tax at a time of weak economic performance is muddled thinking analogous to that which led Messrs Smoot and Hawley to introduce tariffs in the USA 80 years ago, erroneously thinking that this would improve America's balance of payments at that time.

From what we've seen the proposed cuts are more likely to impact economic growth, consumer spending and essential services while not addressing the waste and inefficiency of the bloated UK civil service - the cutback of development finance facilities to companies like Sheffield's Forgemasters is simply making short term savings at the price of longer term gains. Rather than taking the difficult structural decisions, the measures appear to be based on very short term immediate expediency at a time when what is needed is focused strategy. Even bank-benchers from the government's Liberal Democrat coalition partners, were united in their opposition to Osborne's budget.

A further slowdown may well probably have been unavoidable anyway - thanks to Osborne, it's now completely inevitable. A second banking crisis was a major concern - instead of preventing it, Osborne's answer is to build up a GBP 2 billion fund to allow him to throw more good money after bad.

Debt is likely to continue to spiral. Asset prices remain fundamentally overrated preventing further investment. The structural problems all remain - they've simply been buried for 6 months and are likely to re-appear with even greater severity.

Eamon Holmes in an interview on SkyNews asked Osborne about England's World Cup prospects and when Osborne stated a preference for selecting Joe Cole, noted that The Chancellor's footballing wisdom seemed to be sound and sharp even if his economic judgment wasn't. That’s pretty worrying right now.

I wonder how profound England football manager Fabio Capello's financial knowledge is - it can't be weaker than Osborne's - maybe a job swap is called for?

Once again, very best regards,

MBMG International

Please Note: While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained herein is correct, MBMG International cannot be held responsible for any errors that may occur. The views of the contributors may not necessarily reflect the house view of MBMG International. Views and opinions expressed herein may change with market conditions and should not be used in isolation.

[flying]

But now they really must be careful after yesterdays

Supreme Court ruling it looks like EVERYONE can legally own a gun

" "This decision and its predecessor -- the District of Columbia v. Heller -- have essentially disregarded the precedent of 71 years embedded in the United States v. Miller, a 1939 case," she said. "I find that shocking as a former mayor. I believe the proliferation of guns have made this nation less safe, not more safe. We now have more guns than people in this country. They are sold everywhere: on street corners, in gun shows, with no restraint whatsoever, any type of weapon. They fall into the hands of juveniles, criminals, and the mentally ill virtually every day of the year. And the Supreme Court has thrown aside seven decades of precedent to exacerbate this situation."

Actually our constitution guarantees our right to keep & bear arms & that IMO is a good thing.

This former mayor is full of it.

Anything sold on street corner is not a legal firearm & would not be affected by ever more gun laws. They are also not sold everywhere without restraint.

The ATF makes them all register each & every sale.

The gun laws are & have always been in place.

Except the criminals always will have a way to find things.

It is the justice system that is broken & in need of repair.

If one is found guilty of a firearm assault hang them for all I care.Perhaps then the crimes in which a firearm is used would cease.

But these endless procession of laws aimed at legal law abiding gun owners is not the right direction at all.

To say Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.

That is in regards to crime & gun usage

The other side of the coin is a well armed populace is a better & better idea as I see a government gone wild.

Edited June 29, 2010 by flying

[midas]

before this " financial crisis " is fully over,

I predict sooner than later the Obama Regime will curtail civil liberties and freedom

even more.

What is sedition?

Sedition is the illegal promotion of resistance against the government, usually in speech or writing. What is illegal depends on the government and its regard for freedom of speech. The crime of sedition is alive and actively prosecuted in many countries today

The Montana Sedition Project

It's interesting the way that people think. I was talking to someone somewhat older and much smarter than me who has lived through staggering events of the best part of the last hundred years that have involved Governments expropriating fundamental rights from their own people (quite apart from interference in international affairs which have seen many constitutional regimes supplanted by unconstitutional ones):

I often wonder what it was like in countries like East Berlin , North Korea, Cuba and even Eritrea

in Africa just before the door slammed shut and after people had no choice but to stay and obey.

How much warning would they have had. Could we see this happen in an instant today ? I think so.

Prohibiting alcohol

Confiscating privately owned gold

Prejudicial legislative practices denying the basic human rights of a wide range of racial/ethnic groups (remember that in Germany concentration camps were in the lifetime of any below the age of 65, you were alive at the time of the gulag if you are 50 and people in their 30s lived through the British Governments' internment policies)

Widespread violation of private property rights

Wire-tapping and other privacy infringments

Don't get me wrong, I'm no conspiracist but I think that it's important to remember that as we sit n civilised comfort in 2010 that even during the modern era of peace and prosperity we've had 2 world wars, dozens of regional ones and hundreds of instances of governments throughout the world choosing to attack rather than defend the rights of their own citizens.

You don’t have to be a conspiracist to be able to acuse governments of acting against the peoples interest. Just look at the Arizona immigration law debate and just think how bizzare this situation is ?

Obama is suing Arizona to stop it from preventing illegal aliens from entering that State, many of which anyway are dangerous drug cartel members and it is a job that Obama should be doing. Obama is therefore protecting the interests of illegal aliens just in order to ensure his own survival as President hoping that he will win the vote of those that want to be “ soft “ on illegal immigrants more than ensuring the safety of the citizens of Arizona.

I don’t think it gets more twisted and bizzare than this ?[/b]

We've had key US business leaders plotting to overthrow USG, we've had the UK military and members of the royal family implicated in a plot to overthrow Harold Wilson's government and today the world looks on while human rights are currently being attacked in over 90 countries apparentlly (personally I don't fully trust the likes of HRW either but everyone should read their 2010 report, just remember to read it very criticially) including USA, UK, Germany and Thailand.

So yes, governments are one of the biggest threats to property, wealth, freedom and human rights if their past and current records are anything to go by.

However many people seem to trust governments more not less these days even though the evidence suggests that they are constantly taking measures to increase their ability to attack private wealth through taxation, currency devaluation, asset confiscation, abuse of emminent domain, attacks on personal privacy and expropriation of property rights. The widespread complacency about this is astonishing.

I am not sure I can agree with you that people are more trusting of government today - but here is an intersting analysis

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010/04/pew-americans-dig-government-websites-but-not-the-government.ars

Abrak made a very interesting comment recently picking up on this idea of which assets are safe from government intervention and which jurisdictions are now the best to keep them (for much of the last century Switzerland was perceived as one of the most secure and still retains substantial assets because of of this) but is now much more vulnerable. There's been a popular move to regarding Singapore and Hong Kong as being the 21st century asset havens but I think that could be a huge oversimplification and this whole topic probably deserves a thread of its own which I'll get round to starting when I've finished my current globe trot.

[Gambles]

Robert Prechter makes his deflationary case to a Goldbug:

http://www.financial...2010-0619-2.mp3

Thank you for this ! very informative

" outstanding credit is already there and it can implode faster than anybody can monetise "

Says it all really.

Prechter is a bit like one of those broken clocks that is right twice a day - now might just be one of those 2 times.....

[Gambles]

Interesting thesis on fiat and trade describing some more subtle forms of warfare-

Global Financial Crisis for Dummies: Why the Abandonment of the Gold Standard is Responsible for the World's Sovereign Debt Crises | zero hedge

This is so overly simplistic as to be either very naieve or crude propaganda. Either way, it's not worth taking very seriously

Or possibly it was meant as a sarcastic joke?! In which case, while not being worth taking seriously, it is quite funny.

you're right (as usual ;-) )- that's abetter possibility

[Gambles]

how many support a nuclear Israel

The Middle East is a powderkeg

You're very one-eyed on this, Sokal

No, you are just unrealistic on this. The Iranian president himself doesn't even use that lame argument.

That's exactly what a one-sided person would say. There will never be peace in the middle East while people on both sides) are so entrenched - this is what prevents change for the better.

[churchill]

Robert Prechter makes his deflationary case to a Goldbug:

http://www.financial...2010-0619-2.mp3

Thank you for this ! very informative

" outstanding credit is already there and it can implode faster than anybody can monetise "

Says it all really.

Prechter is a bit like one of those broken clocks that is right twice a day - now might just be one of those 2 times.....

So Scott Cambell and Moonraker are wrong to be investing in gold and silver at this time ?

[Naam]

"Global Financial Crisis for Dummies: Why the Abandonment of the Gold Standard is Responsible for the World's Sovereign Debt Crises | zero hedge"

wisdom from Dyler Turd?

[Naam]

Robert Prechter makes his deflationary case to a Goldbug:

http://www.financial...2010-0619-2.mp3

Thank you for this ! very informative

" outstanding credit is already there and it can implode faster than anybody can monetise "

Says it all really.

Prechter is a bit like one of those broken clocks that is right twice a day - now might just be one of those 2 times.....

So Scott Cambell and Moonraker are wrong to be investing in gold and silver at this time ?

we'll know in a few years whether they were right or wrong.

[churchill]

[Robert Prechter makes his deflationary case to a Goldbug:

http://www.financial...2010-0619-2.mp3

Thank you for this ! very informative

" outstanding credit is already there and it can implode faster than anybody can monetise "

Says it all really.

Prechter is a bit like one of those broken clocks that is right twice a day - now might just be one of those 2 times.....

So Scott Cambell and Moonraker are wrong to be investing in gold and silver at this time ?

we'll know in a few years whether they were right or wrong.

Yes . Makes life difficult for financial advisors , on the one hand recommending funds that invest in gold and on the other agreeing that gold/silver might decline up to 40 % !

Hedging one's bets !

Edited June 29, 2010 by churchill

[midas]

Yes . Makes life difficult for financial advisors , on the one hand recommending funds that invest in gold and on the other agreeing that gold/silver might decline up to 40 % !

Hedging one's bets !

ha ha !

And what about his prediction that it will take 3 more years until final

capitulation on the stock market !

That means 3 more years of sparring with Parivs,zorro and badge

Edited June 29, 2010 by midas

[badge]

Precther - like so many financial market voyeurs - has fantastic theory but poor practice.

Making a living from financial markets inspires one to work a little more pragmatically on the latter

[Khun Jean]

[Robert Prechter makes his deflationary case to a Goldbug:

http://www.financial...2010-0619-2.mp3

Thank you for this ! very informative

" outstanding credit is already there and it can implode faster than anybody can monetise "

Says it all really.

It says all about the one who is saying it.

This is not the 30's with a dollar backed by a gold standard.

Monetising now is very easy.

Look. 1.000.000.000.000 dollars created. It is that much work.

Oh wait i forget 3 zeroes. nevermind i just add 999.000.000.000.00. There ready. Deflation stopped.

[Gambles]

So Scott Cambell and Moonraker are wrong to be investing in gold and silver at this time ?

Yes . Makes life difficult for financial advisors , on the one hand recommending funds that invest in gold and on the other agreeing that gold/silver might decline up to 40 % !

Hedging one's bets !

easy tiger!

Prechter's main premise (if I listened right) was that the recovery won't happen for at least 6 years, that equity markets will stumble badly for that period because deflation will reign because you can't demand consumption and/or credit simply through increased debt monetization. His remarks about the real destruction being ahead and the Fed/Treasury getting badly surprised a la 1930-32 are right on the money in my opinion.

He misses the mark a lot - his take on Hoover/Roosevelt policy misses the mark and he actually ducks the gold issue by talking about gold stocks being below their 08 values when he talks weak commodity prices - if he could draw the lines right he'd wonder whether gold is at the right price/underpriced and therefore gold stocks are underpriced/seriously underpriced;it's disappointing that he wasn't pulled up on this.

His sad little obsession with his cycles, particularly his socio-economic cycles really bugs me and I trust Scott & Jeremy's reading of the fundamental runes. To be fair to Prechter, he called the gold crash post 1980 and the stock bull runs of the '80s and '90s. My 'clock right twice a day' comment was a hat tip to his recognition at the start of '09 that equity and asset markets would bounce and that I think deflation, double dip and stock correction could well be right now. I certainly wasn't advocating Prechter - right twice a day is a very underhanded compliment! - and I don't think that he has an adequate grasp of economic fundamentals; e.g. his belief that deflation is bad for gold is more of an old wives' tale than empiric financial wisdom.

I still don't understand how I came to find myself defending Prechter who I've been highly critical of over the years and being on the opposite side to gold while I'm long term bullish on gold??!!

I would ad dthought that a sensible portfolio should still be diversified - a 15% gold exposure is a very strong call on one asset when we all know that all asset classes are prone to varying elements of unexpected kurtosis....