alstry (35.70)

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 31, 2009 at 3:56 PM, jason2713 (< 20) wrote:

As always, I enjoy reading your posts, reiterating and pounding these very real issues into the heads of investors.  It's really bad out there, the recession if FAR from over..we are walking a thin line between going back and erasing any and all progress (if there is any in the first place).

 

I hope you're right, my double shorts are counting on it! :)

Report this comment

#2) On August 31, 2009 at 3:58 PM, TMFMmbop (96.68) wrote:

You should be ashamed of yourself and your inane rhetoric.

Report this comment

#3) On August 31, 2009 at 4:03 PM, jddubya (< 20) wrote:

Well you've totally blown this blog.  Using your own special definition for "terrorist" is nuts.  A terrorist isn't one who wishes to destroy the freedoms of others.  SHEEEEEEEEESH!!!!!!

Report this comment

#4) On August 31, 2009 at 4:21 PM, JerseyShoreGirl (< 20) wrote:

Dollar Is Funny Money in Push for World Currency: Kevin Hassett

Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Like the Chinese, the folks at Disney World peg their currency to the dollar. Hand them $1 U.S. and you receive one Disney dollar, complete with a picture of Mickey Mouse or his friends, plus the signature of Disney’s official treasurer, Scrooge McDuck.

That transaction now seems superfluous. The U.S. dollar is rapidly transforming into a Mickey Mouse currency. This has led to a rising call for the creation of an alternative to the dollar in the form of a new world currency. It would be an enormous mistake to discount these calls as a sideshow. The odds of a world currency emerging have never been higher.

The calls are coming from many corners. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz chaired a United Nations panel that recommended the creation of a global reserve currency. Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China, proposed that the International Monetary Fund take over the global leadership role traditionally ceded to the U.S. And Russian President Dmitry Medvedev handed out minted coin samples of a new world currency at the recent Group of Eight meeting in Italy.

These calls are worth paying attention to for a number of reasons. The arguments for a world currency are much better than you might think. An alternative to the dollar clearly has a promising market that can develop even if it is opposed by the U.S. And the idea of a world currency is most attractive to those who devoutly believe in multilateral institutions and the Canon of Lord Keynes -- beliefs that are hardly in short supply in Barack Obama’s White House.

Let’s look at each point in turn.

Buffer Currency

The dollar (and to a lesser extent the yen and euro) primarily serves as the world’s reserve currency. This means that nations around the world accumulate dollars, and dollar- denominated assets such as U.S. Treasuries, to provide a buffer stock against bad macroeconomic news.

From the point of view of dollar customers, this practice has two big problems.

First, countries playing the game are giving the U.S. and other developed nations a large low-interest loan. The Stiglitz panel estimated that developing countries loaned $3.7 trillion to developed countries in 2007 alone. No rational development policy could defend such a capital flow.

Second, the U.S. and almost every other developed nation are on unsustainable fiscal paths, with soaring deficits and likely severe financial problems down the road. Developing nations that hoard dollars probably will experience big losses.

So it is easy to see why developing nations in particular might want to band together and pursue an alternative strategy that diverts the monetary spoils away from the U.S.

Zhou and the Stiglitz panel have independently described how this might occur.

IMF Currency

The IMF issues something known as Special Drawing Rights. These are analogous to a currency and were originally intended to replace gold as an international unit of account. The SDR market, limited until now, could easily be expanded, especially if a number of countries band together and announce that they would hold a large fraction of their reserves in the IMF currency.

If such a move were to gather steam, Keynesians would have yet another reason to celebrate the resurgence of their ideas. When the Bretton Woods system was set up, tying world currencies to the dollar, John Maynard Keynes proposed that the world establish an international currency unit that he called the bancor. A key attraction of the bancor was that it was to relax the pressure on distressed countries to run budget surpluses during recessions in order to ease the fears of antsy investors.

Keynesian White House

Pressures for such policies persist to this day and likely have a number of sympathetic ears in the Obama White House. Paul Volcker has expressed support for the idea and can’t possibly be alone in that view. This is, after all, the administration that put all of its cards on the largest Keynesian stimulus package in U.S. history. Such devout faith in Keynes seems incompatible with vehement opposition to adopting the bancor.

Given these forces, it seems likely that a world currency will emerge sooner rather than later. Here’s how it might happen:

Countries such as China and Russia will seek to expand the market for the world currency, perhaps by divorcing themselves from the dollar and investing heavily in bancors. After the developing world follows suit, nations will begin to peg their currencies to the bancor. Eventually, even the U.S. may well join in.

If that comes to pass, our currency transactions will be analogous to what happens today at Disney World. Only this time, the U.S. dollar will truly be the funny money.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: August 30, 2009 21:00 EDT

Report this comment

#5) On August 31, 2009 at 4:22 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

jddubya - So, based on your response, you believe that Ben Bernanke "wishes to destroy the freedoms of others"?  All you did was claim that this is not terrorism.

Here's one definition:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

One who attempts to coerce through violence is seeking to destroy freedoms...most criminal acts, even minor ones, destroy freedom.  So, is Bernanke threatening to use force or violence to destroy our freedoms?  Probably not.  However, that doesn't prevent you from posting an intelligent response.

Report this comment

#6) On August 31, 2009 at 4:23 PM, TMFDeej (99.47) wrote:

Alsty, I know people who were personally affected by the tragedy that Bin Ladin orchestrated on September 11th.  Fortunately I was not one of them, but I have to say that comparing a Fed official to that mass murderer is extremely offensive.  I suppose that it's your MO to exaggerate things, but I'm surprised that even you would stoop this low.  This post was in very poor taste.

Deej

Report this comment

#7) On August 31, 2009 at 4:46 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Hummmm you go Alstry. You are not offensive to me. I have friend who lost relatives in 9/11 and they do believe that we funded them to do it. Why did GS and AIG short the market a week or so before it happened, I believe that BUSH and CHANEY knew about it and did nothing. Yep weapons of MASS destruction in IRAQ also. Drugs flowing from Afghanistan after we went there. Yep HOMELAND security just like in the day of Hitler. Did not Bush Granddaddy work with the Germans through I think UBS o f USB bank and Standard oil.  Oh and I also Buto Was killed because she was right on Ben Lauden being dead and we are chasing a ghost. IMHO. We are just getting to hard for the elite of the world to control. Yes they do want to hurt us on purpose.

Report this comment

#8) On August 31, 2009 at 4:48 PM, JerseyShoreGirl (< 20) wrote:

I would think that by now we would all realize that we shouldn't take Alstry literally ... Ok, poor choice of words ... Guess this would be a good teachable moment to remind everyone to be careful about what they post.

Report this comment

#9) On August 31, 2009 at 4:53 PM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

First, I am not making any assertions or implications about 9-11 with this spoof.  Second, as far as mass murduring, we are simply applying the definition of terrorist as one who wants to take away anothers freedeom...there are many ways to accomplish this end....including but not limited to murder.

We are focusing on ecconomics on this blog and economic stress can result in many conclusions.  So let's keep it within the parameters my Alstrybater buddies.

As far as destroying the economy, you will begin to better understand the implications of Credit Default Swaps and High Frequency Trading as we proceed through 9.09.

I have little doubt after a better understanding, you will agree with Buffett that they truly are finanicial weapons of mass destruction.

Report this comment

#10) On August 31, 2009 at 5:14 PM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

By the way, bailing out bankers to the tune of trillions of dollars while tightening credit and raising interest rates on citizens is falls squarely in Alstry's definition of economic terrorism.

The higher an interest rate a citizen must pay, the geater the loss of freedom to that citizen.....and  to bonus the bankers at the same time is reprehensible at best and something more like a comment that would get censored on caps.

Report this comment

#11) On August 31, 2009 at 5:23 PM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

OBAMA AGREES WITH ALSTRY AND DECLARES 9.09 EMERGENCY USING 9-11 POWERS!!!!!!

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama blocked large pay raises slated for tens of thousands of federal employees Monday, overriding statutory formulas to hold pay increases to 2% in 2010.

Invoking the "national emergency" declared after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that under pay formulas set in 1990, federal employees with pay levels set according to comparable local wages are set for average pay increases of 18.9%.

White House officials say the declaration was routine. Ever since Congress passed the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act in 1990, presidents have been invoking the emergency clause to hold down pay increases due under the formula that mandates wages comparable to local pay levels.

That has created a yawning gulf. If Mr. Obama did nothing, the comparability formula would dictate a 16.5% pay increase, on top of the 2.4% cost of living increase.

That would be a $22.6 billion hit to the ailing federal budget in 2010. Cost of living adjustments alone were to boost pay by 2.4% for most federal employees.

Citing his right in an emergency to use an alternative formula, the president said he will keep the pay increases to 2%, the level he called for in his budget earlier this year.

WHILE ZOMBULATION POLICIES SLASHES THE WAGES OF MILLIONS

Report this comment

#12) On August 31, 2009 at 5:26 PM, jddubya (< 20) wrote:

davejh23

Sorry if I've caused a misunderstanding.  Lemme break it down...

"All you did was claim that this is not terrorism."

You're correct. I didn't really explain. I felt that Alstry[nomics] was looking to give some shock value to this blog, and that his way of doing it was inappropriate.

I do not believe Ben Bernanke is a terrorist or even that he wishes to destroy the freedoms of others.  He is a person with a job to do.  There isn't anyone that I know of that would be able to step into his shoes and make everyone happy, no matter what actions he takes.  In my opinion, any person in a very top level leadership position is hosed no matter what.  You simply can't make everyone happy.  Not gonna happen.

Alstry[nomics] said - "If a terrorist is one who wants to destroy the feedoms of others..."

That's a big if!  I don't believe every single terrorist *wants* to destroy the freedom of others.  Many so called terrorists are fighting for something they believe in, and I'm not 100% sure, but I don't believe that 100% of the terrorists are looking specifically to enslave those that they terrorize.  If another country attacked the US with the belief that they were helping the citizens get out of this current political and financial mess, then I'm pretty sure we would be considered terrorists for waging terroristic ops against that country, or against any other country that supported the invasion of our country.  But in our own minds, we would be freedom fighters.

"One who attempts to coerce through violence is seeking to destroy freedoms...most criminal acts, even minor ones, destroy freedom. "

The "destruction of freedom" in my opinion, is a perceived side effect of whatever the terrorist's goals are.  

One saying that comes to mind is "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"  After re-reading what I'm posting now I can see that it's kind of a bit "babblish"and I'll probably get flamed for what I'm posting, but... I'm just sayin'

Report this comment

#13) On August 31, 2009 at 6:28 PM, JerseyShoreGirl (< 20) wrote:

IMO, imposing legislation that take away our freedoms is another form of terrorism ... because we will be fearful ... or is that tyranny .. or both? 

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

Advance copies of Sunstein's new book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It's the bland titles that should scare you the most.

In "On Rumors," Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. He worries that we are headed for a future in which "people's beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in which false rumors spread like wildfire." That future, though, is already here, according to Sunstein. "We hardly need to imagine a world, however, in which people and institutions are being harmed by the rapid spread of damaging falsehoods via the Internet," he writes. "We live in that world. What might be done to reduce the harm?"

Sunstein's book is a blueprint for online censorship as he wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading "rumors."

Smith notes that bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be "proven". The litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article) would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably allow the figure to win an election before the truth "won out". The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism.

Often bloggers raise issues to encourage others (perhaps with more resources) to further investigate issues. Skepticism about candidates often begin on the web or talk radio-these steps (so vital to a democracy) would be chilled should Sunstein's ideas be put into practice. One should not dismiss that prospect: this is the most ideologically driven administration in many years. A Democratic Congress willing to do Barack Obama's bidding will not serve as a check on Sunstein (or Obama). Democrats know that criticism over their conduct often emerges from the web and talk radio since traditional media is so reliably in their corner. Sunstein did not join the administration for a title or to be close to his wife. He joined, as have other ideologues throughout history, to put his ideas into practice.

We should note that another step is being taken by Congress that might chill free speech on the internet. Representative Linda Sanchez from California is behind the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act, an effort to impose regulations on the internet. Eugene Volokh, the brilliant law professor who founded Volokh Conspiracy (one of the leading, and most stimulating, blogs) noted the overly broad language of the bill. and how it can be used by a politician to stifle criticism.

Federal Felony To Use Blogs, the Web, Etc. To Cause Substantial Emotional Distress Through "Severe, Repeated, and Hostile" Speech?

That's what a House of Representatives bill, proposed by Rep. Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others, would do. Here's the relevant text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both....

["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; ...

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

He questions the motives of the lawmakers supporting such a constitutionally vague bill which would make just about any criticism made by blogs subject to fines or imprisonment.

As we should question the motives not just of them but of Barack Obama and his close friend, Cass Sunstein. Report this comment

#14) On August 31, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Nosignal100 (< 20) wrote:

The Dow Jones Shanghai Index is off 25% in the last 3 weeks, Oh My God! What about it's 100% increase over the last 52 weeks.

My point. We can look at a glass half empty or half full. 

Denninger says. "That's nasty - The Shanghai market has already lost roughly 25% from its recent peak, and it took just three weeks to lose what required roughly three months to put on"  So what!

What if it goes up 4% tommorrow? What does that mean? In these turbulent times, market indexes will go up and down without it meaning the world is ending.

The Hang Seng Index has lost less then 1% in the past three weeks. Different index, different results

 

Report this comment

#15) On August 31, 2009 at 11:14 PM, alstry (35.70) wrote:

You are missing the forest for the trees....now that the market no longer reflects the fundementals, insolvent companies constitute much of the trading....although the market is high, the earnings are low...and very little in taxes is being paid by American corporations while laying off millions and cutting wages to tens of millions.

Now there is very little money flowing to government.... and government will have to take over those public corporations to sustain itself....at that point, a 25% would be a good start.

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2013

March (1) February (1) January (5)

2012

December (1) November (5) October (3) August (5) July (33) June (48) May (51) April (25) March (17) February (11) January (37)

2011

December (42) November (80) October (76) September (62) August (90) July (63) June (49) May (88) April (97) March (83) February (85) January (49)

2010

December (16) November (106) October (104) September (60) August (92) July (68) June (73) May (95) April (63) March (77) February (78) January (78)

2009

December (84) November (97) October (104) September (104) August (91) July (114) June (120) May (107) April (77) March (99) February (44) January (84)

2008

December (72) November (31) October (41) September (83) August (54) July (62) June (70) May (60) April (50) March (77) February (49)