The world turns so rapidly, sometimes. This time, it took G-20 leaders to find out that Iran was hiding their nuclear weapons programme.
President Obama said in a statement, flanked by Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy, of Britain and France respectively, stating that they have evidence of a site where Iran is hiding their nuclear weapons programme.
This, is after Iranian President, Ahmed-dinijad (sic) went on a tirade about the Holocaust and denying the claims that there ever was a Holocaust. Talk about being made incredible.
I don't think Iran ever wanted to "really" hide their weapons programme.It's just that the major European and American leaders, decided to break the news now.
What will happen? I know what should happen!
It's past sanctions, its to the point where we have to destroy the nuclear arsenal.
I don't think the Iranians know how close they are to being nuked themselves. Obama said as much on the campaign stump.
2010 will be a very eventful year. I can feel it. If Iran does not stop the nuclear programme, they will be attacked.
Take heed!
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Rates remain constant out of G-20!
Well, The Bank and the Fed decided to keep rates as they were. I guess you really can't go lower than low. It's already at .5% for the BOE and the Fed will stay between 0 to .25%.
The thing is, there is no job creation. Unemployment crept up in the US for a dramatic July and in England, the job numbers have been eerily silent. But, my folks over there say that it's not any better.....
BOE MPC minutes
FED FOMC Press Release
The thing is, there is no job creation. Unemployment crept up in the US for a dramatic July and in England, the job numbers have been eerily silent. But, my folks over there say that it's not any better.....
BOE MPC minutes
FED FOMC Press Release
Monday, September 21, 2009
No people of colour work at the FT?
Hasn't anybody noticed that there is not one black person, or a non white person, working for the Financial Times as a writer?
Seems odd, no?
http://www.ft.com/comment/ftcolumnists
Seems odd, no?
http://www.ft.com/comment/ftcolumnists
Friday, September 18, 2009
Interesting take on Japanese politics...
Washington Post article, from Yukio Okamoto.
Healthy politics in Japan is good and the author and I agree on that. But, The USA or Japan, neither, wants to align themselves with China in a G-2 with regard to the US-Sino or an Asia-2, with Japan and China.
China is the competitor. For both of them. Japanese economic disparities with production and exports with the USA can be worked out, due to the fact that they have a warmer relationship--with Japan being the one that normally complies with the wishes of the US.
China, however, is a different kettle of fish. They are not a remnant of the post world war two era and never was a major combatant. They never had US rule imposed on them, even though they were colonised by the British in the late 19th century.
The Japanese realize this. If anything, however, Japan has the most to gain from being liberated from US imperialism. For one, they can start a real army-- if they want to. Second, as with an issue that happened in the 80's where Voluntary Export Restraints were imposed by Japanese regulators on car exports, by the request of US policy makers, they wouldn't have the obligation to comply if they were asked by the US again for such VER's.
Take a look at the trade war now being on the brink between the US and China. This will not end well. The first issue which I feel that is important to mention, is that the response was swift by China. The issue seems to be all for nothing, but a pay of pitch to the car makers...when we think of auto-bail out, cash for clunkers, new car tech on the horizon and the green energy push, what did we expect would be the next step?
Obama is pushing the envelope and I said it before, as Jagdish Bhagwati sounded the alarm of the Obama administration's intention to turn way left on international trade, he is going to go hard left past the multi-lateral trading system and simply break America's commitment.
Little does Obama know, or care, is that he is hurting the people he's supposed to be helping......also, there are more competitors in the auto-part, "tyre industry" than is China. There's Brazil and Indonesia, right off of the bat.
But, back to Japan, the politics have changed and it may, well, WILL, be a positive factor for the Japanese. Hopefully they can change some of the players on the economic field who have grown accustomed to the one way political street.
News have been pouring out about the re-adjustments of the Japan Central Bank and other companies, Sony in particular, who have decided to do spectacular things in light of these factors.
So, things are changing to suit a more balanced political economy in Japan.
Healthy politics in Japan is good and the author and I agree on that. But, The USA or Japan, neither, wants to align themselves with China in a G-2 with regard to the US-Sino or an Asia-2, with Japan and China.
China is the competitor. For both of them. Japanese economic disparities with production and exports with the USA can be worked out, due to the fact that they have a warmer relationship--with Japan being the one that normally complies with the wishes of the US.
China, however, is a different kettle of fish. They are not a remnant of the post world war two era and never was a major combatant. They never had US rule imposed on them, even though they were colonised by the British in the late 19th century.
The Japanese realize this. If anything, however, Japan has the most to gain from being liberated from US imperialism. For one, they can start a real army-- if they want to. Second, as with an issue that happened in the 80's where Voluntary Export Restraints were imposed by Japanese regulators on car exports, by the request of US policy makers, they wouldn't have the obligation to comply if they were asked by the US again for such VER's.
Take a look at the trade war now being on the brink between the US and China. This will not end well. The first issue which I feel that is important to mention, is that the response was swift by China. The issue seems to be all for nothing, but a pay of pitch to the car makers...when we think of auto-bail out, cash for clunkers, new car tech on the horizon and the green energy push, what did we expect would be the next step?
Obama is pushing the envelope and I said it before, as Jagdish Bhagwati sounded the alarm of the Obama administration's intention to turn way left on international trade, he is going to go hard left past the multi-lateral trading system and simply break America's commitment.
Little does Obama know, or care, is that he is hurting the people he's supposed to be helping......also, there are more competitors in the auto-part, "tyre industry" than is China. There's Brazil and Indonesia, right off of the bat.
But, back to Japan, the politics have changed and it may, well, WILL, be a positive factor for the Japanese. Hopefully they can change some of the players on the economic field who have grown accustomed to the one way political street.
News have been pouring out about the re-adjustments of the Japan Central Bank and other companies, Sony in particular, who have decided to do spectacular things in light of these factors.
So, things are changing to suit a more balanced political economy in Japan.
I love their spirit....
Sally and Erixon in their piece in the Wall St. Journal.
Be mindful of the new protectionism.
And, because of the issues with respect to the new protectionism, there must be greater international coordination.
I get it. While it is a far off goal, its better to say it than to not say it.
Be mindful of the new protectionism.
And, because of the issues with respect to the new protectionism, there must be greater international coordination.
I get it. While it is a far off goal, its better to say it than to not say it.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Blankenfield says "curb bank pay"..
..or something like that. Goldoman Sachs chief, Lloyd Blankenfield [sic] says that it is long overdue to curb bank, more clearly, investment banker incentives and bonuses.
He says that these investment bankers serve no social purpose and thus, they don't need all of that money heaped up on them.
You want to know something? He is sort of right!
Take for example the catalyst that started the banking crisis and hence the economic crisis? Derivatives that were collateralized into debt obligations (CDO's) which had no true value, outside of the mortgages they stood for.
These products were hollow to a large extent. But, their values were raised, based on the risk they represented and the returns they could make if in the event the CDO lost value (chiefly mortgage backed securities).
To me, it is one big shell game. Could even be a Ponzi scheme. It held no true benefit for the shareholder, especially if bonuses were paid to investment bankers to the tune of millions out of the "returns" they created.
So....to the end with them, until investment bankers learn how to appreciate what they have.
The other side of it is is that the government and the average person, does not understand to the extent to which these products are and how they are supposed to work for profit.
Seeing this, not only should investment banker incentives be cut as a way to curb the enthusiasm towards getting into such a "seemingly" corrupt career, but also the products which they create should be supervised with the same enthusiasm and a cap on such activities be placed into the regulatory system, post haste!
He says that these investment bankers serve no social purpose and thus, they don't need all of that money heaped up on them.
You want to know something? He is sort of right!
Take for example the catalyst that started the banking crisis and hence the economic crisis? Derivatives that were collateralized into debt obligations (CDO's) which had no true value, outside of the mortgages they stood for.
These products were hollow to a large extent. But, their values were raised, based on the risk they represented and the returns they could make if in the event the CDO lost value (chiefly mortgage backed securities).
To me, it is one big shell game. Could even be a Ponzi scheme. It held no true benefit for the shareholder, especially if bonuses were paid to investment bankers to the tune of millions out of the "returns" they created.
So....to the end with them, until investment bankers learn how to appreciate what they have.
The other side of it is is that the government and the average person, does not understand to the extent to which these products are and how they are supposed to work for profit.
Seeing this, not only should investment banker incentives be cut as a way to curb the enthusiasm towards getting into such a "seemingly" corrupt career, but also the products which they create should be supervised with the same enthusiasm and a cap on such activities be placed into the regulatory system, post haste!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Capital buffers for banks? Call from the G-20!
FT Article.
Don't know what this is supposed to mean. But, the Fed has done a good job with stepping in to add additional capital. Nothing is wrong with balance sheets aside from having some toxic assets on them and a few others have gone out of business. That's the nature of the business.
What this sounds like IS socialism. But, banks do need certain capital requirements to operate as lending institutions. So, the issue is more than capital buffers-- but investment and expansion criteria as it relates to capital on bank's balance sheets.
Essentially; how do banks assess making risky investments to what they have as cash on hand and is that enough to absord loss due to certain variables and exposure.
Don't know what this is supposed to mean. But, the Fed has done a good job with stepping in to add additional capital. Nothing is wrong with balance sheets aside from having some toxic assets on them and a few others have gone out of business. That's the nature of the business.
What this sounds like IS socialism. But, banks do need certain capital requirements to operate as lending institutions. So, the issue is more than capital buffers-- but investment and expansion criteria as it relates to capital on bank's balance sheets.
Essentially; how do banks assess making risky investments to what they have as cash on hand and is that enough to absord loss due to certain variables and exposure.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
What do you know or care about American Health care?
I have to be totally honest; I didn't know a thing about American Health care, or the issues surrounding it, until this debate came about and just seemingly won't die down.
From what I understand, the insurance companies are getting away with murder, charging folks with high premiums and no oversight as to what they price. The insurance companies, as I understand it, feel as if the American government wants to kill the private insurance industry.
Hospitals are denying care to folks without health coverage, but are mandated to see you, if whether or not they do have health insurance, once the person is in dire need of life threatening medical assistance.
The vaunted public option, is for the government to provide a health care insurance option, for anyone who wishes to be a part. There are estimated to be anywhere from over 40 to 60 million Americans that are uninsured.
The private insurance companies don't want the competition from government in the form of a public option. For obvious reasons, the government would crowd out competitive insurance organizations. However, the insurance industry is an oligopoly of sorts, ran by the large insurance firms.
Hispanics are more than likely to not have insurance, even over black Americans as pointed out in a recent survey. Also, women are 10 times more likely to be insured than men.
Americans, especially some elderly, don't want Medicare cuts. I know very little about Medicare and Medicaid, but apparently one is medical insurance for the elderly (Medicare) ran by the federal government. And, Medicaid, is a state run social insurance medical program for low income families, that fit a means based test.
My issue is; why can't the federal government add funding to Medicaid? It would be expensive, but you would get a smoother run to it than the negotiations you have going on now?
Cut spending in defense spending and put it to Medicaid. Revise the means test to let in a greater proportion in the scenario and then we may have something that we can work with.
America is going to end up spending allot of money on this health care revision in the first place. So, may as well fix the ones you have now and then worry about the price tag later.
Also, perhaps you should offer government bonds to insurance companies as a way to differ the price of insurance to a later date. Another way is to expand corporate bonds to cover health care as well as have that government backed.
Government backed corporate bonds to cover the cost of health care.
From what I understand, the insurance companies are getting away with murder, charging folks with high premiums and no oversight as to what they price. The insurance companies, as I understand it, feel as if the American government wants to kill the private insurance industry.
Hospitals are denying care to folks without health coverage, but are mandated to see you, if whether or not they do have health insurance, once the person is in dire need of life threatening medical assistance.
The vaunted public option, is for the government to provide a health care insurance option, for anyone who wishes to be a part. There are estimated to be anywhere from over 40 to 60 million Americans that are uninsured.
The private insurance companies don't want the competition from government in the form of a public option. For obvious reasons, the government would crowd out competitive insurance organizations. However, the insurance industry is an oligopoly of sorts, ran by the large insurance firms.
Hispanics are more than likely to not have insurance, even over black Americans as pointed out in a recent survey. Also, women are 10 times more likely to be insured than men.
Americans, especially some elderly, don't want Medicare cuts. I know very little about Medicare and Medicaid, but apparently one is medical insurance for the elderly (Medicare) ran by the federal government. And, Medicaid, is a state run social insurance medical program for low income families, that fit a means based test.
My issue is; why can't the federal government add funding to Medicaid? It would be expensive, but you would get a smoother run to it than the negotiations you have going on now?
Cut spending in defense spending and put it to Medicaid. Revise the means test to let in a greater proportion in the scenario and then we may have something that we can work with.
America is going to end up spending allot of money on this health care revision in the first place. So, may as well fix the ones you have now and then worry about the price tag later.
Also, perhaps you should offer government bonds to insurance companies as a way to differ the price of insurance to a later date. Another way is to expand corporate bonds to cover health care as well as have that government backed.
Government backed corporate bonds to cover the cost of health care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
