Daily Kos

Dollar Dump: Central Banks Shun US Assets

Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:22:21 AM PDT

My Financial Times arrived with the headline US assets shunned by central bankers.  It reports a survey of 65 central bankers controlling $1,700 billion in assets revealing they now deem the Eurozone as attractive for investment as the United States.  A huge change in attitudes has occured, and no amount of US sabre rattling will restore US dominance.

This is the news many of us have dreaded since the dollar accelerated its decline in October 2004.  [Ealier Dollar Dump diaries here and here.]  As central banks and other significant investors in global asset markets shift away from US assets, severe implications for the US will become reality:

  • difficulty for Bush in financing his ballooning deficit,
  • a possible collapse in the traded value of the dollar,
  • higher dollar interest rates in order to attract international lenders,  
  • compromising of the dollar's reserve currency status, and
  • slower growth in the US economy given that most consumers, corporations and governments in the United States are dependent on debt financing.
Update [2005-1-24 16:25:26 by LondonYank]: Fed patience is wearing thin.
Alan Greenspan warned in November that foreign governments would not finance the US current account deficit indefinitely.  This mild warning may now be viewed as too little, too late.

These central banks financed 83 percent of the US federal deficit in 2003 (the most recent year statistics are available).  In 2004 the proportion of OPEC assets held in dollars fell from 75 percent to 61.5 percent.  Bank of Thailand announced it was reweighting from 80 percent US assets toward 50 percent.  More central bankers have acted quietly, hoping to reweight before the dollar's slide becomes too pronounced and the risks too great. The tipping point is getting nearer, as evidenced by today's survey.

The United States trade deficit has ballooned to 6 percent of the US economy - more than $600 billion.  (America buys 6 percent more than it generates.)  The record federal current account deficit stands in excess of $650 billion for 2004, and is expected to exceed this in 2005 despite Bush's promises.  (The federal government is the world's biggest borrower and relies heavily on the generosity of its lenders for its habits.)  Too much of the US economy is wasted on prisons, war and security rather than investment in productive industries which can benefit from exporting.  Disasterous trade figures despite the falling dollar reinforce pessimism that the US can export its way to prosperity.  (America doesn't produce anything much anyone else wants to buy anymore.)

As America becomes "just another country" in a more prosperous world of stronger nations, economic dislocation will be matched by social dislocation at home. Some factions will favor violence to preserve American dominance and access to resources, perhaps accelerating action against soft targets like Cuba and Venezuela already on the neo-con drawing board and reinforcing hard-liners behind the Iraqi occupation and Iranian destabilisation program. Domestically, rising unemployment almost always leads to increases in hate crimes, racial violence, eroding of women's place in the workforce, and religious intolerance as anger is deflected to minorities and foreigners.

As in earlier diaries, best practical advice remains:

  • pay off all your debts now (except fixed rate mortgages), even if it means cutting back hard on expenditure;
  • consider the security of your current or prospective job carefully, particularly if you are planning career changes;
  • diversify investments into a portfolio with exposure to international upside gains (although the entire world will likely be adversely affected by a collapse in US growth);
  • be wary of purchasing property at the top of what may be a housing bubble (many areas of the US have had unsustainable above-inflation house price appreciation in recent years);
  • consider getting a smaller car or car/truck with a diesel engine (twice the miles per gallon, longer engine lifespan and low maintenance).

Tags: dollar dump (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 189 comments

  •  How much lower will we fall in four years? (4.00 / 5)

    First, LondonYank, thanks for your valuable perspective from another commercial center.

    Second, Yikes!! I am more and more convinced that the Lord HAS had a hand in appointing Bush - to bring down the US, acting as Nemesis.

    "Just another country."  I have never experienced such a state of affairs in my life.  Only those who date back before WW2 have that sort of perspective, and their memories are taken up with the Great Depression.

    Just another country.  One that no longer has the power to invade another without withdrawing from its first invasion prior to any action.  One that other countries have less regard for.  One that falls behind in science, in medical care, in environmental advocacy.

    Other countries are now taking action.  I found it interesting that the Canadians instantly went public with their displeasure over Bush's behavior.  They weren't particularly intimidated.

    •  "Just another country" isn't so bad (4.00 / 37)

      Britain found the adjustment in the last century pretty traumatic, going from global empire to impoverished post-Socialist welfare state in just 50 years.  Nonetheless, Britain is a pretty cool place now, with great social tolerance and reasonably happy people.

      Being number one isn't so important (especially after you're no longer number one).

      "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

      by LondonYank on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:28:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, but who gets to be (none / 0)

        the new number one?

        Thanks for posting this diary.

        (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

        by doorguy on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:36:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why does it matter? (4.00 / 8)

          Maybe no one needs to be number one anymore.

          China is huge and growing fast, but will also encounter destabilising adjustments downstream.  The EU is huge and prosperous and civilised, but is aging and slow to make competitive adjustments.  India is huge and prospering, but the scale of growth required to raise its population out of poverty means that huge political changes are inevitable alongside economic development.

          The whole world is growing and changing.  Most are doing pretty good under the circumstances.  America was doing good until 2000.  It doesn't take many mistakes to fall behind in a competitive world, so maybe everyone can be number one and then screw it up just like we did.

          "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

          by LondonYank on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:47:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Most are NOT doing good (none / 1)

            Thirty years of the global neo-liberal economic offensive has not been good for most people. While the picture is complex the global gap between rich and poor has been growing.

            Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
            "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

            by Christopher Day on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:57:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The best visualizaton I've seen (none / 0)

            Go to http://www.gapminder.org, then click on "Human Development and Income Growth 2004: view"

            The animation takes time to download, but gives a  vivid and rewarding overview of the last quarter century of change, by region and country, in a novel visual representation.

            To quote John Peterson of the Arlington Institute:

            "I was riding back to the airport with a fellow who did advanced tech for Sun Microsystems and he said, "Those Swedish guys had the only new idea in visualization of information that I've seen in 20 years." He was talking about Ola and Anna Rosling who, using Swedish government money and UN and World Bank numbers, have developed an extraordinary set of visualization tools for seeing how different parts of the world have developed in different ways over the past decades."

            Highly recommended.

            "C'mon -- if THAT were true, you wouldn't be getting the news from some crazy email forwarded by your brother-in-law!"

            by technopolitical on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:09:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Is gold on the agenda? (none / 0)

        I don't own a penny's worth and don't sell it either, tend to avoid the gold-shills. But the (excellent common sense) advice you offer seems to fall in line with what some of them are saying. Would you add gold to your list of practical things to do?

        (0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...

        by doorguy on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:38:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't like gold myself (none / 0)

          Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but my view is that gold is a wasting asset that you pay to buy and pay to hold.  It never earns you anything except as something else falls in relative value (in this case, the dollar).  

          Gold bulls always come out when the dollar is unstable, but I'd still rather be invested in a mix of global assets which stand to appreciate as the global economy prospers and other currencies appreciate.

          "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

          by LondonYank on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:41:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, (none / 0)

            what are some good foreign currency funds??
            •  try Vanguard (none / 0)

              We put money into Vanguard's European stock index fund.  Vanguard gets recommended a lot on Kos because of their low fees.  Also, you can set up an account entirely online if you want to (I did).

              I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. -- Mark Twain

              by vinifera on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:48:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  More Vanguard (none / 0)

              Vanguard has a number of international indexed funds -- similar to it's S&P 500 indexed funds.

              My personal suggestion is Vanguard's Global Growth, which is a managed fund rather than an index one. The cost are higher (though still very low in comparison to other firms) but the main advantage is the fund actively moves funds between USD and US equities (appox. 30% of portfolio) and offshore assets.

              Oderint Dum Metuant.

              by Dunkerque on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:30:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You want to find a fund where the currency isn't (4.00 / 4)

              hedged. Otherwise, you won't reap the benefits of the currency fluctuations.

              I read that gold was not very good as an investment because a lot of countries have huge gold hoards. I don't know if this is true or not, but the things I read recommended other commodities -like silver for instance, which has a use and will go up in value.

              If you look up  "falling dollar" on Google, you can find lots of articles about ways to cope with this problem with investments.

              The biggest problem is that  the Chinese and other Asian countries are supporting us to the tune of 2 billion dollars a day. They are willing to do this because we are the biggest consumer nation, so they can steal our industries and sell us goods.   But there will a come a time when the cost effectiveness of this strategy may wane, as the expense of supporting our spending habits grows.  The Chinese have their money (the yuan) tied to the dollar right now. This keeps their exports cheap so Walmart can sell them to poor people.

              If the big banks decide to use the Euro as the world's fall back currency, China may just decide to detach the value of the yuan from that of the dollar. At that point we will be up shit creek.

              Interest rates will soar, so that we can entice other countries to buy our bonds. Prices at Walmart will soar.  Housing will tank.  Without the easy money we've had for the last 4 years (being able to borrow on our home equity) -- people will have no other place to get money. Our savings rate nationally is abysmal.  

              this whole imbalance economically in the world is so bad that I can't see how we are going to get out of it. The Bushies thought that if the dollar fell, other nations would buy our exports. Maybe this is happening. I think it is a little. But what is enough and will it happen?

              •  thank you (none / 0)

                I am a total idiot when it comes to monetary policy, but this

                "If the big banks decide to use the Euro as the world's fall back currency, China may just decide to detach the value of the yuan from that of the dollar. At that point we will be up shit creek.

                is what I've suspected. We've been running what $30 billion monthly trade deficits with both China and Japan for years now and I figured the only way it worked was that the deficit was in dollars. (hey, Joe print up some more dollars).

                I'd like to ask if this change to an import/consumer economy changes the old definition of inflation being too many dollars chasing too few goods since there is now a disconnect between production and consumption. However, I probably won't understand the answer so feel free to ignore.

                "I still think politics is about who's getting screwed and who's doing the screwing." -Molly Ivins

                by hono lulu on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:27:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Try Dodge & Cox, Oakmark, Franklin Templeton (none / 0)

              All these are good funds:  

              Dodge & Cox International, Oakmark Global, Oakmark International, Mutual Discovery, Templeton Growth

              I don't recommend investing in a regional fund.  Just go with all global (invest everywhere) or international (invest everywhere besides the US), that way the fund managers can go where they see the best values.  If you invest regionally you're preventing them from doing that.  

              I also really think you're better off with actively managed funds and not index funds (extremely bad advice has been given regarding these funds for the past decade), but you have to come to your own conclusions.  

              Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

              by Asak on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:16:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  One other suggestion... (none / 0)

                Avoid growth funds.  With some uncertainty in the world growth funds and growth stocks have serious potential to get hammered if we run into any problems.  (I know, I suggested Templeton Growth, but it is in fact a value fund).  

                If you don't know the difference between a value mutual fund and a growth fund, then you should try searching the internet and educating yourself.  Don't invest until you have at least a basic grasp of what you're doing!  You might try the Morningstar site, among other places.  

                Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

                by Asak on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:19:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  yes but .. (none / 0)

            leave trading in physical gold to the central bankers and the big guys ...   but shares in gold mining companies can be a cheap form of hedging for retail investors
          •  Socially responsible investment? (none / 0)

            Hey, you liberals!

            What about investing in socially responsible funds?

        •  Gold (none / 0)

          I have decided that gold makes sense for maybe 5% of my long-term investments.  Besides collecting coins or bullion, there are several easy ways to buy gold:

          • Mutual Funds: Several funds buy gold mining  stocks; I especially like the ones from Tocqueville and Vanguard.  There is also a closed end Canadian fund that holds bullion in a vault (ticker CEF).
          • Individual stocks are much riskier, but Newmont Mining (NEM) seems to be the rising blue chip of this group.
          • ETF: a gold bullion ETF (GLD) just started trading in New York.

          I would avoid gold futures or options.  I'd also avoid gold-linked notes that are sold by many brokerages.  They guarantee your principal, but carry very high fees.

          DISCLAIMER: This message is for informational purposes only.  I am not an investment advisor, and you should seek professional advice before making any investments.

          •  watch the premium on CEF (none / 0)

            I like CEF, and I own some, but I just wanted to point out to anyone who might look into it based on your posting that it trades at a slight and variable premium to net asset value.  That means if anyone were interested it would be best to track it awhile and wait for little premium rather than just buying it without considering the possibility it drops due to premium concerns even as gold/silver might increase.

            Just a cautionary note.

            •  oops, and also (none / 0)

              In market crashes like the one that might occur if the dollar "crashed", gold stocks seem to initially trade like stocks rather than with any rise in gold.  So, be careful and patient if somebody choses gold stocks because thay could get hit when you are not expecting it.

              Just another cautionary note, even though I own a couple gold stocks too for the long haul.

              Ok, I'll stop "talking down" my book now.

              •  Diversifying...Some Funds I've discovered... (none / 1)


                Since the election, I've become very obsessed and concerned w/ everything related to the Financial Markets, and macroeconomic situation, etc.  

                Since late November, I've been trying to diversify out of the US dollar, and so far have bought some shares in the following funds:

                GLD (the new Gold ETF)

                DODFX (Dodge and Cox International - a great no load international fund w/ low fees/expenses)

                Some Vanguard funds (European Stock Index, International Value, Emerging Markets and Global Equity funds - the last 3 I did for a Roth IRA)

                American Century International Bond Fund

                I've also added some commodities funds to my watch list (Pimco), and am probably going to get into these funds within the next couple of months as well...maybe sooner...

                I don't have a financial background, but just wanted to share w/ people some of the funds I've discovered that look good...

                My parents recently purchased some shares in Fidelity Canada, Dodge and Cox International, and Tweedy, Browne Global (the Tweedy fund hedges the dollar, so if the dollar falls, you don't get an additional benefit from it)...(I've been trying to get them to diversify more out of the US market...as I fear Steven Roach and Warren Buffett might be right, and we could be heading for a big crash!!)

      •  Being "#1" and three bucks will... (4.00 / 7)

        buy you a cappuccino.

        This false pride in being number one is foolish. Do little dutch children cry themselves to sleep every night because Holland is not number one? Do they have good social services, a health care system, a good transport system, good public education?

        Repeat the same question for any number of countries, just replace "dutch" and "Holland" with the words of your choice and you'll see that foolish jingoism benefits no one.

        •  How exactly do you determine No 1? (4.00 / 4)

          I've spent a lot of time in Denmark and those folks don't see themselves taking a back seat to any one.  

          From what I can tell they have a terrific standard of living for most of the population, better than on average in Americ,  great work week, far more vacation time than your average American, are better educated than your average American, receive excellent free health care (a family member received the best treatment for his leukemia and no one had to hold a bake sale or worry that he'd never be insurable or how much of his lifetime max benefit he'd used, or suggest that his parents legally abandon him so he could qualify for coverage, etc.)all of which goes on daily in "No 1" USA for American children with serious health problems.

          They export more than they import; a have a fine track record of standing up for what is right internationally, including condemning China at the UN for human rights violations when many other countries were too scared for what it might mean for them trade-wise.  They are investing in renewable energy, wind turbines are are everywhere...

          Most of them wouldn't move to the U.S. if you paid them.  

          so again, I wonder, what makes a country the NO 1 country.

          •  Two things (none / 1)

            The size of a nation's economy, and the nation's ability to wage war.

            Those 2 things are what counts.

            -What have you got that a man could drink with just a minimum risk of blindness and death.

            by Toadvine on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 12:14:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ability to wage war is irrelevant... (none / 0)

              As long as a country has nuclear weapons it is immune to conventional invasion.  

              Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

              by Asak on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:24:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Also, size of economy??? (none / 0)

              That's not a very logical thing to base it on.  If anything you should look at per capita figures.  All this crap about the US being the #1 economy is overblown when you consider Japan's is half our size, but has half the population.  Now the Eurozone is about as big as our economy too.  

              Ignore all the propaganda you may have heard, we're not as great as all that.  We never have been!  

              As far as determining which country or bloc is number 1, I'd say it should be based on world opinion and esteem.  After Bush I don't think we'll be number 1 by that measure anymore.  

              Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

              by Asak on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:27:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Bombs and money (none / 1)

            We American's think we are the best nation in the world.  We have the best health care, the most money, the best standard of living, the highest productivity, and the best army.  We must, because we spend more money than any other nation, right?  

            I've been wondering why people keep taling about the U.S. as "the last superpower"?  China is pretty powerful.  They have the bomb, and a large military, and a massive population which is, by and large, adequately fed.  The difference between the U.S. and China is that we throw our weight around a lot more.  They've got that Chinese humility thing going against them.  I wonder how long they'll keep it up if we continue to behave as we have been?  My husband told me that China has already made noises about how they don't want us attacking Iran.  And let's face it, North Korea is sort of "out of bounds", mostly because of it's proximity to this "non-superpower" nation.  

            My husband differs, though.  He thinks that the EU is a superpower in it's own right.  It's an interesting idea, but I think they need a stronger military before they earn that name.  

            •  EU's power (none / 1)

              is of a different kind

              Even if I think we Europeans should improve our common defence system, I hope we will not try to become a military power as the US. Hopefully, it is not likely to happen anytime soon.

              Our power is based on economic strength (even if it has to improve its competitiveness) and the attractiveness of a model combining prosperity and solidarity for social cohesion.

              •  You may not have a choice (4.00 / 2)

                ...about the military power.  The U.S. is currently trading military protection for favors in a global protection racket.  Recently, bush practically threatened Canada with withholding military protection because they won't support the mythical missile defense system.  I suspect that our protection isn't benefitting other nations as much as our government thinks it is, but nonetheless, this is a tradeoff that our allies have been making for years.  The only way out of this is for our allies to establish military parity with the U.S., or at least create enough of a military that they can not only use their their own military for humanitarian missions, but also tell the U.S. to shove it when we come begging for them to participate in some wacko war.

                I wish we lived in peaceful enough times that a nation could forego having a military, but we aren't there yet.  And it's time the U.S. stopped it's global protection racket.  

                •  We don't need protection anymore (none / 1)

                  The United States military protection has been vital for Europe when the Soviet Union was a threat, and we must remember we owe that to the U.S., but it is not true anymore. Some cities or regions might be willing to retain U.S. military bases for economic reasons, but strategically speaking, it is not necessary.

                  And, by the way, France and Germany already told Bush to shove it when he came begging for us to participate in its wacko Iraq war...

                •  I don't think they're wasting any time (none / 0)

                  The only way out of this is for our allies to establish military parity with the U.S., or at least create enough of a military that they can not only use their their own military for humanitarian missions, but also tell the U.S. to shove it when we come begging for them to participate in some wacko war.

                  I've been thinking about this for a while and I'm sure others have too.

                  We all know that serious military planners in developed nations make long range plans that cover a large range of possible scenarios.

                  So... given that they see a nation, a former "allie" that's apparently gone "rogue" and breaking away from what would normally be considered responsible behaviour, invading others on specious grounds, what do you think they'd be doing in their war planning rooms?

                  I know what I'd be recommending if I was a senior planner, I'd be drawing up targetting plans.

            •  We're not really a super power... (none / 0)

              We haven't been for a long time now.  But in regards to North Korea, the reason it's "out of bounds" is because not only China, but South Korea and Japan don't want us to attack it.  

              Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

              by Asak on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:29:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly! (none / 0)

            Paul Krugman wrote a great column about two or three years ago comparing Mississippi to Sweden.  Both had a similar GDP, but when you compared the standard of living, . . .  I mean, c'mon!

            Too often we worry about being #1 in GDP or bombs, but we are neglecting the basic standard of living of our citizens.

            My fiance has good friends from Denmark, and we talk about this all the time.

          •  everybody wants to be the best at something (none / 0)

            what happens when you (Holland) are no longer the global finance kings? You change definitions. It's just like marketing. If you can't be number one in your category, create a new category that you are number one in.

            When I lived in Germany, most Germans thought their country was the most advanced country in the world, with their infrastructure, wealth, hi-quality mfg industry, and social system. I couldn't really disagree with them. Most of the anecdotes they would throw at me showing America's backwardness were...kinda...correct. And I never had the gall to throw our military or dominance at 'em. Would've been bad form. (this was pre 9-11)

            I for one think our #1 status has made us a weak, selfish people who are obsessed with short-term hedonism, ego stroking, and gluttony. A little smack on the backside would do us good. We need to be toughened up.

            All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

            by SeanF on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:14:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Probably every country thinks it's number 1 (none / 0)

              It's just a result of national pride and patriotism.  

              Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

              by Asak on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:30:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Frank Zappa answered this... (none / 0)

            "You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."

            "Why, a child of five could figure this out! Someone fetch me a child of five." -Groucho Marx

            by kiwifruit on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:56:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Depends on one's definition... (none / 1)

          of #1.

          While the U.S. might have the highest standard of living OVERALL, I'd be interested to see the data on what country's citizens have the best quality of life OVERALL. And I guess what that comes down to is a series of factors, like...

          How's the healthcare availability?
          How many people are too poor to feed themselves?
          How are the poor served by the government?
          How many people are homeless?
          How many children live below the poverty level?
          How's the education system?

          et cetera

          I'd venture to say there are a few countries with better scores in all the pertinent categories -- which don't, in my opinion, include the AVERAGE income. We're a mighty big country, and there is a lot of wealth in that top tier -- enough to make the AVERAGE look pretty good.

          But then, if Bill Gates moved into my neighbourhood, this block would have a per capita average income of, what, a couple million a day? That "average" crap doesn't mean diddly to vast numbers of people.

          •  You can find that (4.00 / 2)

            The UN Human Development Index tracks these kinds of things. The top ten countries are:

            1. Norway   
            2. Sweden   
            3. Australia   
            4. Canada   
            5. Netherlands   
            6. Belgium   
            7. Iceland   
            8. United States   
            9. Japan   
            10. Ireland

            This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

            by emptywheel on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:16:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gee... (none / 0)

              ...which one of those is the only country to not have nationalized healthcare, and a robust social safety net...?

              If the plug gets pulled on the dollar... in three years, the US won't even be in the top twenty on that list.

              •  Ireland (none / 0)

                My husband and I keep going back on forth on when to ditch the US for his country, Ireland. One of our criteria is we go when Ireland passes the US.

                To be fair, Ireland is exposed to some of the same overextension as the US (and a lot of its best industries are just outposts of large American companies). But hey, it's a pretty good rule.

                This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

                by emptywheel on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:36:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Don't know if it still holds (none / 1)

              But there was an article one year where if you only looked at white males, the US jumped to number one.

              Not a pretty picture.

              "I still think politics is about who's getting screwed and who's doing the screwing." -Molly Ivins

              by hono lulu on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:32:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, in terms of quality of life, (4.00 / 3)

            I think the Europeans have it made. The French get two hour lunch breaks, paid for by the government, plus the month of August off.  

            I took students to Paris a couple of years ago and one of them had a mental breakdown. We had quite an experience with the French mental health system.

            We went to the emergency room, which was in a tree shaded neighborhood with little buildings on streets named things like "Baudelaire Åve." It wasn't crowded because they have universal health care, so poor people don't have to go to the emergency room for basic health care.  Although we had bought health insurance for our students, the doctors and interns had no way to take our money. We didn't have to sit for hours filling out forms and showing our health insurance cards.  We spoke to a young intern and then to the doctor.  When we teachers (2 women) had to leave the student one time to spend the night in the little bedrooms they had right there where the doctors and interns were stationed, the doctors called us a cab because they were worried about us getting home safely.

            All of this cost nothing at all.  Boy we sure don't want that "socialized medicine" here in this country!

      •  Hmm (none / 0)

        Been to Preston, Bolton or Sheffield lately?  They reminded me very much of the closed down rotting factories of the de-industrialized mid-west.  And normal working class people didn't seem all that happy or secure.  Job prospects for my in-laws' grandkids sucked.  London looked pretty good, though.

        This aggression will not stand, man.

        by kaleidescope on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:43:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How are the mighty fallen? (none / 0)

      to about 20% of old value, based on the Pound collapse of the 1970's.  Look for 4.5 Euros on the dollar in two to three years if we don't get the debt situation under control.

      Might and Right are always fighting In our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning. Might can hardly keep from grinning. -Clarence D

      by Myrkury on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:34:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't you mean 4.5 Dollars to the Euro? (none / 0)

        In other words one US dollar = 0.22 Euro
      •  Here's a question I keep asking (none / 0)

        Do you think Soros has thought about crashing the dollar? I'm sure it'd be harder than crashing the pound, except for the underlying instability of it. But I really wonder whether or not he has thought about "alternative" ways to support progressive causes.

        Of course, I don't know how crashing the dollar would get BushCo gone, but Soros is smarter than I am so I wonder if he has considered a way.

        This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

        by emptywheel on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:16:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Crashing... (none / 0)

          Bush is crashing the dollar by himself, please don't blame ANYONE else. I seem to remember Bush saying the stock market was over priced as soon as he took office...

          Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92

          by mattes on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:56:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agree (none / 0)

            I wasn't trying to blame Soros, trust me.

            I was speculating on other actors besides those we're talking about. Sure, China is going to have a lot of say about the rate of decline of the US dollar. So is Japan. BushCo pretend to have a say, but they seem only able to accelerate its decline.

            But these aren't the only people who have been able to play around with currency after all. Soros has experience (I responded to a comment about the Pound, after all). It was more a question of "would there ever be a time when it would be advantageous for a liberal interested in restoring democracy in this country to affect the dollar?" I don't know what that scenario would be, I'm just wondering.

            This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

            by emptywheel on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:12:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ridiculous... (3.00 / 4)

              There is no benefit for anyone in this. Total catastrophic economic collapse in this politcal climate does not get you a New Deal for the 21st century it gets you scapegoating, suppression and Fascism.

              Liberalism and liberals themselves will be blamed not poor management on the part of the "CEO administration"

              •  No Benefit? (none / 0)

                        Just posing the question.
                  If China decided to kill the dollar, but used a proxy,  and still owned X% of loans made by the US govn't wouldn't China own X% of the US assets  if the US govn't defaulted on its' loans.
                 I would think the benefit would be for any country that ended up owning the US government assets after a default.
                 As a side note would they then be able to liquidate the government's assets (or public land)?
                 I am not attempting to be a troll or what not, I just am not too finance savvy?
                  The question is:  If the US defaults on loans what happens?   
                •  Nothing (none / 0)

                  If the U.S. defaults on its loans, it will simply have to pay cash for everything for a while.
                  Maybe overseas assets would be subject to attachment in the host countries.
                  The dollar would probably go down a bit, but not as much as one might think.  And the world would be plunged into a nightmare depression of functional illiquidity until Europe manages to drag us up and out, if they can.  Figure 15 years of yech.  Butother than that, there is no real consequence to a Federal Default.
                  BTW- I don;t know if there has been talk of partial default.  Perhaps using the "war powers" to invalidate debt held by enemies.  War with China could be a pretty effective means of waging war on the national debt.  Kinda like the opium trade, just substitute tchochkes, clothes and electronics for Tea, greenbacks for silver, and U.S. securities for opium.  Ripping off China to the tune of a Trillion Dollars would be high form Yankee trader- worthy of Prescot Bush.  Maybe W is channelling his /grand/pappy- the thing on his back was a signal booster.

                  Might and Right are always fighting In our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning. Might can hardly keep from grinning. -Clarence D

                  by Myrkury on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 08:40:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Further Reading (none / 0)

      For those who want to read more on this, there's an academically oriented thread on the same subject over at Noriel Roubini's global macroeconomic blog. Yes Billmon's out of the bunker writing great comments on this thread.  Enjoy.

      This aggression will not stand, man.

      by kaleidescope on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 10:27:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good catch (none / 1)

    "they now deem the Eurozone as attractive for investment as the United States"
    Basically what I was predicting since 2001. Being reality-based and having a look at the hard figures, Euro-zone had an economy as big as the US one, so it was a no-brainer in the middle and long run.

    The trade deficit is a big issue. If these guys had any vague knowledge of the late Roman Empire economy, they would see the risk - sending all the gold eastward to buy luxury goods from Middle East and China leaves you with less gold to pay your armies, which can't be downsized when the barbarians are still as numerous.

    Americans placed the stamp of approval on the least justifiable military action since Hitler invaded Poland. Paul C. Roberts

    by Clueless Joe on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:39:48 AM PDT

    •  Christ, but I (none / 0)

      haven't converted to euros yet!
    •  Not quite the same... (4.00 / 2)

      We really don't need to spend even a quarter what we do on the military.  It's not necessary for our defense.  It's only necessary if we're going to invade other countries.  There are no serious "barbarians" that we need to worry about.  At least not any that are just threatening us individually.  

      Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

      by Asak on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:21:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Defense" Spending (4.00 / 6)

        The US military budget has less to do with "defense" or even "security" than it does with serving as a vehicle for funneling public funds into high-technology R&D.  Every dynamic sector of the US economy -- computers, agriculture, bio-tech, etc. -- has received significant government subsidy, and the military budget is one of the means to deliver that subsidy to certain sectors of the economy.  That's why debating whether or not "Star Wars" will "work" is nearly pointless, because, to the planners, whether it "works" or not is nearly irrelevant.  It's funding the development of the next generation of high technology, through a funnel in the hands of cronies and conservative defense contractors.  It's quite a racket.

        -7.75, -7.64 www.politicalcompass.org "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

        by scorponic on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:42:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Defense spending also... (none / 0)

          has a lot to do with paying military pensions. This is a huge % of the Defense budget.

          People don't realize how much of what we currently pay goes to reward people who served years and decades ago, not just those now serving.  Part of the enticement of a military career in the first place...

          •  So, you're saying that (none / 0)

            the military basically has a socialised retirement system? ;)

            Americans placed the stamp of approval on the least justifiable military action since Hitler invaded Poland. Paul C. Roberts

            by Clueless Joe on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:08:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, for years I have known... (none / 0)

              several retired Colonels, who probably retired in their late forties, who had started second careers in a small business, but whose military pensions were something like $40,000 per year on top of that.

              Whether that's socialized or not, I don't know, but it sure adds up over time...

              •  Again, like Rome... (none / 1)

                the spoils of war. Double and triple dippers.

                The pay sucks generally as compared to private enterprise but marginally the benefits are rather amazing.

                The Roman Soldier

                Although soldiers were originally unpaid (the idea was only folks who afford to defend Rome should be her citizens), by the 4th century, soldiers were receiving a stipendium and equites were receiving payments to cover the expenses maintaining a horse involved. By the time of the Civil Wars, Roman soldiers had come to regard the stipendium as pay, not coverage of expenses. The amount of the stipendium increased dramatically during the wars as generals competed for soldiers. After the wars were over, Augustus did not cut back on the stipendium (although he did retire a lot of soldiers). Instead, he radically increased the pay of centurions relative to ordinary soldiers. The Praetorian Guard always received a lot more money than ordinary legionaries.

                People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

                by rgilly on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:15:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The military is a completely (none / 0)

              Socialist society.  My son is in the army.  They have counseling for everything. If you can't pay your bills or you need family counseling, they take you in hand.  Every basic need is paid for.

              If the real world were like this, without the necessity of killing other people in war, we'd probably all be a lot better off. At least we'd be a lot less stressed out.

        •  Switch it (none / 0)

          To public health. most people think the great new advances are going to be in biotech anyway, so it'd actually be a more focused seeding program. And you could give Americans what all other advanced nations already have--health care for all.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:18:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's a racket alright, (none / 0)

          but not so much for R&D as for systems integration. This provides that revolving door so many retired military use to get those high paying jobs. Star Wars is one such program. The National Science Foundation and DARPA (Defense Advanced Resarch Projects Agenc) do most of the scientific researc IMO.

          "conservatives are the worshipers of dead radicals".

          by gandalf on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:49:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually (none / 0)

            the main reason Star Wars was started was too dump huge sums of money into R&D. I don't really have a problem with that. What I do have problems with is;

            • The technology developed is/will be highly classified. It probably won't be declassified until another country develops similar systems. So whatever "tech lead" we get from it is largely useless in the foreign marketplace.

            • The technology being developed, since it is secret, is just as likely to be used against American citizens as it is foreigners. It's a tool for the ruling class, in terms of intel gathering, etc.

            • There is very little oversight, yet it is OUR money. When it comes to nuclear missles, I think much about them should remain secret. However, when it comes to all of the secret aircraft, ships, etc, that we are working on, I think it should be illegal to make them secret. I'm not talking about the details, I'm talking about the programs themselves. I forgot which founding father said it, but one of them basically said, "When a nation/democracy begins keeping secrets, it's people cease to be free."

            • Based on what I see, our only export that people are really interested in are our weapons sytems. We can build you a system that can fly around the world undetected to take out any target. Unfortunately, we can't take care of our people.

            In Critical Path, Buckminster Fuller talks about how much money and energy we spend on weaponry, which offers very little return for the investment, instead of on livingry, technology which enhances life, instead of destroying it. I think he said, and this was what a quarter of a century ago or more, that 90% of our scientists work on weaponry and 10% work on livingry.

            The sleep of reason produces monsters.

            by Alumbrados on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 09:58:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Chomsky (none / 0)

          Chomsky points out that defense spending is the least democratic was to socially invest.

          It's yielded the US quite alot, including aspects of the internet, but is done in a way that makes sure control is funneled autocratically.

        •  Defense Not Controllable By Our System (none / 1)

          Dwight Eisenhower warned us about this half a century ago.

          I don't see it being seriously addressable until after some kind of massive crisis.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 11:53:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not a "racket". (none / 0)

          "...through a funnel in the hands of cronies and conservative defense contractors. It's quite a racket."

          Please, show a little more respect.

          It's one of the few effective forms of welfare in the country; one that actually gets money to its intended audience. No small achievement, when you think about it...

          </irony>

          "Why, a child of five could figure this out! Someone fetch me a child of five." -Groucho Marx

          by kiwifruit on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 08:21:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Latifundia and... (none / 1)

      foederati...

      We import more food than we produce from "hyper-efficient" corporate farms and depend on the additional marginal foreign militaries to bolster the "mission".

      Waiting for the modern Vercingetorix to cross the Rubicon...for we are in the twilight of empire.

      People in Eurasia on the brink of oppression: I hope it's gonna be alright... Pet Shop Boys: Introspective

      by rgilly on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 01:08:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Vercingetorix (none / 1)

        Vercingetorix never crossed the Rubicon. Cesar crossed it! (in 49 BC).

        The Celt Brennus invaded Rome, but it was in 390 BC, before the empire was built...

        Odoacre, king of the Skires, entered Italy in 476 AD, and deposed the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus.  

        •  And Friedrich Durrenmatt (none / 0)

          the great Swiss dramatist, wrote a play about this, called Romulus the Great.  IMHO, it speaks to our times.

          When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. -- Thomas Paine

          by original practice on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 05:08:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Even worse - (none / 0)

    in a separate article in the same FT, you have the following scary quote:

    During the past few years the US has become dependent, not so much on millions of investors around the globe but on a few individuals in a few of the world's central banks

    Are the US anti-terrorist authorities thinking about how juicy targets these few people (and their immediate families) make for someone intent on bringing down the US economy? Are they liaising with the counterparts in these countries?

    Can you imagine if the top Treasury/reserve management guy at each of Bank of China, Bank of Japan and Bank of Taiwan (or whathever its exact name) were kidnapped, along with the kids of their n°2, and terrorists started asking the Central Banks to dump dollars???

    •  You've had too much Kool-Aid (4.00 / 10)

      if you are going down the road of thinking that everything that happens presents opportunities for terrorism by America's enemies.

      Lots of bad things can happen, but most of the problems America is having are of its own creation.  Most people in the world are much more concerned about their own countries and peoples than they are about America.  People in Britain, China, Venezuela and even Iran aren't sitting around hatching up plans to undermine America.  They just happen to be doing it by taking better decisions day after day and becoming more productive day after day.

      Quit worrying about attacks.  That is wasteful and distracting from the real job of creating wealth and serving your people wisely.

      "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

      by LondonYank on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:06:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  effort vs impact (none / 1)

        I don't worry about attacks myself.

        I'm just saying that this is a scenario which (i) would have a big impact on world economies and (ii) is much easier to organise than any kind of massive bomb or otherwise attack on the US.

        My point is that Homeland Security is mostly worrying about the wrong things, is all. I am fully of the party of treating terrorism like car accidents - random statistical noise whose odds can be improved by boring, administrative/technical/engineering work, and which should stay outsie of the headlines and of public fears as much as possible. I wish!

        •  "Homeland Security" is wasteful spending (4.00 / 6)

          that produces nothing of value within America and does not enhance America's ability to compete internationally.

          If you took the money being spend on Homeland Security and used it to provide hospitals, schools and modernisation in Palestine and Afghanistan - and now Iraq - you would achieve much more security much more quickly.  

          Unfortunately that would do nothing to enhance America's competitive position vis-a-vis China, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, the European Union and other states who are producing more of the world's goods and services more efficiently than the USA.

          Security and economic achievement are only loosely related.  I'd rather Homeland Security was disbanded and stopped wasting US expenditure altogether.

          "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

          by LondonYank on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:29:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed anout "HS" (none / 0)

            I am not so pessimistic about the US's competitiveness in the world, but that's another debate...
          •  Homeland Security (none / 0)

            Boy-I hate that name, however, I do think that a few things of value are accomplished by Homeland Security.  Airport Screening for example is essential, even if its a pain in the ass, and having flown a lot both before and after TSA I think the government workers do a better job and are better trained.  If Homeland Security funds were used more wisely, things like integrating communications between police and fire depts would be useful also, as would planning evacuation routes and other emergency preparedness--whether for terrorism or weather.  Certainly things like the diversion of DCs Homeland Security funds to pay for security for the inauguration was a huge waste of money, as are things like the FBI computer boondogle.  I would just as soon see a few less missiles and bombs built, and the money spent on schools and hospitals--both overseas and at home.

            Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

            by barbwires on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:29:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  hassled, insecure (none / 1)

              great amount of wasted effort,
              unmeasurable waste, on
              so-called security.

              last week I was applying for
              a visa to small African country.
              one of its hapless citizens was
              in line ahead of me with a problem.
              his passport name, let's call him
              Kwame Doumbouye Annan,
              does not match the name he's been
              using in the U.S., let's say Frank
              Annan. now Frank can't get his
              driver's licence renewed because
              it does not match his passport name.
              but he can't get his name legally
              changed in the U.S. because he
              is not a citizen. he'll need to change
              all his documents -- not cheap, not
              quick. meanwhile he can't work.
              but don't we feel safer now?

              nowadays, to keep down costs,
              New York State renews my driver's
              licence without a new photo.
              due to age and eccentricity, I now
              have a different number of chins,
              a different hair color, a ponytail --
              and I look quite different from
              my driver's licence photo. it will
              still get me on an airplane, of
              course, since I'm white.

              but aren't we glad government
              saves money on licence photos?

            •  Airport Security is a crock of shit (4.00 / 2)

              and the only reason Homeland Security insists on making it such a pain in the ass is in order to hoodwink the masses into believing that because we get our breasts and crotches fondled everytime we get on an airplane the government must be really serious about this terrorism thing.  Homeland Security is wagging the dog writ large.    
              •  Not a total crock (none / 1)

                Having some inside information on this (my husband has worked for the past couple of years as a screener) I know it is NOT a crock. For instance last year he found a loaded 45 in someone's carry on--I dont know about you, but I would just as soon not have a loaded 45 in the plane cabin--a sudden release of pressurized air is detrimental to one's health, even if the bullet doesn't hit anyone.  Some other interesting items get turned up to--not just breasts and crotches but things like a crossbow and quarrels!  

                Also, screeners are trained not to grope and screening should be done by a member of the same sex.  I've been screened (and been a selectee for screening) many times because I do a lot of one way or multi stop business trips, and have not run into any improper or disconcerting (overtly sexual)procedures.  If you do, complain about it!  Also for your information you have the right to request a private screening, if the public nature of the screening offends your sensibilities.  I'm sorrry to disagree with you, but some pretty bad things have been averted because the screeners were doing their jobs (drunken pilots, among others).  They are also not paid much, work weekends and holidays, and are often treated churlishly by the passengers. If you think about it, the screeners are putting their lives on the line -- an airport checkpoint was shot up in LA, for example. Certainly homeland security has its share of money wasters and boondoggles, but I dont think screening passengers is one of them.

                Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

                by barbwires on Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 02:00:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I do think it's wise to listen... (4.00 / 2)

        Osama Bin Laden has specifically said he wishes to wage an economic war on America, and from what I've seen it's working really well so far - look at what we're spending the money we borrow on - defense, pork-barrel homeland "security", flag-waving pro-war propaganda. I get a creepy feeling whem I compare what Osama says to what Bush says, and try to evaluate their relative grasp of reality.

        "The main enemy of the open society in no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."- George Soros

        by David Mason on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 06:35:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bush is Bin Laden's ally in bankrupting USA (4.00 / 4)

          From Osama Bin Laden's pre-election video speech:

          So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.

          That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinises the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

          Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations - whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction - has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

          And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

          And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [When they pointed out that] for example, al-Qaida spent $500,000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost - according to the lowest estimate - more than $500 billion.

          Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

          As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

          And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the mujahidin recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the bleed-until-bankruptcy plan - with Allah's permission.

          It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is ... you.

          "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

          by LondonYank on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:02:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is the scariest for me (none / 1)

            How does it come that Bin Laden is able to make a stronger and better indictment of the whole Bush regime than the Democrats, which at the time were - at least officially - trying to oust him in the presidential campaign?
            Just think of what it means for US politics - which opposition party? - and for foreign affairs - if OBL steps down from extremist calls to jihad and to convert the whole world and makes decent political points, how will it be received in a world who despises Bush? The US is dangerously close to see a "Let them deal with this crap alone; we'll sit on the sideway watching the show" from pretty much every other country.

            Americans placed the stamp of approval on the least justifiable military action since Hitler invaded Poland. Paul C. Roberts

            by Clueless Joe on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:14:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It worked on the Soviet Union, why not? (3.75 / 4)

            The war in Afghanistan was the straw that broke the financial back of the Soviet Union, not Reagan's imaginary "Star Wars" - the Soviets knew that was BS. To a certain extent, Bush both likes and needs Bin Laden as a tool to assist him in consolidating power and fleecing the taxpayers, but it appears to me as though Bin Laden is playing Bush like a yo-yo - first they broke the USSR, and now the USA. Why mess with a successful plan?

            "The main enemy of the open society in no longer the communist but the capitalist threat."- George Soros

            by David Mason on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:56:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's the reason OBL is at large; Bush needs him (none / 0)

          Bush is OBL biggest ally and OBL is Bush biggest ally.

          Bush would not have had half the support if the threat of OBL was not alive in the minds of the many American people. Bush's regime depends on OBL to instill fear and prop Bush as the sheriff law man in the hunt for the evil doers.

          What is so interest interesting is that many Bush supporters also have a false or pretending dependence on the farce of Bush the protector because they will not join him with their feet in the National Guard or Military to stop the evil doers if they truly believed in the threat of the evil doers.  

          I listened to a C-SPAN caller today that was 22 who supported Bush and his war on terror and he even cited that he was moved on 9/11 when he heard of a woman trying to find her father. The caller said he would never forget that. But what was most telling is that he never said that it moved him to do something like take up the cause of the war on terror and join the military to fight; he just was fervent in his verbal support of Bush and wanted others to just "support the president".

    •  You don't need to kidnap them (none / 0)


      Just set up a meeting point out how evil America is, point out that supporting the Dollar is equivalent to supporting America, oh and these are some photos of the persons house, and this is where their children go to school.

      I'm pretty sure they'd get the idea.

      Good, quick, cheap. Choose two.

      by Danack on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:52:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They meet quarterly in Basle, Switzerland (4.00 / 5)

        and you don't need to threaten them.  They have minds and consciences and they can see for themselves that America is evil and out of control.  

        If they are reweighting against America without threats already, why do you suggest threats are needed?  Any sensible fund manager is looking at the world this morning and wondering where it is safe to put his assets.  He will take his decision based on confidence in the administrative capability of the government, the earnings capability of the corporate sector and the stability likely for the currency.  On all these metrics the USA is past its peak.

        Our government is profligate and incompetent.  Our corporations are wasteful and less competitive than they once were.  Our currency is no longer a haven of stability in an uncertain world but a prop upholding the US as a threat to stability in the world.  

        Any sensible fund manager - much less central bankers - will be looking to get out from under the inevitable decline in US fortunes.

        No threats will ever be required.  No blame can ever be laid outside US borders.

        "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

        by LondonYank on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 04:58:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Death (4.00 / 3)

          by 1000 paper cuts.

          The world doesn't have to attack the US head on with military might to destroy it. This administration can't bully everyone all the time.

          With the "Smooth-overs" gone like Powell there is no credibility left. Stories like this one in Canada would not have come out last year but watch to see more of this in the future.

          •  And Condileeza... (none / 1)

            hasn't got the faintest idea in the world what it's all about.  She no doubt believes she can bully people -- i.e. financial institutions with options -- to buy U.S. bonds.  It will be a cold awakening for that incompetent syncophant, whose bounded brain accurately reflects that of her boss.
            •  No idea (none / 1)

              I actually thought she did have a very good idea when she was asked--but that she was also aware that it is utterly taboo to talk about. I assume within BushCo they have talked about this fragility, and they believe that as long as it doesn't get talked about, they won't receive any blame for it, and that they can do trivial things (steel tariffs and complaining about China loudly) that can make it seem like they're doing things, when they're really only trying to shore up military hegemony of the world so it won't matter.

              Plus, if the economy does crash, how will they pay for their mercenary army?

              No, they've got to be utterly silent on this one point, and Condi knew that, so she just refused to address the question at all.

              This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

              by emptywheel on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:25:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Because (4.00 / 3)

            these people don't understand the difference in the physics between growth and expansion. When something grows [properly] it will be driven by the press of internal pressures to expand its current boundaries. Pressure creates heat. Heat drives growth. This can/should be a good thing. But expansion, for the sake of expansion, will lead to an opposite affect.

            People who combine a lack of common sense with an impatience to fill their own egos see expansion as a quick alternative to growth without understanding that the physics of expansion predicts a drop in pressure, a subsequent cooling and ultimately a dissipation, a vacuum. [My wife and I work with small businesses and this is something we tell people talking about expanding/growing; one must be planned for, the other can kill you.]

            The worst part of it is these people will always, 100% of the time, blame factors "beyond their control" for why things went FUBAR. And expansion without growth will go FUBAR 100% of the time.

            We live in interesting times.

            The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing; they tell us how the media is doing.

            by Thumb on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 07:29:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  My Quandry is... (none / 0)

    that I need to put some money (about $2,000) into bonds.  Knowing what I do and seeing the billboards (they have advanced beyond "handwriting on the wall"), I would be stupid to buy US-denominated bonds.  The problem is how to buy Euro-denominate bonds.  Google tells me of a recent Jamaican issue of Euro-denominated bonds which are handled through a list of selected institutions.  How can I tap into those?

    Republicans are afflicted by CHIDS-Chronic Humor and Irony Deficit Syndrome, pronounced 'kids' with a parental sigh.

    by stumpy on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:50:45 AM PDT

    •  German Bunds are like US Treasuries (none / 0)

      You should be able to buy these through any major US broker.  Also, there are many mutual funds that invest in European debt and equity portfolios.  All the big mutual fund companies have some sort of Global, European or Asian offerings.

      "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

      by LondonYank on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 02:56:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yikes (4.00 / 5)

        This is the second incident of US bloggers yelling for advice on buying European bonds I've encountered in a month!

        Basically, we're now locked in a metastability problem. Central banks have loaded up hugely on foreign reserves, chiefly dollars, and the Asians' intervention policy has loaded them up still more. Everyone knows that the US twin deficits are pointing at the greenback like a loaded gun, but so far no-one wants to be the first mover for fear they'll lose their shirt in a rush for the exit. Kind of a Nash equilibrium, but with the important point that the pressure builds as the deficits grow. It doesn't take much to flip, though: the 1976 sterling crisis that finally did sterling in as a reserve currency kicked off when the Nigerians sold.

        By the way, being just another country..there's a strong argument that our eventually vain efforts to maintain the quid's value and reserve status in the postwar era was what really did our industrial base a power of no good.

        PS:I'm not sure Jamaican government bonds are the best hedge against risk I've ever heard of...

        •  Self-reinforcing trends lead to tipping point (none / 1)

          Markets tend to overshoot precisely because "the trend is your friend" only until it becomes unsustainable.  At the tipping point all the elephants rush for the exit.  Illiquidity leads to collapse.

          Old story.  Bad ending.  Sigh.

          "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" - Abraham Lincoln

          by LondonYank on Mon Jan 24, 2005 at 03:18:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's like a dollar auction (4.00 / 2)

          Another one of those simple but socially maddening games. You just auction off a dollar bill.

          Two simple rules for the auction:

          1. The auctioneer collects the top two bids.
          2. Only the top bidder collects the dollar bill.

          You start the bidding at a nickel, which of course someone bids for. Then you ask for ten cents. Which of course someone will bid. Then it's off to races. The second place bidder keeps outbidding the top bidder because if he doesn't win, he'll lose a penny and besides, 15 cents for a dollar ain't bad. And so on.

          Eventually, you hit a dollar. Now they're bidding just to avoid losing too much money. Paying $1.25 for a $1 sucks but it's better than paying $1.15 for nothing.

    •  International bond fun