Monday, September 12, 2011

Regulation Nation - We Are Killing Our Own Economy

Anyone who thinks our government is facilitating an economic recovery needs to read this. To me it appears the government is killing our economy with good intentions.



Obama administration regulations on new business rose to 3,573 final rules in 2010. What the hell are they thinking!!!!
Amplify’d from www.foxnews.com

Regulation Nation: Drowning in Rules, Businesses Brace for Cost and Time for Compliance

Published September 12, 2011
| FoxNews.com
From financial services to farming, plumbing to computer repair, business owners say new regulations have them so bogged down in compliance that it is hindering their ability to plan and expand for the coming years.
Even though President Obama recently acknowledged the need to minimize regulations, the number appears to be growing. Obama administration regulations on new business rose to 3,573 final rules in 2010, up from 3,503 in 2009 -- the equivalent of about 10 per week. 
Indeed, the 2010 volume of the Federal Register, the "newspaper" of regulatory agencies, stands at an all-time record-high 81,405 pages composed of final rules, proposed rules, meeting notices and regulatory studies.


"There is something like 180 million words of binding federal law and regulation. It would take a lifetime just to read it," said Philip K Howard, founder of Common Good.


Susan Dudley, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, noted that  regulation has been increasing, but said that uptick has been trending since the last two years of the Bush administration.


"The 'midnight year' of any administration is aggressive, and this administration has picked up at that same pace and continued it in the beginning of the administration," she said.


According to House Speaker John Boehner, the Obama administration has publicly listed a total of 219 new regulatory actions under consideration for the upcoming year that would each have an estimated cost of $100 million or more. That's on top of the conservative Heritage Foundation's estimate, which found that the administration has imposed more than 75 new "major" regulations since 2009 whose annual cost of compliance is $38 billion.


The U.S. Small Business Administration reports that the average regulatory cost burden on U.S. firms of any size was approximately $161,000, not including costs passed on to the consumers for the goods and services rendered.


Manufacturing is the industry hit the hardest by regulatory costs, with per-firm costs at $688,944. But all small businesses pay a steep price -- $10,585 for every employee.


Howard said that regulations in the U.S. are, at best, "semi-effective" while also "horribly expensive."


"No one has the time to read all the rules. So instead of focusing, for example, on worker safety, which is a very useful regulatory goal, it focuses on little detail nits that end up basically tripping everyone up, because they end up spending all their time complying with the nits instead of making the factory safe," he said.


Among the industries facing massive regulations is farming, whether it be dust-ups over dirt to the fallout from manure.


"It's a big concern; I'm worried they're going to regulate us right out of farming," said Calvin Haile, of Dunnsville, Va., a grain farmer whose five employees have to keep check on the runoff to the Chesapeake Bay. "Since we're so close to the bay and you know, we just won't be able to farm profitably and comply with all the regulations, that's my concern for the future."


Steve Baker, a swine farmer and owner of Baker Farms in Shenandoah County, Va., said he's doing what he can to be a responsible business owner. He spent $15,000 five years ago to build a transfer pump for any pigpen runoff so it flows to a holding tank. He said he chose to do this before regulations came out to deal with runoff water into the Chesapeake Bay


"We want to do what absolutely needs to be done because this is our livelihood, this is what puts a roof over our heads," Baker said.


American appear to be concerned by the impact of regulation on business. A poll conducted by the Tarrance Group for Public Notice, an independent, nonprofit group that provides information on how government policy affects financial well-being, found that 74 percent of those surveyed say that the U.S. is creating too many rules. The poll of likely voters in 10 states taken Sept. 6-8 also found that 47 percent fear the rules will result in job losses while 22 percent think it will increase the price of goods and services. Seventy percent said they believe increasing the number of regulations on American businesses will result in jobs moving overseas. Howard said he believes in legitimate regulatory goals, but the rules need to be practically applied and enforced.


"You can tell a factory owner that it can't pollute and it needs to meet certain guidelines for pollution, but if you give them a thousand pages of rules that tell them exactly how to catch the pollution. Chances are they'll waste huge amounts of money catching the pollution in the wrong place and it probably won't be effective," he said.
Read more at www.foxnews.com

Sunday, August 14, 2011

The Rule of Commissar Obamanation.

And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land called America , having lost their morals, their initiative, and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that Person known as "The One."


He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He Hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you." My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you with Hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed. And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And "The One" said " We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!"
And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!"

Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people said "Sock it to them!" "And redistribute their wealth." And the people said, "Show us the money!" And the he said, " redistribution of wealth is good for everybody.."

And Joe the plumber asked, " Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized.
One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was banished from the Kingdom's press corps".

Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with Radical terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"
 

Then "The One" said "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!" And the people said, "Hallelujah! Show us the money!"

Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed. And He said. "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!" Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas." And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"
 

Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with the ACORN and you troubles are over!"
 
Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!" and they made him king!

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff.

The bank banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.

Then "The One" said, "I am the "the Chosen One"- The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said unto Him. "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more... And "The One" said, "Wait a minute. That is not fair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"


And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built.


And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.



This Man Has Courage!

Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie can be followed at mychal-massie.com.

Amplify’d from www.wnd.com
Nero in the White House
Posted: August 08, 2011
5:20 pm Eastern

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.

Read more at www.wnd.com
 

Friday, August 5, 2011

Marc Faber says "Brace for a Global 'Reboot' and War

This man is very wise and all who listen to him will benefit greatly.

Amplify’d from www.cnbc.com

Faber: Brace for a Global 'Reboot' and a War

Published:
Friday, 5 Aug 2011 | 7:51 AM ET
Text Size
By: Peter Guest
Staff Writer, CNBC.com

Markets could rebound after Thursday's global market sell-off, but investors should see any bounce as a selling opportunity, as the world economy rolls towards total collapse, Mark Faber, editor and publisher of the Boom, Doom and Gloom Report, told CNBC Friday.

Dr. Marc Faber
Axel Griesch | ASFM | Getty Images
Dr. Marc Faber

A mooted third round of quantitative easing





(QE3) in the U.S. and more money printing elsewhere is merely deferring a crisis that will be bigger and could end in war, Faber said.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average [.DJIA 
11383.68 
--- 
UNCH 
(0)

 
]
suffered its worst losses in three years Thursday, shedding more than 500 points.

"My view is that the market has experienced everywhere huge technical damage," Faber said. "As of today, all markets are extremely oversold, so a rebound is going to happen (Friday) or on Monday, but the damage technically is so great that the rebound, no matter whether QE3 happens right here, it's unlikely to lift markets above the May 2 high of the (S&P 500)[.SPX 
1200.07 
--- 
UNCH 
(0)

 
]
at 1370."

Faber thinks that by the end of the fall, the S&P 500 will have slid to around 1150, and investors will be hoping that further round of monetary easing will stabilize markets.

"In general, I would be using rebounds as a selling opportunity," Faber said.

Buying Treasurys as a safe haven is no longer a smart play, he added.

"I think Treasurys are perceived still as a safe haven because everybody knows the U.S. has an endless ability to print money. The interest will be paid," he said. "The trouble is that governments can default in two ways. Either they just stop paying the interest and there is a debt restructuring, like Argentina went through; or they just pay the interest and the principle eventually, in a worthless currency. That's the way the U.S. will likely do it."

Gold [GCCV1 
1655.90 
 
-3.10 
(-0.19%)

 
]
and silver have been overbought, and may see a correction in the coming weeks, but Faber believes that should be seen as a buying opportunity as investors begin to shun paper assets.

"Gold miners are hit very hard and the gold price went up. People don't trust paper anymore. That is one of the problems," he said.

However, temporary upturns and the artificial boost to markets given by printing money only disguise the coming threat to the world economy, Faber warned.

"You have a computer. Occasionally the computer will crash and you have to reboot it. That will happen to the global economy. Before this happens there will be much more money printing because basically the central banks are willing to do that," he said. "By printing money, problems are not solved, but they can be postponed, and they become larger. It's like the recession in 2001. Had there not been massive money printing, it would have been steeper than what we had, but equally, we would have avoided probably the financial crash in 2008."

The next crisis will be far bigger, according to Faber.

"The next time we have a global economic crisis, it will be much worse than 2008. Before this happens there will be money printing and there will be war. The whole system will collapse," he said. "That's why I'm advising people that they have to think it through. In a total collapse you don't want to own government bonds and cash."

He added: "Equities—they don't perform well, but at least you have the ownership of companies. Precious metals in that environment do relatively well. And of course, oil would do well if there was a war."

Read more at www.cnbc.com
 

Thursday, August 4, 2011

What Happens if There Are No Real Cuts in Spending?

Mauldin is right, if real cuts in spending are not made then horror awaits us!



See video at:

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/john-mauldin-u-must-cut-10-trillion-10-193254628.html#more-id

Amplify’d from finance.yahoo.com

John Mauldin: The U.S. Must Cut $10 Trillion in 10 Years, or Taxes Will Skyrocket

By Peter Gorenstein | Daily Ticker – 18 hours ago

This week's debt ceiling deal seems not to have satisfied anyone on either side of the political spectrum. For the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives, the deal to cut $2.4 trillion in spending over the next 10 years does not go far enough. For liberals, the deal calls for too many spending cuts, especially to Medicare, without raising revenues, that is to say taxes.


John Mauldin, president of Millennium Wave Advisors and author of Endgame: The End of the Debt Supercycle and How It Changes Everything, says we need a combination for both. He's calling for greater debt reduction through spending cuts and tax hikes, not an easy position for the Republicans to take. "We've got to cut spending, and I'm afraid we're going to end up having to find ways to raise revenues," he tells Henry Blodget. "You can call it tax increases, you can call it reducing the tax expenditures."


For the U.S. to make any progress on the deficit, Mauldin says Congress must cut $10 trillion over the next decade. Make no mistake, cutting that much will cause pain, but the alternative to continue to kick the can down the road will only create more pain. "We don't want to become Greece," he warns. If we fail to address the problems now, we'll have to "raise taxes to levels nobody can comprehend," he argues.


What about those who say we should just default?


That's not an option," he says. "We're the world's reserve currency. We can't do that. It would cause global crisis, global recession, trade wars and an economic catastrophe on par with the 1930s."

Read more at finance.yahoo.com
 

Monday, July 25, 2011

Oh the Lies and Spin of Obama!

Amplify’d from www.washingtontimes.com

CURL: Is Obama a pathological liar?

By

-

The Washington Times

7:17 p.m.,
Sunday, July 24, 2011

"Mendacity is a system that we live in."

- Brick, "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"

In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances "rhetoric."

But across the rest of the country, plain ol' folk call 'em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you're saying is patently false, then it's a lie. Simple.

And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.

His late-evening news conference Friday was a tour de force of flat-out, unadulterated mendacity — and we've gotten a first-hand insider's view of the president's long list of lies.

"I wanted to give you an update on the current situation around the debt ceiling," Mr. Obama said at 6:06 p.m. OK, that wasn't a lie — but just about everything he said after it was, and he knows it.

"I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations," he said.

Not so: "The White House made offers during the negotiations," said our insider, a person intimately involved in the negotiations, "and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down."

Mr. Boehner was more blunt in his own news conference: "The discussions we've had with the White House have broken down for two reasons. First, they insisted on raising taxes. ... Secondly, they refused to get serious about cutting spending and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform."

But back to the lying liar and the lies he told Friday. "You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that theyve been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues," Mr. Obama said.

That, too, was a lie. "The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill," our insider said.

The negotiations just before breakdown called for $800 billion in new "revenues" (henceforth, we'll call those "taxes"), but after the supposedly bipartisan plan came out — and bowing to the powerful liberal bloc on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama demanded another $400 billion in new taxes: a 50 percent increase.

Mr. Boehner was blunt: "The White House moved the goalpost. There was an agreement, some additional revenues, until yesterday, when the president demanded $400 billion more, which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people."

But Mr. Obama, with a straight face, continued. "We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

The truth: "Actually, the White House was walking back its commitments on entitlement reforms, too. They kept saying they wanted to 'go big.' But their actions never matched their rhetoric," the insider said.

Now, Mr. Boehner and the real leaders in Congress have taken back the process. He'll write the bill and pass it along to the president, with this directive, which he reportedly said to Mr. Obama's face in a short White House meeting Saturday: "Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign."

Watching the one-third-of-a-term-senator-turned-president negotiate brings to mind a child spinning yarns about just how the living room lamp got broken. Now, though, the grown-ups are in charge; the kids have been put to bed. Ten days ago, the president warned the speaker: "Dont call my bluff."

Well, Mr. Boehner has. He's holding all the cards — and he's not bluffing.

Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC

Read more at www.washingtontimes.com
 

Monday, July 18, 2011

The Great Charade

This is an article by Mark Steyn on July 16, 2011 7:00 A.M.



Extremely well written description of the irresponsible actions of our leaders in government and how they are spending our money.

Amplify’d from www.nationalreview.com
The Great Charade
The spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with.








There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.



Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.



On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.



Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.



When the 44th president took office, he made a decision that it was time for the already unsustainable levels of government spending finally to break the bounds of reality and frolic and gambol in the magical fairy kingdom of Spendaholica: This year, the federal government borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends, a ratio that is unprecedented. Barack Obama would like this to be, as they say, “the new normal” — at least until that 43 cents creeps up a nickel or so, and the United States government is spending twice as much as it takes in, year in, year out, now and forever. If the Republicans refuse to go along with that, well, then the negotiations will collapse and, as he told Scott Pelley on CBS the other night, Gran’ma gets it. That monthly Social Security check? Fuhgeddabouddit. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” declared the president. “Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”



But hang on. I thought the Social Security checks came out of the famous “Social Security trust fund,” whose “trustees” assure us there’s currently $2.6 trillion in there. Which should be enough for the August 3rd check run, shouldn’t it? Golly, to listen to the president, you’d almost get the impression that, by the time you saw the padlock off the old Social Security lockbox, there’s nothing in there but a yellowing IOU and a couple of moths. Indeed, to listen to Obama, one might easily conclude that the whole rotten, stinking edifice of federal government is an accounting trick. And that can’t possibly be so, can it?



For the Most Gifted Orator in Human History, the president these days speaks largely in clichés, most of which he doesn’t seem to be quite on top of. “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” he sternly reprimanded the GOP’s Eric Cantor. Usually, if you’re bluffing, the trick is not to announce it upfront. But, in fact, in his threat to have Granny eating dog food by Labor Day, Obama was calling his own bluff. The giant bluff against the future that is government spending.



How many of “the wealthy” do you require to cover a one-and-a-half trillion-dollar shortfall every single year? When you need this big a fix, there aren’t enough people to stick it to. “We are not broke,” insists Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar and bespoke Communist. “We were robbed, we were robbed. And somebody has our money!”



The somebody who has our money is the government. They waste it on self-aggrandizing ideologue nitwits like Van Jones and his “green jobs” racket. How’s the “green jobs” scene in your town? Going gangbusters, is it? Every day these guys burn through so much that they can never bridge the gap. By that, I don’t mean that an American government that raises $2 trillion but spends $4 trillion has outspent America, but that it’s outspent the planet. In my soon to be imminently forthcoming book, I discuss a study published last year by John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin. Its very title is a testament to where we’re headed:



“Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money In The World — And At What Cost?”





The authors’ answer is yes, technically, there is enough money in the world — in the sense that, on current projections, by 2020 all it will take to finance the government of the United States is for the rest of the planet to be willing to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. Which Kitchen and Chinn say is technically doable. Yeah. In the same sense that me dating Scarlett Johansson is technically doable.



Unfortunately, neither Scarlett nor the rest of the planet is willing to do it. It’s not 2020 and we’re not yet asking the rest of the planet for a fifth of its GDP. But already the world is imposing its own debt ceiling. Most of the debt issued by the Treasury so far this year has been borrowed from the Federal Reserve. That adds another absurd wrinkle to the D.C. charade: Washington is negotiating with itself over how much money to lend itself.



Meanwhile, the World’s Greatest Orator bemoans the “intransigence” of Republicans. Okay, what’s your plan? Give us one actual program you’re willing to cut, right now. Oh, don’t worry, says Barack Obluffer. To demonstrate how serious he is, he’s offered to put on the table for fiscal year 2012 spending cuts of (stand well back now) $2 billion. That would be a lot in, say, Iceland or even Australia. Once upon a time it would have been a lot even in Washington. But today $2 billion is what the Brokest Nation in History borrows every ten hours. In other words, in less time than he spends sitting across the table negotiating his $2 billion cut, he’s already borrowed it all back. A negotiation with Obama is literally not worth the time.



In order to fund Obamacare and the other opiates of Big Government dependency, the feds need to take 25 percent of GDP, now and forever: The “new normal.” It can’t be done. Look around you. The new normal’s already here: flatline jobs market, negative equity, the dead-parrot economy. What comes next will be profoundly abnormal. His name was Obamandias, King of Kings. Look upon his works, ye mighty, and despair. Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.



Do they still teach Shelley in high school? Or just the “diversity manual” about “social justice” the Omaha Public Schools paid for with $130,000 of “stimulus” funding?



Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2011 Mark Steyn.

Read more at www.nationalreview.com
 

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Obama Scolds Congress - Acts of Narcissism & Lying

President Obama is a joke! However I am not laughing. To take all the vacations he has taken, played all the golf games he has played, thrown all the big White House parties with Hollywood guest and then pretend like he has been hard at work all along is very sad. I used the word "pretend" purposely here because only a narcissist would believe that about himself and they live in a "pretend" version of their own reality. It sure does not resemble mine or anyone around me.



President Obama has not offered to Congress or the Senate any legislation of his own creation or initiative. For someone hailed as "so much smarter" than anyone else, why does he relegate this to others? My best guess is everything he supports is written by someone else so he can blame any failure on them. If it succeeds he has no problem taken credit for the work of others.



Only a blamer and emotional blackmailer would resort to making the comparisons of congress' potential shortcomings to his own children. This is an attempt to shame the congress and senate, however what he fails to recognize is he has now placed enormous expectations on his children to always succeed better than congress or given them the supreme position of being princesses that are uniquely better than others who ultimately are beneath them. This will make narcissist of them as well.



He is lying when he says the Treasury cannot pay our government's bills without raising the debt limit and taxes. To service the debt owed takes less than 10% of the budget. What the US government could not do is continue to SPEND money they do not have or have not stolen from us yet on things they should not be spending on anyway.



My hope and prayers are for some real MEN and/or WOMEN to get into office in 2012 and start making responsible adult decisions.



I know these things to be true not because I am better or smarter but because I know I have made too many similar mistakes in my own life. I know the damage that can and is being done by this man and his minions.



Sincerely,



Kenneth

Amplify’d from blogs.abcnews.com

Obama Scolds Congress, Says Malia and Sasha Are More Disciplined

June 29, 2011 1:05 PM

ABC's Matthew Jaffe (@jaffematt) reports:


In an animated rant that livened up an otherwise subdued press conference, President Obama today lit into Congress for failing to reach an agreement to raise the country’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling as an Aug. 2 deadline approaches, despite repeated urgings by the administration to do so. At one point he even reprimanded lawmakers by noting that his two daughters manage to do their homework ahead of time, a diligence rarely seen on gridlocked Capitol Hill.

“If the United States government for the first time cannot pay its bills, if it defaults, then the consequences for the US economy will be significant and unpredictable and that is not a good thing,” President Obama said of the debt ceiling debate. “We don’t know how capital markets will react, but if capital markets suddenly decide, you know what, the US government doesn’t pay its bills so we’re going to start pulling our money out and the US Treasury has to start to raise interest rates in order to attract more money to pay off our bills, that means higher interest rates for businesses, that means higher interest rates for consumers. So all the headwinds that we’re already experiencing in terms of recovery will get worse. That is not my opinion – I think that’s the consensus opinion. And that means that job growth will be further stymied, it will be further hampered as a consequence of that decision.”

“These are bills that Congress ran up,” he noted. “The money’s been spent. The obligations have been made. So this is not a situation – I think the American people have to understand this – this is not a situation where you know, Congress is going to say, ‘Okay, we won’t buy this car or we won’t take this vacation.’ They took the vacation, they bought the car, and now they’re saying maybe we don’t have to pay or we don’t have to pay as fast as we said we were going to. That’s not how responsible families act. We’re the greatest nation on earth and we can’t act that way. So this is urgent and it needs to get settled.”

In response to suggestions by prominent Republicans like House Speaker John Boehner that the Aug. 2 deadline set by the Treasury Department was “artificial,” the president said, “Aug. 2 is a very important date and there’s no reason why we can’t get this done now. We know what the options are out there. This is not a technical problem any longer. This is the matter of Congress going ahead and biting the bullet and making some tough decisions.”

If his two daughters can do their homework with plenty of time to spare, the president then asked, why can’t Congress get their work done, too?

“You know, Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. Malia is 13 and Sasha is 10. It is impressive. They don’t wait until the night before. They’re not pulling all-nighters,” he said to laughter from the assembled press corps. “They’re 13 and 10. You know, Congress can do the same thing. If you know you’ve got to do something, just do it.”

But the president wasn’t done yet. After touting his leadership on the debt ceiling issue, pointing out that he’d met with members of Congress repeatedly in recent months, the president took some shots at the Congressional calendar that leaves lawmakers ample time to leave Washington and return to their home states and districts.

“They need to do their job. Now’s the time to go ahead and make the tough choices. That’s why they’re called leaders. And I’ve already shown that I’m willing ot make decisions that are very tough and you know, give my base of voters further reason to give me a hard time, but it’s got to be done, so there’s no point in procrastinating. There’s no point in putting it off. You know, we’ve got to get this done. And if by the end of this week we have not seen substantial progress then I think members of Congress need to understand we’re going to have to start cancelling things and stay here until we get it done. They’re in one week. They’re out one week. And then they’re saying Obama’s got to step in – you need to be here, I’ve been here, I’ve been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden, and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.”

“Alright, I think you know my feelings about that,” he said with a chuckle.


- Matthew Jaffe

Read more at blogs.abcnews.com
 

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

QE3 via Financial Repression

The Fed and the Irresponsible Power hungry in Washington DC care not about you and I. They are going to take our money if we let them. We have got to vote out as many of them as possible if our country is to be saved.

Amplify’d from www.financialsense.com

Financial Repression: A Sheep Shearing Instruction Manual

Overview 

"Financial Repression" is currently a hot buzzword in the global economic community, and its effects are even worse than it sounds. Like other recent economic buzzwords such as "monetary sterilization" and "quantitative easing", the average person will never understand the meaning, if they hear the phrase at all. That is too bad, because governments around the world deliberately and methodically stripping wealth (and therefore security and retirement lifestyle) from hundreds of millions of people is the quite explicit objective of Financial Repression. 

As published in a recent working paper on the IMF website, Financial Repression is what the US and the rest of the advanced economies used to pay down enormous government debts the last time around, with a reduction in the government debt to GDP ratio of roughly 70% between 1945 and 1980. Financial Repression offers a third way out - as it allows governments to pay down huge debt burdens without either 1) default or 2) hyperinflation. If you are a senior government official of a nation that has a huge "sovereign debt" problem – like the United States and almost all of Europe, and you want to stay in power - this proven method is a topic of keen interest.

To understand this miraculous debt cure for governments, you need to understand the source of the funding. As we will explore in this article, the essence of Financial Repression is using a combination of inflation and government control of interest rates in an environment of capital controls to confiscate the value of the savings of the world's savers. Rephrased in less academic terms - the government deliberately destroys the value of money over time, and uses regulations to force a negative rate of return onto investors in inflation-adjusted terms, so that the real wealth of savers shrinks by an average of 3-4% per year (in the postwar historical example), and it uses an assortment of carrots and sticks to make sure investors have no choice but to accept having the purchasing power of their investments shrink each year. 

What the IMF-distributed paper really constitutes is a Sheep Shearing Instruction Manual. The "way out" for governments is effectively to put the world's savers and investors in pens, hold them down, and shear them over and over again, year after year. Uninformed and helpless victims is what makes Financial Repression work, and it worked very well indeed for 35 years. On the other hand, if you understand what is truly going on, then you do have the ability to turn this to your substantial personal financial advantage. With a genuinely out of the box approach to long-term investment, the more heavy handed the repression - the more reliable the wealth compounding for those who reject flock thinking. 

Understanding Financial Repression 

Pimco (Pacific Investment Management Co.), one of the largest investment managers in the world, released their three to five year outlook last month, and their CEO predicted that increasing debt problems would lead to higher inflation and a return to "financial repression" in the United States. 

Earlier in May, the Economist magazine had published an article on Financial Repression that included the following summary: 

"... political leaders may have a strong incentive to pursue it (Financial Repression). Rapid growth seems out of the question for many struggling advanced economies, austerity and high inflation are extremely unpopular, and leaders are clearly reluctant to talk about major defaults. It would be very interesting if debt (rather than financial crisis or growing inequality) was the force that led to the return of the more managed economic world of the postwar period." 

The phrase "Financial Repression" was first coined by Shaw and McKinnon in works published in 1973, and it described the dominant financial model used by the world's advanced economies between 1945 and around 1980. While academic works have continued to be published over the years, the phrase fell into obscurity as financial systems liberalized on a global basis, and former comprehensive sets of national financial controls receded into history. 

However, since the financial crisis hit hard in 2008, there has been a resurgence of interest in how governments have paid down massive debt burdens in the past, and a fascinating study of Financial Repression, "The Liquidation of Government Debt", authored by Carmen Reinhart and M. Belen Sbrancia, was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in March, 2011 (link below). 

http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/res2/pdf/crbs.pdf

The paper is being circulated through the International Monetary Fund, and to understand why it is catching the full attention of global investment firms and governmental policymakers, take a look at the graph below:

debt to gdp ratio for advance economies

The advanced Western economies of the world emerged from the desperate struggle for survival that was World War II, with a total stated debt burden relative to their economies that was roughly equal to that seen today. The governments didn't default on those staggering debts, nor did they resort to hyperinflation, but they did nonetheless drop their debt burdens relative to GDP by about 70% over the next three decades - and the very deliberate, calculated use of Financial Repression was how it was done.

The Mechanics Of Financial Repression 

The specifics of financial repression took somewhat different forms in each of the advanced economies, but they shared four characteristics: 1) inflation; 2) governmental control of interest rates to guarantee negative real rates of return; 3) compulsory funding of government debt by financial institutions; and 4) capital controls. 

1) Inflation. First and foremost, a government that owes too much money destroys the value of those debts through destroying the value of the national currency itself. It doesn't get any more traditional than that from a long-term, historical perspective. Without inflation, Financial Repression just doesn't work. Historically, the rate does not have to be high so long as the government is patient, but the higher the rate of inflation, the more effective financial repression is at quickly reducing a nation's debt problem. 

For example, per the Reinhart and Sbrancia paper, the US and UK used the combination of inflation and Financial Repression to reduce their debts by an average of 3-4% of GDP per year, while Australia and Italy used higher inflation rates in combination with Financial Repression to more swiftly drop their outstanding debt by about 5% per year in GDP terms. As the crisis is much worse this time around, a substantially higher rate of inflation than that experienced in the 1945 to 1980 period is going to be necessary. 

2) Negative Real Interest Rates. In a theoretical world, some would say that governments can't inflate away debts because the free market would demand interest rates that compensate them for the higher rate of inflation. Sadly, this theoretical world has little to do with the past or present real world. 

In the past (and all too likely in the future), there were formal government regulations that determined the maximum interest rates that could be paid. As an example, Regulation Q was used in the United States to prevent the payment of interest on checking accounts, and to put a cap on the payment of interest on savings accounts. 

Regulation Q is long gone, but government control of short term interest rates has been near absolute over the last decade in the United States. As described in detail in my article linked below, "Cheating Investors As Official Government Policy", the Federal Reserve has been openly using its powers to massively manipulate interest rates in the US, keeping costs low for the government while cheating tens of millions of investors. 

http://danielamerman.com/articles/2011/Cheating.htm 

So long as the Federal Reserve keeps control, there is no need for explicit interest rate controls. However, should the Fed begin to lose control, there is a strong possibility that interest rate controls will return to the US financial landscape, with similar regulatory controls being re-imposed in other nations. 

3) Involuntary Funding. With this popular component of Financial Repression, the government establishes reserve or "quality" requirements for financial institutions that make holding substantial amounts of government debt mandatory - or at least establish overwhelming incentives for financial institutions such as banks, savings and loans, credit unions and insurance companies to do so. Of course, this is publicly phrased as "mandating financial safety", instead of the more accurate description of mandating the making of investments at below market interest rates to help overextended governments recover from financial difficulties. 

This involuntary funding is sometimes described as a hidden tax on financial institutions, but let me suggest that this perspective misses the important part for you and me. Because all financial institutions operating within a country are required to effectively subsidize this liquidation of government debt by accepting less than the rate of inflation on interest rates, the gross revenues of all financial institutions are depressed, and therefore less money can be offered to depositors and policyholders. Because financial institutions make their money not on gross revenues, but on the spread between what they pay out and take in, then arguably, financial institution profits are not necessarily reduced, rather the guaranteed annual loss in purchasing power is passed straight through to depositors and policyholders, i.e. you and me. 

As an example, if a fair inflation-adjusted return were 8%, and the spread kept by the financial institution was 2%, then we as investors would get 6%. If financial institutions, through involuntary funding, are uniformly forced to accept a 3% return on the government debt that must constitute a big portion of their portfolios, then they still keep 2%, but only pass through 1%. So the financial institution keeps 2% either way, and we as savers are the ones who ultimately pay this "hidden tax" in full, by getting a repressed 1% instead of a fair market 6% return. 

4) Capital Controls. In addition to ongoing inflation that destroys the value of everyone's savings and thereby the value of the government's debts, while simultaneously making sure that interest rate levels lock in inflation-adjusted investor losses on a reliable basis, there is another necessary ingredient to Financial Repression: participation must be mandatory. Or as Reinhart and Sbrancia phrase it in their description / recipe for Financial Repression, it requires the "creation and maintenance of a captive domestic audience" (underline mine). 

The government has to make sure that it has controls in place that will keep the savers in place while the purchasing power of their savings is systematically and deliberately destroyed. This can take the form of explicit capital and exchange controls, but there are numerous other, more subtle methods that can be used to essentially achieve the same results, particularly when used in combination. This can be achieved through a combined structure of tax and regulatory incentives for institutions and individuals to keep their investments "domestic" and in the proper categories for manipulation, as well as punitive tax and regulatory treatment of those attempting to escape the repression. A carrot and stick approach in other words, to make sure behavior is controlled.

A Sheep Shearing Instruction Manual 

Only a tiny fraction of 1% of the world's population will ever read the original paper on the IMF website, or detailed analyses thereof. This is dry and boring stuff when compared to dancing or singing with the stars! Of course, there are many millions of investors who do read daily or weekly about what is going on in the financial world - but they and the journalists and bloggers who inform them usually just follow the ever changing surface of the markets. Again, the academic papers involved are so dry, boring and fundamental as to seem to have little relevance for the practical matter of what actions to take today or this month. 

That said, let me suggest that few things are more important for your financial future than understanding and taking to heart Financial Repression. Because understanding Financial Repression means pulling the curtain aside and looking into the inner core of financial reality. It means understanding that much of what you have read and been taught about investment markets and long term investments over the last several decades has effectively been a sham. 

Investor returns are not - and arguably never have been - fully about people compounding wealth in free markets, with the collective wisdom of the markets guaranteeing returns that are based upon rational assessments of the risk. Rather, investments, investment markets, investor returns and investor behavior have always been matters of governmental policy; what has varied over the years has been the form of government policy and how overt the control is.

To fully understand Financial Repression, you need to understand that the Reinhart and Sbrancia paper is effectively a sheep shearing manual. You and I, along with the rest of the savers and investors of the world are the sheep, and the goal of Financial Repression is to shear as much savings from us as the governments can, year after year, without triggering excessive unrest, and while keeping us producing the resources that can be politically redistributed. 

The governments of the world are in trouble, and they would prefer to avoid overt global defaults, hyperinflation, or comprehensive austerity coupled with massive tax hikes. Each of those routes is highly unpopular, and could lead to political turmoil that would remove the decision makers and the special interests who support them from power. A more overt "managed economy" sounds much more attractive if you are in power, particularly since it has worked before over a period of decades, with an almost boring lack of political turmoil. 

To get out of trouble, the governments have to wipe out most of the value of their debts, without raising taxes to the degree needed to pay the debts off at fair value. In other words, they need to cheat the investors. There is nothing accidental going on here, all that is in question are the particulars of the strategies for cheating the investors, meaning the collective savers of the world. Again, the time-honored and traditional form that governments who incur too much debt use in cheating the investors is to devalue the currency. Create enough inflation, and tax collections will rise with inflation but the debts won't, and the savers of the world will be paid back in full with currency that is worth much less than what was lent to the governments in the first place. 

Except that there is the technicality that in theory, interest rates will rise above the rate of inflation, so that the value of savings is not eroded. From the governmental perspective, this is demonstrably a rather absurd theory. The core point of the Reinhart and Sbrancia paper is that the advanced economies of the world quite effectively squeezed an average of 3-4% annually of the value of government debt out of investor real net worth for a period of 35 years, using a wide assortment of overt and less overt controls over interest rates and investor behavior. Today the mechanism is different in that the central banks are using massive monetary creation in combination with their regulatory powers over major banks to control interest rates. However, the bottom line is that interest rates are absurdly low compared to the inflation and default risks, and this is because of near complete government control. 

One potential sheep shearing problem is that only a minority of us "sheep" directly own government debt. For maximum sheep shearing efficiency, all of us who lead productive lives and produce more than we consume (meaning we generate savings) need to be sheared - and sheared often - whether we buy government bonds or not. This next step is one of the hardest parts for non-financial professionals to understand, but through manipulations of capital requirements and the creation of regulatory incentives and disincentives (that never make the nonfinancial media) governments can effectively control the investment behavior of financial institutions, and force the institutions to take on investments that pay less than the rate of inflation. From which the institutions still take their cut, and then pass through a still lower real return to their depositors and policyholders. So wherever we put our money, in whatever financial institution - we get absurdly low rates of return that help the governments reduce the real value of their debts. 

So we're getting sheared, we've got no choice about it, the government explicitly plans to keep on shearing us for every remaining year of our lives, and wherever we go in the meadow, we still get sheared. This leads to the more savvy of us sheep trying to escape the meadow, and again, this is anticipated in the Financial Repression structure right from the beginning, with the construction of capital control fences. Many of the controls on savings leaving the country have been loosened since 1980. However, these controls have been returning since 2008, and are just likely to grow stronger as the return to full-on Financial Repression likely grows more overt. 

Leaving The Flock 

There is a way to beat Financial Repression. How? Succinctly phrased:  the first step is to stop thinking like a sheep and start thinking like a shepherd. Stop acting like a sheep, and change your financial profile so that it aligns with the objectives of the "shepherds", the governments of the world. 

Instead of fighting the governments of the world - position yourself so that the higher the rate of inflation and the greater the destruction of the value of money - the greater your real wealth grows, in inflation-adjusted terms. 

The fundamentals of Financial Repression are for governments to pin down their citizens, force them to take interest rates that are below the government-induced rate of inflation, and make it almost impossible for an older investor with a conventional financial profile to escape. This is a time to fight the good fight politically - but not with your savings or your future standard of living.

Instead, align your financial interests with your government and the governments of the world. So that the more outrageous the government actions become in squeezing the value of investor savings from their populations - the more reliable the compounding of your wealth becomes for you, and the greater the growth in your financial security. 

So how does one stop thinking and acting like a sheep? This can be amazingly simple, or it can be impossibly difficult. It is you and the way your mind works that will determine whether thinking like a shepherd will become simple or be impossible. How open are you - truly - to changing the way you view investments and financial security? Can you change the personal paradigm that may have shaped your worldview for decades? 

View the investment world in the way in which we have all been programmed, and maintaining wealth over the coming years of inflation and Financial Repression is going to be extraordinarily difficult, particularly in after-tax and after-inflation terms. Because everything around you really is set up for sheep shearing. That's not a conspiracy theory - that is how the world really worked between 1945 and 1980, and policymakers around the world likely see variants of this proven debt reduction methodology as their only way out. 

The Great Sheep Shearing of the early 21st century is already in process (we're just using some different names and methods this time around), and it will likely succeed with the overwhelming majority of investors - much like it did before, only on a more thorough basis, because the problems are far larger this time around.  Whether Financial Repression will successfully prevent a meltdown is a different question, but regardless, the attempt is still likely to dominate markets as well as government regulations and policy. 

Your alternative is to accept the world as it is, take personal responsibility for your own outcome, and educate yourself. You can seek to fundamentally change your paradigm, turn it upside down - and personally turn that same world of high inflation and Financial Repression into a target-rich environment of wealth building opportunities.

It is all up to you. 

About the Author











Financial Consultant, CFA
Duluth MN USA
mail @ the-great-retirement-experiment.com
http://danielamerman.com/
Read more at www.financialsense.com
 

Collapsing Clout of US Dollar

The Debt our US Congress and President's (Dems and Repubs) have amassed over the past few decades is going to be our demise unless strong medicine is provided. However I am not confident that the majority of citizens are willing to accept the required medicine to get well which could very well lead us down a path like Greece. Then again "We The People" did put these idiots in power via our votes. Unfortunately you get what you ask for sometimes and those that did not ask have to suffer right along with the majority that put them there.

Amplify’d from www.ft.com

Dollar seen losing global reserve status

By Jack Farchy in London

The US dollar will lose its status as the global reserve currency over the next 25 years, according to a survey of central bank reserve managers who collectively control more than $8,000bn.


More than half the managers, who were polled by UBS, predicted that the dollar would be replaced by a portfolio of currencies within the next 25 years.

That marks a departure from previous years, when the central bank reserve managers have said the dollar would retain its status as the sole reserve currency.


UBS surveyed more than 80 central bank reserve managers, sovereign wealth funds and multilateral institutions with more than $8,000bn in assets at its annual seminar for sovereign institutions last week. The results were not weighted for assets under management.


The results are the latest sign of dissatisfaction with the dollar as a reserve currency, amid concerns over the US government’s inability to rein in spending and the Federal Reserve’s huge expansion of its balance sheet.


“Right now there is great concern out there around the financial trajectory that the US is on,” said Larry Hatheway, chief economist at UBS.


The US currency has slid 5 per cent so far this year, and is trading close to its lowest ever level against a basket of the world’s major currencies.


Holders of large reserves, most notably China, have been diversifying away from the dollar. In the first four months of this year, three quarters of the $200bn expansion in China’s foreign exchange reserves was invested in non-US dollar assets, Standard Chartered estimates.


The prediction of a multipolar currency world replacing the current dollar dominance chimes with the thinking of some leading policymakers.


Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank, last year proposed a new monetary system involving a number of major global currencies, including the dollar, euro, yen, pound and renminbi.


The system should also make use of gold, Mr Zoellick added. The results of the UBS poll also point to a growing role for bullion, with 6 per cent of reserve managers surveyed saying the biggest change in their reserves over the next decade would be the addition of more gold. In contrast to previous years, none of the managers surveyed was intending to make significant sales of gold in the next decade.


Central banks have bought about 151 tonnes of gold so far this year, led by Russia and Mexico, according to the World Gold Council, and are on track to make their largest annual purchases of bullion since the collapse in 1971 of the Bretton Woods system, which pegged the value of the dollar to gold.


The reserve managers predicted that gold would be the best performing asset class over the next year, citing sovereign defaults as the chief risk to the global economy.


The yellow metal has risen 19.5 per cent in the past year to trade at about $1,500 a troy ounce on Monday, buoyed by the emergence of sovereign debt concerns in the US as well as eurozone debt woes.



Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools.

Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Read more at www.ft.com
 

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Double Dip Housing May Dive 25% More

Amplify’d from finance.yahoo.com

Shiller: Housing Could Fall Another 25% But Is Harder to Predict Than the Weather

The housing bubble of the early 2000s was "unprecedented" and the "biggest in U.S. history," according to Yale professor Robert Shiller.


As a result, he says "it's very hard to forecast" where housing goes from here, now that it has officially fallen into double-dip territory, based on the S&P Case-Shiller Index.


Housing "might fall [another] 10-25% in the next few years," but forecasting housing today is harder than predicting the weather, Shiller says. "I don't see how anyone can quantify a forecast because it's such an unusual event."


In his latest books, The Subprime Solution and Reforming U.S. Financial Markets, Shiller argues the path to recovery is paved with financial innovation; 11 million homeowners under water is proof "they weren't protected and need a way to hedge their housing risk."


But "the economy is sick right now [and] I don't have any miracle cure," he admits.


Best known for his earlier works, Animal Spirits and Irrational Exuberance, Shiller is arguably the world's foremost authority on financial bubbles. So if he can't predict with any certainty where housing is going, what hope is there for the rest of the punditry?


The American Dream: Myth vs. Reality


One reason Shiller is so renowned is his extensive work on the long-term history of financial markets. Typically, markets fall below their long-term average after bubbles burst, one reason why the bears see much more pain ahead for housing even if prices are now back to 2003 levels. But stocks didn't 'revert to the mean' after the bursting of the 1990's bubble and Shiller says there's no "hard and fast rule."


Speaking of rules, many Americans were raised to believe that housing was always the best investment. But on an inflation-adjusted basis, U.S. home prices were flat from 1890 to 1990, according to Shiller, meaning the whole concept of housing wealth was "a bill of goods."


But the idea of the "American Dream" does have merit. "Home ownership pays a dividend in self respect," he says. Indeed, the idea of owning your own home has personal and societal benefits; the problem was the widespread misconception that housing was the path to wealth and financial freedom.


Aaron Task is the host of The Daily Ticker. You can follow him on Twitter at @atask or email him at altask@yahoo.com

Read more at finance.yahoo.com