'Beggar thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

[Prazak]

Re: 'Beggarf thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

I'm not sure how much the USD is worse than the Euro or the Yen. I think it is better than the pound and probably better than the Mexican Peso et al.

I see the USD dropping more against precious metals and commodities as a new wave of money takes after tangibles and flees *all* financial assets.

That hasn't happened yet but it will.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. I'm playing for a strong dollar for the next two months, and then I'll re-evaluate. When I say I'm shorting all other currencies, I'm doing so in USD, and I'm only really shorting GBP, AUD, EUR, and RUB. I think the USD will be the last to fall but it's really standing on a house of cards, and when it falls it's going to fall long and hard, with a stampede into gold.

[ASH]

Re: 'Beggarf thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

My two cents on this:

I believe that Paulson and Bernanke are genuinely trying to do the best thing for the country that they know how to. I don't think they mind if it helps their Wall Street friends in the process, but I don't think they are dishonest men whose goal is to rob us. I think they honestly think what they are doing is the right thing, just like I believe Obama (who I entirely disagree with on policy issues and worldview) honestly thinks his policies are right.

Putin is doing what he thinks is best for Russia, as he sees it. He has a vision for that country and I'm sure that vision includes him running it with ever more power.

So while Paulson and Bernanke might not be perfect, hell yes I trust them more than I trust Putin. Putin has our interests in mind not at all. I imagine he'd actively like to see us collapse.

It's like people who equate the CIA and KGB as if there was no meaningful difference between the two. Get real.

This kind of moral equivalency where someone always automatically equates our leaders to shysters around the world is really tiresome. I think only someone who's never lived under a really rotten government - a Saddam Hussein-type government - can blithely equate our leadership to rotten foreign leadership. It's a sign of a demoralized and decadent society that so many people are so ready to say that the U.S. and its leaders are no better than totalitarians. It's cheap, useless, counterproductive blather and I'm afraid it's not going to be until it's too late that we're all going to find out how really, really good we had it for all these years.

I should probably have just ignored the cheap shot about our financial system leaders, which wasn't really on topic (just like this isn't) but that kind of talk is rampant and once in a while someone needs to stand up and call it for the b.s. that it is.

I share all those opinions. Thanks for standing up.

[Master Shake]

Re: 'Beggarf thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

Fair comment; but, does that mean you trust Paulson, Bernanke & Wall Street more?

I would trust a country with a multi-century committment to the Rule of Law, however imperfect some may find it, more than I would one with such a totalitarian history as Russia.

[Master Shake]

Re: 'Beggarf thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

My two cents on this:

I believe that Paulson and Bernanke are genuinely trying to do the best thing for the country that they know how to. I don't think they mind if it helps their Wall Street friends in the process, but I don't think they are dishonest men whose goal is to rob us. I think they honestly think what they are doing is the right thing, just like I believe Obama (who I entirely disagree with on policy issues and worldview) honestly thinks his policies are right.

Putin is doing what he thinks is best for Russia, as he sees it. He has a vision for that country and I'm sure that vision includes him running it with ever more power.

So while Paulson and Bernanke might not be perfect, hell yes I trust them more than I trust Putin. Putin has our interests in mind not at all. I imagine he'd actively like to see us collapse.

It's like people who equate the CIA and KGB as if there was no meaningful difference between the two. Get real.

This kind of moral equivalency where someone always automatically equates our leaders to shysters around the world is really tiresome. I think only someone who's never lived under a really rotten government - a Saddam Hussein-type government - can blithely equate our leadership to rotten foreign leadership. It's a sign of a demoralized and decadent society that so many people are so ready to say that the U.S. and its leaders are no better than totalitarians. It's cheap, useless, counterproductive blather and I'm afraid it's not going to be until it's too late that we're all going to find out how really, really good we had it for all these years.

I should probably have just ignored the cheap shot about our financial system leaders, which wasn't really on topic (just like this isn't) but that kind of talk is rampant and once in a while someone needs to stand up and call it for the b.s. that it is.

Well said, Mark!

[VIT]

Re: 'Beggarf thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

To c1ue:

The biggest risk I see if people will start to run out of rubble. This panic will collapse the currency. I have rubbles, so I am watching how this will unfold :confused:

[VIT]

Re: 'Beggarf thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

It's like people who equate the CIA and KGB as if there was no meaningful difference between the two. Get real.

I do not see a lot of difference, maybe only in shape and form. But not what they are for, what they are doing and how.

[ASH]

Re: 'Beggarf thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

I do not see a lot of difference, maybe only in shape and form. But not what they are for, what they are doing and how.

There is probably little distinction when talking about their respective functions outside the national borders. The main difference I would draw is the KGB's role within the borders of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Parallels could be drawn to the counterintelligence role played by the American FBI, but the role the KGB played in propping up the one-party state and enforcing the Communist Party's rule does not have an American parallel. Not that the FBI wasn't used for political repression during the Cold War... just that in this case, I perceive there to be a meaningful difference in degree.

[VIT]

Re: 'Beggarf thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

There is probably little distinction when talking about their respective functions outside the national borders. The main difference I would draw is the KGB's role within the borders of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Parallels could be drawn to the counterintelligence role played by the American FBI, but the role the KGB played in propping up the one-party state and enforcing the Communist Party's rule does not have an American parallel. Not that the FBI wasn't used for political repression during the Cold War... just that in this case, I perceive there to be a meaningful difference in degree.

Comparing KGB with CIA I assumed "outside border". Otherwise it would be FBI ;). I do not argue with your statements, just wanted to say they are very similar and the only difference is "What they can do" not "What they want to do". That is why they are so much different internally and convergent outside the states.

[c1ue]

Re: 'Beggar thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

you should hedge any long-russia postions with a short in oil(a bit late for that, perhaps!)

I don't know where you get your data from, but every credible report I've read has said russia needs $60/bbl oil to balance the budget.

Actually, the present budget is predicated on a $70/bbl oil price.

There was a big debate on whether Russia should retarget a budget based on $50/bbl oil price, but Putin has squashed that.

You should note that the entire Russian Federal budget in 2008 was around $300B - that is itself smaller than the Russian reserves.

The 2009 budget does reduce the relative oil/natural gas impact from 50% to 36%, but then again the price of oil is much lower than in late 2007!

Again - the difference is this: Russia HAS the money. It HAS the income. and it HAS the resources. Yes, this could all be frittered away on stupid crap.

In contrast: The US HAS the debt. It HAS lost income (and continues to do so). It IS frittering away more money on stupid crap.

As for all those who are pointing fingers and chanting 'USA! USA! USA!'

Strange how recent history has left your minds.

Bush-I was a head of the CIA. In his tenure, the previous President's legacy of the Allende assassination was continued in a Washington DC car bombing of Pinochet's main opposition leader: Orlando Letelier

Sure, the US certainly has had a much lesser degree of abuse than Russia has. But the US has also had much more money and security, and much less both foreign meddling and a clashing populace.

This doesn't excuse what was done.

But to tar Putin with a Stalinist legacy is stupid - just as tarring the FBI with J. Edgar Hoover's tactics in the McCarthy era is stupid.

I look at actions.

The actions I see being taken in the US by its purported 'free world, capitalist' leaders are ones which are leading to decline - and I don't even mean just the present ones. The behavior extends back for several decades.

In contrast Putin has done a lot of positive things for Russia:

he's put in place a policy of reaping a reasonable share of revenues from national resources (vs. the World Bank/IMF outright stealing of entire extractive industries)

he's put in a flat tax

he's stabilized the country

and he's stopped the encroachment of foreign powers into ex-Russian satellites.

From a Russian perspective these are all good things.

Certainly there are equally bad things he's done: the concentration of power he has accumulated can certainly be misused, nor is the re-centralization of the media and oil/natural gas industry a good thing.

But if you read any of his writing, or listen to his interviews, he has always been absolutely up front over what he is doing and why, and his reasoning is very clear and consistent.

In contrast in the US we have the same recentralization of the media - only since it is through Viacom and News Corp, it is ok.

Equally in the US there has been a centralization of power - or does Bush's actions in the past 8 years been typical of Presidents in prior decades? Which nation has started more conflicts in foreign nations in the past 2 decades: America or Russia?

And corporation wise: are there more equally sized corporations in the US now vs. 10 years ago, or less?

Those of you who look to past performance to predicate future behavior:

why is it for finance and economics, iTulip?

but for nations and politics, the perceived status quo?

[D-Mack]

Re: 'Beggar thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

Bush-I was a head of the CIA. In his tenure, the previous President's legacy of the Allende assassination was continued in a Washington DC car bombing of Pinochet's main opposition leader: Orlando Letelier

Sure, the US certainly has had a much lesser degree of abuse than Russia has. But the US has also had much more money and security, and much less both foreign meddling and a clashing populace.

Don't forget him as VP

[Master Shake]

Re: 'Beggar thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

Actually, the present budget is predicated on a $70/bbl oil price.

There was a big debate on whether Russia should retarget a budget based on $50/bbl oil price, but Putin has squashed that.

You should note that the entire Russian Federal budget in 2008 was around $300B - that is itself smaller than the Russian reserves.

The 2009 budget does reduce the relative oil/natural gas impact from 50% to 36%, but then again the price of oil is much lower than in late 2007!

Again - the difference is this: Russia HAS the money. It HAS the income. and it HAS the resources. Yes, this could all be frittered away on stupid crap.

In contrast: The US HAS the debt. It HAS lost income (and continues to do so). It IS frittering away more money on stupid crap.

As for all those who are pointing fingers and chanting 'USA! USA! USA!'

Strange how recent history has left your minds.

Bush-I was a head of the CIA. In his tenure, the previous President's legacy of the Allende assassination was continued in a Washington DC car bombing of Pinochet's main opposition leader: Orlando Letelier

Sure, the US certainly has had a much lesser degree of abuse than Russia has. But the US has also had much more money and security, and much less both foreign meddling and a clashing populace.

This doesn't excuse what was done.

But to tar Putin with a Stalinist legacy is stupid - just as tarring the FBI with J. Edgar Hoover's tactics in the McCarthy era is stupid.

I look at actions.

The actions I see being taken in the US by its purported 'free world, capitalist' leaders are ones which are leading to decline - and I don't even mean just the present ones. The behavior extends back for several decades.

In contrast Putin has done a lot of positive things for Russia:

he's put in place a policy of reaping a reasonable share of revenues from national resources (vs. the World Bank/IMF outright stealing of entire extractive industries)

he's put in a flat tax

he's stabilized the country

and he's stopped the encroachment of foreign powers into ex-Russian satellites.

From a Russian perspective these are all good things.

Certainly there are equally bad things he's done: the concentration of power he has accumulated can certainly be misused, nor is the re-centralization of the media and oil/natural gas industry a good thing.

But if you read any of his writing, or listen to his interviews, he has always been absolutely up front over what he is doing and why, and his reasoning is very clear and consistent.

In contrast in the US we have the same recentralization of the media - only since it is through Viacom and News Corp, it is ok.

Equally in the US there has been a centralization of power - or does Bush's actions in the past 8 years been typical of Presidents in prior decades? Which nation has started more conflicts in foreign nations in the past 2 decades: America or Russia?

And corporation wise: are there more equally sized corporations in the US now vs. 10 years ago, or less?

Those of you who look to past performance to predicate future behavior:

why is it for finance and economics, iTulip?

but for nations and politics, the perceived status quo?

Are you a Slavophile, BlameAmericaFirster, or a little of both.

It's not a matter of tarring Putin with Stalin's legacy. Russia doesn't have any legacy except autocracy and totalitarianism going back to the Czars (and even the Tsars). I don't see Putin and his henchmen as the Russian equivalent of the Founding Fathers.

[Rajiv]

Re: 'Beggar thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

Are you a Slavophile, BlameAmericaFirster, or a little of both.

It's not a matter of tarring Putin with Stalin's legacy. Russia doesn't have any legacy except autocracy and totalitarianism going back to the Czars (and even the Tsars). I don't see Putin and his henchmen as the Russian equivalent of the Founding Fathers.

Do you have any first hand experience of life in Russia, or are you basing your "beliefs" (for that is all they then are!) solely upon what you have been fed by the media -- on what basis are you accepting the analysis of "experts," and who are the "experts" you are relying on, and what axe do they have to grind? Without an answer to these questions your opinions on this matter are as much of a repitition of dogma that you are accusing someone else of.

[Master Shake]

Re: 'Beggar thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

Do you have any first hand experience of life in Russia, or are you basing your "beliefs" (for that is all they then are!) solely upon what you have been fed by the media -- on what basis are you accepting the analysis of "experts," and who are the "experts" you are relying on, and what axe do they have to grind? Without an answer to these questions your opinions on this matter are as much of a repitition of dogma that you are accusing someone else of.

Is it your contention that only first hand experience counts? That will certainly reduce the scope of what any of us can discuss, won't it? Do you discount the Polonium poisonings and murders of journalists because you weren't there to see them in person? What ax do you have to grind?

I'm not accusing anyone of repeating "dogma", just providing a reality check. If you think life in Mother Russia is so great, you ought to check it our first hand yourself, maybe even move there. They would welcome it, too, given their big problem with less than replacement birthrates.

[c1ue]

Re: 'Beggar thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

Shake,

You are welcome to your opinion.

I merely expressed mine.

I would urge you to try and get some information through channels other than the American MSM; the disparity between what I see in American media vs. anywhere in the world is ridiculous.

Sure, to some extent every nation has some form of self promotion.

But only in America is it possible to be really badly misinformed for a really long time.

A case in point I illustrated using the initial headlines for the Russian-Georgian conflict.

US and UK media all said Russia attacked Georgia. Rest of the world says Georgia attacks South Ossetia.

Now months later a few widely spaced articles in the NY Times saying: maybe Georgia wasn't innocent after all

But you'll note I have nothing good to say about Chavez, or the government of Nigeria.

[Master Shake]

Re: 'Beggar thy neighbor' continues: BoE, ECB, Sweden cuts rates

Shake,

You are welcome to your opinion.

I merely expressed mine.

I would urge you to try and get some information through channels other than the American MSM; the disparity between what I see in American media vs. anywhere in the world is ridiculous.

Sure, to some extent every nation has some form of self promotion.

But only in America is it possible to be really badly misinformed for a really long time.

A case in point I illustrated using the initial headlines for the Russian-Georgian conflict.

US and UK media all said Russia attacked Georgia. Rest of the world says Georgia attacks South Ossetia.

Now months later a few widely spaced articles in the NY Times saying: maybe Georgia wasn't innocent after all

But you'll note I have nothing good to say about Chavez, or the government of Nigeria.

Clue,

I get information from a variety of sources via the Net and am not a devotee of the MSM and its pronounced liberal biases, I assure you.

And I am not basing my critique of Russia on it invasion of Georgia. I am aware that Georgia's hand were not pristine, although Russian's agents in South Ossetia certainly provoked the Georgian response.