Title Under Header

.
Showing posts with label Finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Finance. Show all posts

Monday, October 24, 2011

News ~ Julia Gillard ~ Barracking for US, berating Europe: Gillard picks her side of economic divide

When one "expert" comments on the inadequacies  of other "experts"... you begin to wonder... does anybody actually know what they're talking about? For those of us who know that we (the common people) are definitely "not experts"... it is a no-brain-er fact that one or more of these so called "experts" are definitely wrong. 
.
Julia Gillard says that "... stories of American decline are exaggerated..." and that "... European countries are living beyond their means in an economic framework where there is one currency, and consequently the automatic stabilisers that would normally kick in to get you moving have not been there... that means the 'living beyond the means' deepens and deepens and deepens. There have been very half-hearted attempts to address that, a lot of game-playing, all these audits; the EU has been sending people to Greece to tuttut about fiscal circumstances for a long period of time, but with no real action to follow it up.'"
.
Anyway... for what it's worth... I don't agree with her comments on America, but on her comments on Europe... there may be some truths... but then again... I'm no expert. Good luck to us all. The following is the full news report.
.
===.
News ~ Julia Gillard ~ Barracking for US, berating Europe: Gillard picks her side of economic divide
by PAUL KELLY, EDITOR AT LARGE, 24 Oct 2011, The Australian
.
Picture Caption:
Julia Gillard, in the rear courtyard at The Lodge yesterday, has outlined a sweeping vision of Australia's place in world affairs
.
ON the eve of a series of global economic talks, Julia Gillard says Barack Obama has ''the right strategy'' but that Europe has been ''living beyond its means'' and its leaders must fix their fiscal crisis. Interviewed by The Australian at The Lodge yesterday, the Prime Minister shifted on Asia policy, saying the new East Asian Summit was now the optimal regional institution, not the Australian-initiated Asia-pacific Economic Community. Ms Gillard said she would campaign for offshore processing of asylum-seekers and the Malaysian exchange deal ''at the ALP national conference, at the next election, and anywhere else it needs to be supported''. She warned that an Australian republic was some time away and was unsympathetic on the death of former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, quoting her mother that: ''You live by the sword, you die by the sword.'' 
.
The contrast in Ms Gillard's views towards the US and Europe was sharp and revealing. With the US President visiting Australia next month, she said: ''I think stories of American decline are exaggerated. These predictions haven't been true in the past, and I don't think they'll be proven true now. The American economy, at base, is adaptable and resilient. I believe it will work its way through this challenge. ''I believe President Obama is pursuing the right strategy. I believe he is somebody of great strength and endurance and overwhelming calm, and he will continue to work his way through.'' 
.
With her attendance at the Group of 20 leaders meeting in Cannes a fortnight away, the PM came down hard on Europe. ''For the sake of the global economy they need to get this fixed,'' she said of the EU's financial crisis. ''What the fix looks like is in the first instance a matter for them. But it must be fixed. ''I'm very concerned that European leaders have been on what appears to be a never-ending journey of just seeking to muddle through. That's not going to cut it any more. Just muddling through on a wish and a prayer, and hoping they can jawbone markets into a better analysis of the European position, is clearly not enough.'' 
.
Pressed on Europe's core problem, Ms Gillard was emphatic. ''I'd say European countries are living beyond their means in an economic framework where there is one currency, and consequently the automatic stabilisers that would normally kick in to get you moving have not been there,'' she said. ''That means the 'living beyond the means' deepens and deepens and deepens. There have been very half-hearted attempts to address that, a lot of game-playing, all these audits; the EU has been sending people to Greece to tuttut about fiscal circumstances for a long period of time, but with no real action to follow it up.'' 
.
Her comments come amid talks between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to try to settle a deal over how to leverage the European Financial Stability Facility to contain the crisis. With her attendance at the East Asian Summit in Bali three weeks away, Ms Gillard said that under Mr Obama the US was reorientating towards the Pacific and East Asia. ''The US understands this is the region being remade by economic growth,'' she said. ''That the US is joining the East Asian Summit is an indication of the depth of that engagement.'' 
.
Ms Gillard said APEC would ''continue to play its traditional role'' in trade liberalisation. But with the US and Russia now joining the EAS it had ''the right membership, the right mandate at the right time''. She expected the EAS to address issues such as maritime security and the Korean peninsula, but said: ''We will have to walk before we can run.'' The task for the EAS was to ''make the journey to realise its promise''. Her message is that the two pivotal institutions for Australia in future are the G20 and the EAS covering Asia and the Pacific as the inclusive body Australia has sought since Kevin Rudd was prime minister. Ms Gillard wants her own stamp on Asian policy through the white paper she commissioned by former Treasury chief Ken Henry. She said the old debates about engagement with Asia were ''resolved long ago'', and she seeks new analysis for ''a maturer phase of our relations with the region''. 
.
Ms Gillard dismissed pessimists who say Australia cannot reconcile its US alliance and its economic partnership with China. Such analysts, she said, underestimated ''our status in the region where we live, work and trade''. ''I think we can do both, and I am an optimist on that,'' she said. The Prime Minister said her aim was to ''renovate and renew'' the US alliance for a new age. How did she rate its future importance? ''I think the alliance is going to be of the same continuing important to us,'' she said. ''I don't think the language of 'more' really makes much sense. It is absolutely pivotal to our foreign policy and strategic outlook.'' 
.
Asked whether the eurozone should stay intact or undergo surgery, Ms Gillard said: ''I think that is a question for the Europeans, but they've got to get it done. They have to make the decisions about what is sustainable.''
.
===.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Borrowing With No Intention Of Repaying Is WRONG

"... you are borrowing from your children and grandchildren..."

I heard this statement on TV. I wasn't watching the program so I don't know what it's about... but I am interested in this subject of borrowing and living withing our means that I did a search on it and came across an article by Dan Denning that I've placed in this blog entry below. And here's what I learnt from the article written by Dan Denning.

"Borrowing is not wrong, 
... but borrowing with no 
intention of repaying is."
~ paraphrased from a statement below by Dan Denning, February 26, 2004

"Debt isn't immoral per se. 
But taking on debt you have 
no intention of repaying is." 
~ Dan Denning, February 26, 2004

~~~
More at...

~~~
Do Deficits Matter? ~ by Dan Denning, for the Daily Reckoning, February 26, 2004

Editor's note: Dan Denning is the editor of Strategic Investment. He is currently researching the calamitous effects a correction of the U.S.'s "twin deficits" would have on the economy. If you'd like to learn how this relates to you as an investor, and how you might profit from an imminent deficit blow-out, see Dan's report:

How does government borrowing affect the long-term viability of an economy? 
Is it even 'moral' to borrow – if you don't intend to settle your debts? 
Strategic Investment's Dan Denning weighs in with his view on the matter, below…

Do government deficits – and by extension, government debt – matter? I would argue that they do. In fact, over time, they erode the long-term ability of an economy to create wealth…making the pie smaller for all concerned.

Government deficits are unique in the world of debt. The government doesn't borrow money to create income-producing assets or make capital investment. The purpose of government borrowing is not to create wealth, but rather to redistribute income. And because the government pays off its bonds with tax revenues which it commands from citizens under threat of imprisonment, it's able to borrow at much lower interest rates than the private sector.

To the extent that non-productive government borrowing crowds out productive, private investment, the economy is in trouble. But how do you measure the size of the deficit? At what size does it begin to matter?

If you measure government deficits as a measure of GDP, they may not seem historically large. But that is not the main issue – rather, the key economic question, in terms of sustainability and capital formation, is how large government deficits are as a percentage of gross saving.

Government Deficits: Crowding Out Private Investment

How much is the government claiming from the pool of available funds? In other words, to what extent is government borrowing crowding out private investment and capital formation?

In the 1970s, the federal deficit was 11% of private saving. By contrast, last summer, the projected federal deficit of $304 billion was just under 20% of gross saving of $1.5 trillion. Today, with this year's projected federal deficit of $521 billion and gross savings in 2003 (excluding December) of $1.8 trillion, the federal deficit is nearly 30% of gross savings. That is an outrageous ratio.

In short, the higher the debt – and the deficits – the more the government has to go into capital markets. Using its coercion-protected franchise as the "payee of last resort," it attract funds from savers into its Treasury bills and bonds that otherwise would have gone into corporate stocks and bonds, thereby creating wealth by financing new job-creating enterprises. Instead, the savings, once sucked into the government's vortex, are mostly squandered in wasteful and ineffective enterprises. (Hey, let's go to Mars!)

Government borrowing diverts savings away from productive investment and towards simple wealth redistribution. Over time, capital formation slows down…and so does business investment. The long-term ability of the economy to create capital and wealth is hollowed out.

That's my main economic argument against government deficits. But my most serious bone of contention is moral. The more content we are with regular government deficits, the less responsible we become for ourselves. Borrowing increases actual indebtedness…but it increases dependence, too.

People get used to expecting things to be paid for and provided by the government. Once created and funded, how many government programs have gone away? Very few. These programs develop a constituency of bureaucrats whose paychecks depend on them, and/or taxpayers on the receiving end of the wealth distribution.

Government Deficits: Looking for Your Own Piece of the Loot

The whole exercise in democracy then becomes a shameless debasing game of looking out for your piece of the loot at the expense of your neighbors and friends…and your children and grandchildren.

The root of this argument is that public debt – debt taken out in the name of the people and not by an individual or corporate risk taker – quickly becomes a creature of the political process and winning elections. In time, this becomes corrosive to private morality.

A useful example is provided by the heat wave experienced in Europe this summer. In France, fifteen thousand people who survived the depression and World War II died in their homes or unattended in hospital beds from the heat. Their doctors, neighbors, and children were at the beach, on vacation, confident that the tax dollars they spent were taking care of their loved ones.

When Chirac gave his speech to the nation addressing the human catastrophe, he said that no one person was to blame, but that all of France was to blame. That's pretty convenient. All of France means not me and not you but all of us. So let's just do better next time.

Maybe in their private moments the children and neighbors of these people do blame themselves for subcontracting their responsibility to take care of their elders to the government. And then again, maybe they don't. Maybe the cumulative effect of letting the government become the moral middleman is that you don't care about anyone but yourself anymore. You care about your job, your leisure time, your life. You work less, have fewer children, and stop believing in God.

It may be a stretch…but I think it all starts the moment we accept that spending more than we earn – as a nation, through our government – is morally tolerable. If it's not good for a private household to do it, not good economically and not good morally, why would it be better for the government to do it?

Lots of people will claim that only the federal government can and should spend money on things like wars and self defense. Perhaps. But in addition to being controversial, it's a bit of a red herring. Right now, for instance, are we really in a war in which the bulk of our national resources ought to be dedicated to the military to the same degree as they were in WWII or the Cold War? And even so…it's the non-military, non-discretionary spending that's busting the budget anyway.

Government Deficits: 70% of Spending Tied Up

Seventy percent of government spending is locked up in non-discretionary promises to pay for things the government does now, but which used to be done by families, churches, or the private sector. We have cast these promises in political granite and have closed the discussion of whether we ought to or can afford to keep making them.

I would suggest that we not treat our economics as mere mathematics. Economics used to be called moral philosophy. The study of the choices people made with their money couldn't be separated from whether the choices themselves were "good."

The market judges "good" by whether the good or service you provide makes things better for people. If it does, you get rewarded for your risk. If it doesn't, generally, you fail.

Debt isn't immoral per se. But taking on debt you have no intention of repaying is.

And doing so in the name of the "State" or the "people" may give you the political cover you need to explain away your recklessness. You disguise it as concern for the "public good" or for "society." But morally speaking, when you sanction it, you're contributing to the impoverishment of your economy…and the debasement of your own morality.

Regards,

Dan Denning
For the Daily Reckoning
February 26, 2004

~~~
And here's Dan Denning giving a speeach on YouTube.
Dan Denning, " I've Got A Bridge To Sell You..."

~~~

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Get Rich Quick!

.
I know that there is a saying which goes "If you play with fire, you get burnt" which is NOT totally true.

Some people don't get burnt or maybe just burnt slightly and move on to become brave & useful Firemen or famous Fire-Eating Artists, BUT most of us will never become either of those, and some of us will be burnt quite badly so please take good care of yourself especially if you do decide to play with fire.

"Get Rich Quick! No Risk!"

"How YOU Can Make Millions by
Just Investing 10 Dollars A Day!"


Have you ever come across Ads like this in the Mail or Email, on TV, on Radio, on the Internet, on your car windscreen or anywhere else? What's your take on this?

I find this too good to be true... but they keep coming... and appearing in Ads. Sounds like they're breaking the law and those who know it are allowing it to happen.

I'm very skeptical so I don't go for this. I would really like it if someone can do an investigation into it's authenticity.

One of their previous participants testifying to how good this program is --- I've seen her in a TV program saying she's already made her millions more than 5 (maybe 10) years ago. What is she doing in an Ad like this? It's like a syndicate to lure unsuspecting people; like a KELONG to catch unsuspecting fishes.

I smell a FISH. Yeah, I smell a RAT too. The RAT I smell are the people doing the dirty work. The FISH are the ones getting caught.

~~~

Friday, May 21, 2010

World Economy looking like a Ponzi scheme

.
I didn't understand most of this article (see attachment below) about the economy... BUT this paragraph by Nouriel Roubini says what I've always suspected.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Who will then bail out governments that bailed out private banks and financial institutions? Our global debt mechanics are looking increasingly like a Ponzi scheme.
~ Nouriel Roubini,
Tuesday May 18, 2010, Page 12 of the TODAY Newspaper. Nouriel Roubini is a Professor of Economics at the Stern School of Business, Chairman of Roubini Global Economics, a global macroeconomic consultancy, & Co-author of ‘Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance’

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
I'm trying to include the article here... soon...
... yes, here is the attachment → Download.
.

Monday, November 02, 2009

World Economy, Capitalism & Passion

I don't know much about the world economy, but this video sort of sums up my suspicion that something is not right in the world as far as economy is concerned.

In capitalism we’re driven by greed. Greed is NOT good. We tend to live on borrowed money. We horde in the name of “savings”. We monopolize --- it is now outlawed but it still exists.

We should not horde. We should not live on borrowed money.

It is my belief that passion should replace capitalism. It is my theory that passion WILL replace capitalism. Jesus Christ himself showed us what 'Passion' was all about so mark my words.

Note: Both videos have the same content, but the first one has a highter quality. The second video is offered just in case the first video cease to exist.





If this video is not clear scroll down to the source for a better quality.

Video - Chuck Vollmer ~ America's Tyrannical Multi-Trillion Dollar Debt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdmqNgHAPLw

https://www.cbn.org/media/player/index.aspx?s=/vod/PST136_ChuckVollmer_073009_WS

Chuck Vollmer : America's Tyrannical Multi-Trillion Dollar DebtGordon interviews this expert on what it really means to be trillions in debt.

Full Transcript
The American government is borrowing and spending so many dollars so fast, the federal debt is getting to be almost unbelievable.

Economist Phil Kerpen at the Washington think-tank Americans for Prosperity pointed out, "If a child is born today, he's essentially born $200,000 in debt just for these federal obligations."

Kerpen said what Washington has done is so bad, "...if the federal government were a bank, it would have been nationalized by now. Because the debt is just completely out of control, completely unmanageable."

Already the official deficit is around $10 trillion ...not billion, but trillion. And, according to Kerpen, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

"It's also these huge, huge unfunded obligations that we have in the entitlement programs," he explained. "Social Security is now over $15 trillion in unfunded liability. Medicare is over $36 trillion in unfunded liability."

The term trillion is getting thrown around so frequently now, we're losing the sense of just how gargantuan it is. But to put it in perspective: you'd have to have been spending a thousand dollars a minute since Jesus was born to have spent a trillion dollars by now.

Chuck Vollmer, founder of VII Inc. in Vienna, Va., works with large systems in both business and government, a position that's allowed him to see just what harm trillions of dollars of debt can do to both.

He has produced a presentation called "The Tyranny of Trillions," to help explain how damaging such debt is to the country.