There is a great deal of tactical pleading around the presidential election.
There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to have a disaster. How much and what kind is to be discovered.
There is hope with Obama and none with Romney.
As long as the house stays Republican there will be no new money in the federal system. If the government is to survive the next two years the president will have to void the spending limit. He has the power. We will just have to live with the congressional screams. Obama Care will solve most of the medical cost problems. The baby bust and immigration will resolve the perceived Social Security short fall.
Fear must not rule the day.
The great problem with oil is its low price. That will cure itself but probably not in time to prevent the loss by flooding of most coastal cities.
Our problem is the combination of politics and faith.
The last time humanity went down this path the recovery took a thousand years. The areas that were high civilization have yet to recover.
I do not want us to take that broad and easy road.
Recovery this time would have to be by different means.
The electric scooter has so far not been a good solution.
I see them on the streets from time to time. I never see them in groups.
I own a Curry scooter of several years ago. The motor is a delicate thing, all full of mosfets. It will not tolerate over voltage. The battery is lead acid jelcells. There is no discharge limit so sulphiding is a constant threat. Charging time is long, about three to eight hours to full charge.
The range is limited to about three miles.
The delivery men for Chinese take out like electric bicycles.
https://www.google.com/search?q=electric+bicycle&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
That is what a google search url for electric bicycle looks like here.
The wikipedia article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_bicycle
Start with the wikipedia.
Electric bicycles are legal in California and newly legal in NYC.
A second battery and "smart" charger are a good idea for use at longer ranges. Keep a battery at the destination and change them out for the return trip. The best way to keep a bicycle is inside when not riding it.
I am guessing that you are in a delicate situation.
I will curb my enthusiasm until you resolve it.
Patience and constant attention are the only way to learn a new language
or to accomplish any overwhelming task. A very short course will only take
one from "where do I begin" to "that is a new word". The new concepts creep in with use.
The ruling coalition in Greece is looking very ragged.
There will be another election there very shortly.
More time to meet the financing requirements will intensify the pain.
Experience tells us they must inflate their currency.
Germany will not allow their currency to inflate.
Probably The best solution is for the bailed out nations to take the Euro
and the tripple A rated nations to drop it.
Not a likely event.
Krugman is interesting. He offers a counter to the persistant attacks:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/smuggish-thoughts-self-indulgent/
Read it and follow the links for an introduction to macro.
The Telegraph:
EC boss risks Berlin row over eurobonds
12 Oct 2012
| 8 Comments
'Danger' to schools and charities if laws change
12 Oct 2012
| 5 Comments
Osborne warns economy under "triple threat"
12 Oct 2012
| 156 Comments
Debt crisis: as it happened - October 12, 2012
12 Oct 2012
| 272 Comments
Europe considers eurozone budget, pooling borrowing
12 Oct 2012
| 22 CommentsUnlikely. They are all insolvent or skint in the Euro.
The Guardian:
-
12 Oct 2012: Greek people stunned at awarding of Nobel to institution they blame for austerity measure tearing apart their society
-
12 Oct 2012: After a few months in which policymakers believed they might have turned the corner, the gloom is descending
-
12 Oct 2012: Showdown likely to come to a head next month when report set to confirm Greece's debt could hit 145% of GDP by 2020
-
12 Oct 2012: Chancellor says eurozone, US fiscal timebomb and slowdown in emerging markets pose dangerous mix in medium term
There is no change at Der Speigle.
http://robertreich.org/post/33440655342
Why Biden Won
"Friday, October 12, 2012 I thought Biden won last night’s debate because he came off as genuine, passionate, and brimming with conviction. Ryan, by contrast, seemed like a wooden marionette, a kid out of his depth relative to someone who not only knew the facts but lived them." . . .
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/
This week on FT Alphaville,
- Izzy waxed philosophical about the future of markets…
- …twice, the second time with even more passion.
- The ship of Theseus (aka the Scottish football club Rangers) sought flotation.
- The IMF called backsies on the fiscal multiplier.
- A housing revival was forecast by Roger Altman…
- … and by Jamie Dimon.
- Grexit was delayed… hopes Citi.
- Credit Suisse priced the average adult.
- The IEA found a new oil paradox.
- We provided some context to SNB bond buying.
- The FTSE 250 celebrated a birthday.
- Izzy waxed philosophical about the future of markets…
- …twice, the second time with even more passion.
- The ship of Theseus (aka the Scottish football club Rangers) sought flotation.
- The IMF called backsies on the fiscal multiplier.
- A housing revival was forecast by Roger Altman…
- … and by Jamie Dimon.
- Grexit was delayed… hopes Citi.
- Credit Suisse priced the average adult.
- The IEA found a new oil paradox.
- We provided some context to SNB bond buying.
- The FTSE 250 celebrated a birthday.
12 October 2012
Last updated at 19:01 ET
JP Morgan predicts housing upturn
JP Morgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon cuts the amount set aside to
cover mortgage losses and announces a 33% rise in three month profit.
IMF backs more time for Greece
IMF chief Christine Lagarde backs calls for Greece to have
more time to meet the targets of its bailout, but Germany's finance
minister rebuffs the idea.
RBS bank branch sale collapses
Royal Bank of Scotland's planned sale of 316 branches to
Santander collapses, with the Spanish bank saying the deal could not be
agreed on time.
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 LondonParisFrankfurtWall
StreetTokyo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Share Prices
|
|
Summaries: London | NYSE | Nasdaq | Paris | Frankfurt | |
|
Search share prices by name or symbol*:
|
|
View
London's top shares by sector
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||||
* In London, New York, Paris, Frankfurt and on Nasdaq.
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||
£
|
$
|
€
|
¥
|
|
|||
£
|
-
|
|
|||||
$
|
-
|
|
|||||
€
|
-
|
|
|||||
¥
|
-
|
|
|||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||||
price
|
change
|
%
|
|
||||||
| Brent Crude Oil Futures $/barrel | 114.57 |
-1.14
|
|
-1.0
|
|
||||
| West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil Futures $/barrel | 91.55 |
-0.84
|
|
-0.9
|
|
||||
| Forex Gold Index(pm fix) $/oz | 1766.75 |
-2.25
|
|
-0.1
|
|
||||
| Coffee "C" Futures US cents/pound | 162.30 |
+0.95
|
|
+0.6
|
|
||||
| Copper 3mo Unofficial Confirmed $/m tonne | 8160.50 |
-103.50
|
|
-1.3
|
|
||||
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/on-the-non-burden-of-debt/
On The Non-burden of Debt
Brad DeLong takes on Nick Rowe over
this bizarrely confused issue; in a moment I’ll try to offer a new way
of explaining why the conventional presentation is all wrong.
First, however, let me suggest that the phrasing in terms of “future generations” can easily become a trap. It’s quite possible that debt can raise the consumption of one generation and reduce the consumption of the next generation during the period when members of both generations are still alive. Suppose that after the 2016 election President Santorum tries to buy senior support by giving every American over 65 a gift of newly printed government bonds; then the over-65 generation will be made richer, and everyone under 65 will be made poorer (duh).
But that’s not what people mean when they speak about the burden of the debt on future generations; what they mean is that America as a whole will be poorer, just as a family that runs up debt is poorer thereafter. Does this make any sense?
Well, let’s do a thought experiment that doesn’t, at least initially, seem to have anything to do with debt. Suppose that instead of gifting seniors with debt, President Santorum passes a constitutional amendment requiring that from now on, each American whose name begins with the letters A through K will receive $5,000 a year from the federal government, with the money to be raised through extra taxes. Does this make America as a whole poorer?
The obvious answer is not, at least not in any direct sense. We’re just making a transfer from one group (the L through Zs) to another; total income isn’t changed. Now, you could argue that there are indirect costs because raising taxes distorts incentives. But that’s a very different story.
OK, you can see what’s coming: a debt inherited from the past is, in effect, simply a rule requiring that one group of people — the people who didn’t inherit bonds from their parents — make a transfer to another group, the people who did. It has distributional effects, but it does not in any direct sense make the country poorer.
Really, this isn’t complicated — and the fact that everyone in public life gets it wrong doesn’t change the logic."
First, however, let me suggest that the phrasing in terms of “future generations” can easily become a trap. It’s quite possible that debt can raise the consumption of one generation and reduce the consumption of the next generation during the period when members of both generations are still alive. Suppose that after the 2016 election President Santorum tries to buy senior support by giving every American over 65 a gift of newly printed government bonds; then the over-65 generation will be made richer, and everyone under 65 will be made poorer (duh).
But that’s not what people mean when they speak about the burden of the debt on future generations; what they mean is that America as a whole will be poorer, just as a family that runs up debt is poorer thereafter. Does this make any sense?
Well, let’s do a thought experiment that doesn’t, at least initially, seem to have anything to do with debt. Suppose that instead of gifting seniors with debt, President Santorum passes a constitutional amendment requiring that from now on, each American whose name begins with the letters A through K will receive $5,000 a year from the federal government, with the money to be raised through extra taxes. Does this make America as a whole poorer?
The obvious answer is not, at least not in any direct sense. We’re just making a transfer from one group (the L through Zs) to another; total income isn’t changed. Now, you could argue that there are indirect costs because raising taxes distorts incentives. But that’s a very different story.
OK, you can see what’s coming: a debt inherited from the past is, in effect, simply a rule requiring that one group of people — the people who didn’t inherit bonds from their parents — make a transfer to another group, the people who did. It has distributional effects, but it does not in any direct sense make the country poorer.
Really, this isn’t complicated — and the fact that everyone in public life gets it wrong doesn’t change the logic."
.
No comments:
Post a Comment