Author Topic: US/World Economics' effect on Canada  (Read 46885 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Milnet.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 14,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,559
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2008, 10:59:50 »
>Don't demonize government deficits

I disagree; we must continue to demonize government deficits.  I haven't looked at the pros and cons of government deficit spending during recessions enough to know whether it is truly as useful as some economists claim.  (I have my doubts, because there is a sensible hypothesis that government spending results in significant misallocation of capital which prolongs rececessions.)  But, I will stipulate to it being useful and then add this: it doesn't matter, because in the real world governments are unable to adequately adhere to the partner principle of "spend in a recession" which is "pay down your deficit recession spending when the recession ends".  The resulting long-term damage is greater than simply working through the recession without adding to public debt.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Arnold: "I thought the sasquatch couldn't swim."
Ranger: "Dare to dream, Arnold.  Dare to dream."

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2008, 12:48:52 »
Deficits, in and of themselves, are not inherently bad - they are never good.

There are some good reasons to run a deficit: a major war, for example, or some other equally threatening crisis. Sometime the national government must borrow money to fund programmes that are considered essential.

Deficit spending might be useful to, for example, build infrastructure during a depression - thereby creating real jobs. But the same deficit spending would not be acceptable to provide EI to the people who might, otherwise, be employed on those infrastructure construction jobs.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Bane

  • Member
  • ****
  • 610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 201
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2008, 13:25:09 »
What made the Great Depression "great" was the ham handed interventions of the "New Dealers", who's interventions in the US economy continually distorted market signals and diverted capital and labour from wher the market would have made use of them to areas where politicans and bureaucrats would benefit. I suspect that without the "New Deal", the "Great Recession" of 1929 might have been far shorter and had far lesser impact on the global economy.

I'm not an expert on pre WWII American economics, but as far as I understood it 1932-33 saw the lowest levels of GDP and it was in 1933 that the first portions of the New Deal were brought in.  From that point on US GDP was in a pretty consistant climb, surpassing the 1929 GDP high sometime in around 1936.
"Always be able to kill your students".- Masaki Hatsumi

Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,608
  • Freespeecher
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2008, 23:31:56 »
Some economists and historians beg to differ:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

Quote
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By
Meg Sullivan
| 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-                                                       

Think about that when you listen to politicians (anywhere in the world) tell us how they will intervene to "fix" the economy.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2008, 07:20:45 »
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's Globe and Mail, is a report on worrisome trends in China, including some that bode (even more) ill for Canada:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081012.wrchina13/BNStory/Business/home
Quote
Big red machine hits speed bump

GEOFFREY YORK AND ANDY HOFFMAN

From Monday's Globe and Mail
October 12, 2008 at 10:45 PM EDT

BEIJING AND TORONTO — Less than two months after the excitement of the Beijing Olympics, the economic news from China has suddenly taken a turn for the worse.

Auto sales are slumping. The stock market is nose diving. Developers are offering heavy discounts to promote their unsold houses and apartments.

Even in an economy that is still expected to grow at an impressive 10 per cent this year, the hints of trouble are worrisome. And the problems are concentrated in industries such as construction and automobiles, which have major implications for the commodities that Canada produces.

The slowdown in China is already causing a drop in global commodity prices. This slump could continue for the next year or two, analysts say.

“When you add it up, it's bad news for commodity prices in the short term,” said Arthur Kroeber of Dragonomics, a research firm specializing in the Chinese economy.

“Commodity prices had unrealistically high expectations of Chinese demand built into them,” he said. “We had to have a correction. It will be really bad for the next year, as we see an unwinding of those unrealistic expectations.”

Shares of Canadian mining companies have been decimated in a matter of weeks on the sudden grim reality of falling Chinese demand for commodities. Teck Cominco Ltd., in the process of closing a $14-billion (U.S.) takeover of Fording Canadian Coal Trust, has seen its shares lose nearly a third of their value in a week.

“Everyone's mindset has been affected. This is the most severe thing we've ever seen. You and I have never seen anything like this. Basically, no one in the market has seen anything like it, “ Don Lindsay, Teck's president and chief executive, said in an interview.

The latest data from China are not encouraging. China's passenger car sales, which had grown by 18.5 per cent in the first half of this year, have now declined for two consecutive months. Sales fell by 6.2 per cent in August and a further 1.4 per cent in September.

The property sector is equally weak. Apartment prices have dropped by 10 to 20 per cent in many Chinese cities, and real-estate websites are filled with promotions from developers offering discounts to potential buyers. A leading Chinese financial magazine, Caijing, describes the nation's property market as “a grim scene of slow sales, price cuts and failed land auctions.”

The price cuts have been heaviest in southern Chinese cities such as Guangzhou and Shenzhen, where real-estate prices have dropped by up to 40 per cent in the past year. But even in Beijing, after the Olympic boom, preconstruction sales of residential units fell 76 per cent in September from the same month of last year.

The slump in auto sales and housing construction is having a serious impact on commodities such as steel, copper, iron ore and coking coal. Half of China's steel demand is derived from the property market. Copper wiring in new apartment buildings is a major source of Chinese demand for copper.

“If consumers sit on the sidelines for three months waiting for housing prices to drop, the short-term impact could be fairly severe as people try to clear inventories,” said Howard Balloch, a former Canadian ambassador to China who now heads an investment bank in Beijing. “There's a price correction going on, and core demand is slowing down.”

Chinese consumers are nervous about the market meltdowns and other economic trends, he said. “They're less willing to take on auto financing. They'll delay all sorts of discretionary spending.”

In the long run, however, commodity prices will be pulled back up by China's underlying trends, including the massive migration of rural people to its cities and the government's huge investment in infrastructure such as subways and trains, Mr. Balloch said.

China insisted Sunday that its “overall economic situation” is still good. “The economy is growing quickly and the financial sector is operating steadily,” the ruling Communist Party said in a statement at the end of a four-day meeting of its Central Committee. “The basic momentum of the country's economy remains unchanged.”

But the party admitted that “contradictions and problems” exist in the Chinese economy. “We must enhance our sense of peril and actively respond to challenges,” it said.

The growth of China's manufacturing exports has been slowing because of the weakening of U.S. demand. The Chinese government is trying to boost domestic demand by cutting interest rates, and Mr. Balloch predicts that it will take other measures to stimulate the economy.

Others are highly skeptical that the government will be able to counteract the effects of the U.S. slowdown and the global financial crisis. “The government can't just spend its way out of this,” said Michael Pettis, a finance professor at Beijing University.

“Many of the government's tools simply don't work any more,” he said. “My guess is that commodity prices will soften for the next two years. They were extremely sensitive to the high growth expectations.”

The unprecedented seven-year bull run in commodities, which has been a key driver of the strong Canadian economy, appears all but over.

Analysts are now ratcheting back their commodity price assumptions on the belief that a global economic slowdown will sap demand for resources such as copper, nickel and coal.

Canaccord Adams, a major player in the mining sector, particularly in the junior mining space, slashed 2009 copper price estimates last week from $3.34 (U.S.) a pound to $2 a pound, a decline of more than 40 per cent.

“Global demand is slowing and that includes China. The copper market and commodities in general have had a really good run here,” Canaccord Adams analyst Orest Wowkodaw said in an interview. “Unfortunately, we think we're going to take a pause in the sense that the consumption levels have to come down given the global slowdown we think is happening. The equities are being revalued as an investment class.”

In the hardest evidence yet of the slowing demand, Russian steel giant OAO Severstal last week said it is cutting steel production by as much as 30 per cent because of the sudden shift in industrial demand.

“Demand for all commodities has to slow if credit is tight. There is no way that investment and growth can continue in the levels that we've seen in this type of environment,” Mr. Wowkodaw said.

Traditionally the Chinese 'consumer' has displayed a mix of extraordinary conservatism – hence the high savings rate, even during a boom, and a spirited capacity for risk taking – just what we might expect from a nation of equally spirited gamblers.

A certain 'slowdown' will, at least should be good for the Chinese economy – it is overheated and could use some discipline.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline tomahawk6

  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 37,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,583
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2008, 08:52:02 »
The global markets are up today so thats a good sign.The US markets are closed so we shall see what happens tomorrow. I suspect that the panic sellers are done and the bargain hunters are back in the market.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 129,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,831
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2008, 10:32:00 »
Daimler to Close Sterling Trucks Unit, Cut 3,500 Jobs (Update2)
By Chris Reiter
 Article Link

 Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Daimler AG, the world's largest maker of heavy vehicles, will close its Sterling Trucks division in North America and cut 3,500 jobs as it reins in production and shifts manufacturing to Mexico.

The reorganization involves the closure of plants in the U.S. and Canada at a cost of $600 million and is aimed at saving $900 million a year by 2011, Daimler said in a statement today. The Stuttgart, Germany-based company will retain the Freightliner and Western Star brands in the region.

Daimler and competitors Volvo AB and Paccar Inc. have seen truck sales dive as growth slows and credit markets seize up. The German company, whose U.S. deliveries fell 30 percent in the first half, will shut Sterling's St. Thomas, Ontario, factory in March and one in Portland, Oregon, in 2010, when labor deals expire. A new Freightliner plant in Mexico will open as planned.
More on link
REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2008, 16:23:40 »
Daimler to Close Sterling Trucks Unit, Cut 3,500 Jobs (Update2)
By Chris Reiter
 Article Link

 Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Daimler AG, the world's largest maker of heavy vehicles, will close its Sterling Trucks division in North America and cut 3,500 jobs as it reins in production and shifts manufacturing to Mexico.

The reorganization involves the closure of plants in the U.S. and Canada at a cost of $600 million and is aimed at saving $900 million a year by 2011, Daimler said in a statement today. The Stuttgart, Germany-based company will retain the Freightliner and Western Star brands in the region.

Daimler and competitors Volvo AB and Paccar Inc. have seen truck sales dive as growth slows and credit markets seize up. The German company, whose U.S. deliveries fell 30 percent in the first half, will shut Sterling's St. Thomas, Ontario, factory in March and one in Portland, Oregon, in 2010, when labor deals expire. A new Freightliner plant in Mexico will open as planned.
More on link

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Business News Network web site, is more, his time with a Canadian twist, on the rumoured GM/Chrysler merger:

http://www.bnn.ca/news/4079.html
Quote
CAW sees 'massive' job losses in GM, Chrysler deal

Reuters

October 14, 2008

Labor unions in the United States and Canada Tuesday expressed concern about the prospect of job losses from any potential merger between General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, adding that union leaders had not been consulted by the automakers.
The Canadian Auto Workers union has asked both GM and Chrysler, which is controlled by private equity group Cerberus Capital Management, to clarify whether they are considering a merger.
   
"I don't see any positives in it on the surface," CAW president Ken Lewenza told Reuters. "You've got to believe this would be massive consolidation and massive job losses."
   
United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger said the union had not had any "official discussions" with any of the parties involved in a potential merger, which he said remained "speculation."
   
But he said the UAW wanted to protect jobs.
   
"I would personally not want to see anything that would result in a consolidation that would mean the elimination of additional jobs," Gettelfinger told Detroit local radio station WWJ.
   
Cerberus approached GM in recent weeks about a merger with Chrysler, the No. 3 U.S. automaker. Cerberus has also shopped Chrysler around to other potential bidders without immediate success, sources said over the weekend.
   
The talks with GM hit a snag over the value of Chrysler and any resolution is still seen as weeks away, according people close to the talks.
   
Analysts have questioned the benefits of a merger for GM, saying the cost-cutting from combining operations could be slow to emerge and complicated by GM's existing problems of too many brands and excess capacity.
   
But a merger between GM and Chrysler would almost certainly prompt job cuts, plant shutdowns and the elimination of models and dealerships, analysts said.
   
Between them, GM and Chrysler employ about 205,000 workers in North America and produce 12 million cars annually.
   
"I think it's a very legitimate concern on the part of the unions," said Harley Shaiken, a labor law professor at the University of California in Berkeley. "It's almost certain that a merger would result in fairly significant job cuts.
   
"But it is unclear at this point what either company would gain in terms of innovation and competitiveness."
   
U.S. auto sales have sagged to 15-year lows this year as American consumers have struggled to deal with the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression, rising unemployment and tightening credit.
   
Just this week, GMAC, the financing company affiliated with GM, announced that it was limiting its auto lending to short-term loans to consumers with good credit.
   
U.S. auto makers GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. have been hardest hit by the downturn, as sales of their highly profitable gas-thirsty trucks and sports-utility vehicles have dived.
   
The slowdown in sales has forced all three to either idle or close plants in North America.
   
GM has cut about 19,000 hourly jobs represented by the UAW through buyouts and early retirement incentives over the past six months. It now employs about 64,000 blue-collar workers in the United States, a spokesman said Tuesday.
   
Chrysler has announced plans to cut 22,000 hourly jobs since February 2007.
   
Labor professor Shaiken said unions would need to be persuaded to go along with any merger because "a disgruntled work force" could present a problem for the combined company.
   
"Do the unions have veto power? No." Shaiken said. "Are they a significant factor? Yes."
   
But David Cole, director of the Center for Automotive Research, said that the unions would be forced to accept job cuts for GM and Chrysler to survive.
   
"Their jobs are defined by how many cars GM and Chrysler sell," he said. "I think the unions will be pragmatic, because if GM and Chrysler can't produce long-term sustainable profits, then there is no such thing as job security."


Earlier today it was reported that the Daimler closing of a truck plant in Ontario will cost 1,400 Canadian jobs.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2008, 12:27:49 »
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is more ‘good news’ about the Canadian economy:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081015.wconfboard1015/BNStory/Business/home
Quote
No recession for Canada: Conference Board

DAVID FRIEND
The Canadian Press

October 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM EDT

TORONTO — Canada's economy faces some tough challenges as exports are further affected by a prolonged global slowdown and domestic demand weakens, the Conference Board of Canada says.

Despite the cautious sentiment, Board economist Paul Darby says Canada will avoid a recession.

He told the Conference Board's annual business outlook briefing that economic growth will be weak in many areas but he expects overall gross domestic product will be up next year.

Canadian tourism is expected to be one of the hardest hit sectors in the new year, while retailing, autos and furnishings will see a scaling back amid weaker consumer confidence, according to the board.

But the situation is different now than in the 1990-91 and 1981-82 recessions, Mr. Darby said.

“We're not part of the problem in a sense, even though we get into lower growth,” Mr. Darby said.

He said investments in business projects, including Alberta's oil sands, are weakening but will grow at three per cent next year.

Business construction in major cities like Calgary and Toronto will also slow to reflect the weaker outlook.

The U.S. turmoil is holding Canada's projected economic growth for this year to 0.8 per cent, the think-tank said Wednesday.

Mr. Darby projected that weaker domestic demand will contribute to weaker employment growth of 0.7 per cent in 2009.

“This is clearly no disaster,” he said. “Those are not employment numbers consistent with a recession”.

The Board's outlook makes several assumptions, including that the rescue packages in the United States and Europe will help loosen the banks' lending practices and increase business investments”.

“Living beside a troubled neighbour is taking its toll,” Glen Hodgson, another economist with the private-sector think-tank.

“Massive declines in the trade sector have shredded Canada's economic growth, and raw material prices have fallen off their peak levels. Still, the domestic economy has enough momentum to keep Canada out of a recession.”

If you have a spare $1,000.00 hanging around you can ‘subscribe’ to the Conference Board’s Canadian Outlook series.


It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2008, 17:20:07 »
The global markets are up today so thats a good sign.The US markets are closed so we shall see what happens tomorrow. I suspect that the panic sellers are done and the bargain hunters are back in the market.


Not so fast, according to is report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081015.wmarkets1015/BNStory/Business/home
Quote
Stocks plummet again

STEVE LADURANTAYE

Globe and Mail Update
October 15, 2008 at 4:54 PM EDT

Investors abandoned any hopes of a quick recovery to the credit crisis Wednesday, driving North American markets lower on economic data that suggested massive government intervention may not be enough to prevent a recession.

The Dow Jones industrial average [DJIA-I]closed the day 7.9 per cent lower, or 733.08 points, to 8,577.91, while the broader S&P 500 [SPX-I]was down 9 per cent, or 90.23 points, to 907.78. The S&P/TSX [TSX-I]closed 6.4 per cent lower, or 631.83 points, to 9,312.83, after gaining 9.8 per cent Tuesday.

“Any euphoria over the notion that government actions are finally attacking the root problems of the crisis is rapidly dissipating as economic data turns south,” UBS wrote in a note to clients. “Systemic problems require systemic solutions which do not lend themselves to rapid resolution.”

September retail sales in the United States posted their biggest monthly drop in more than three years, down 1.2 per cent, compared to the 0.7 per cent decline economists had predicted. Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of economic activity in the United States.

“The details of this report were simply disturbing,” said Millan Mulraine, an economics strategist at TD Securities. “On the whole, the strains on U.S. consumers are beginning to show, and this report is yet another indication that consumers are beginning to retrench their spending as they navigate against the headwinds coming from a weak domestic economy, tight credit conditions (despite the dramatic easing in monetary policy) and a deteriorating job market.”

Toronto was under pressure to hold onto some of Tuesday's gains, with oil falling $4.09 (U.S.) to $74.54 on expectations of weaker demand as the economy slows. Oil is trading at its lowest level since September, 2007. The energy sector fell 12.3 per cent, while the mining sector fell 9.9 per cent. Only the consumer staples sector posted a gain, up 1.6 per cent as Saputo Inc. gained 5 per cent and George Weston Ltd. gained 5.05 per cent.


Some observers think we have found the elusive ‘bottom.’ That may be true, but being at ‘bottom’ does not mean things are, suddenly, going to get better. The market may decide to stay at ‘bottom’ – even testing lower levels – until it is satisfied that all the big problems are’wrung out’ of the market and it is safe to reinvest.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 129,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,831
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2008, 16:43:51 »
BMO projects Canadian recession
HEATHER SCOFFIELD,  Globe and Mail Update
 Article Link

OTTAWA — A second big Canadian bank is now forecasting a recession.

Bank of Montreal said Thursday Canada's economy will contract in the final quarter of 2008, and the first quarter of 2009, meeting the popular definition of recession.

“Canada cannot escape the knock-on damage of not only the U.S. recession, but also the wealth destruction arising from the plunge in our stock market and the slowdown in our housing markets,” chief economist Sherry Cooper said in a commentary.

Since commodity prices are being pulled down by a drop in global demand, Canada's energy sector can no longer be counted on to support the Canadian economy, she said.

“The boom has turned to bust. Canada, too, is headed for recession and our government will awaken to the need for deficit spending.”

BMO joins the Bank of Nova Scotia in forecasting an imminent recession, as well as economists at the University of Toronto, among others.

Still, the Conference Board of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada, forecasting firm Global Insight, and Toronto-Dominion Bank have all recently updated their expectations for Canada's growth, and figure the country should narrowly avoid a recession.

They're all in the same ballpark, however. The recession forecasters are not expecting a deep downturn, while the growth forecasters aren't expecting much growth.

For its part, BMO Nesbitt Burns forecasts a 1.7 per cent annual pace of growth in the third quarter for Canada, but a 0.7 per cent contraction in the fourth quarter, followed by a 0.5 per cent contraction. Growth should resume, but barely, in the second quarter, with a 0.6 per cent pace of expansion.
More on link

REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2008, 10:42:21 »
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is more about how problems on Wall Street/Bay Street impact the good people on Main Street:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.wpensions1017/BNStory/Business/home
Quote
Pension plans show worst quarterly drop in decade

JOHN PARTRIDGE

Globe and Mail Update
October 17, 2008 at 8:25 AM EDT

The global financial crisis slashed 8.6 per cent of the value from major Canadian pension plans in the third quarter, their worst three-month drop in a decade, RBC Dexia Investor Services said Friday.

This brought the year-to-date decline to 10.1 per cent at Sept. 30, the firm said in a news release.

“It hasn't been pretty – and judging by the performance in October so far, the situation is not getting any better,” said Don McDougall, the firm's Montreal-based director of advisory services.

The impact of the market meltdown on the pension plans and their ability to continue paying their members will depend on the timing of their next actuarial valuation and what their status was prior to the rout, Mr. McDougall said in a telephone interview.

“But it typically just means that their asset base has shrunk,” he said. “Now, to the extent that their liabilities are stable or going up. . .it means ultimately these schemes are going to be more costly.”

Mr. McDougall also indicated, however, that he does not think pensioners or soon-to-be pensioners need to be overly worried, unless a company is in trouble and its pension plan already shaky.

“These are long-term schemes and. . .what history has shown us is that markets go down, but they also go up – and very quickly,” he said.

In the most recent survey, RBC Dexia found that Canadian equities were the hardest-hit asset class among the 40 defined-benefit pension plans it surveyed, plummeting 18.2 per cent as commodity prices sank, dragging the S&P/TSX composite index to its worst quarterly results in 10 years.

Leading the plunge were mining and other materials stocks, which fell 33.6 per cent, and energy stocks, down 28.3 per cent.

However, Mr. McDougall said that most of the pension funds had already cut back their exposure to resources, enabling them to outperform the S&P/TSX by 1.7 per cent.

Among other asset classes held by the funds, global equities fell 11.2 per during the quarter, in line with the MSCI World Index.

The value of domestic bond holdings, meanwhile, fell 1.5 per cent.

“Spreads varied considerably,” Mr. McDougall said. “Longer maturity bonds dropped 3.1 per cent, while real return bonds lost 9 per cent, their worst quarter in 14 years.”

Overall, the quarterly value drop was the worst since 1998, when pension plans were clobbered by the fall-out from the Asian currency crisis.

The 40 funds surveyed were located across Canada and divided by size: 10 with assets of $1-billion or more, 10 with $500-million to $1-billion, 10 with under $500-million and 10 with $100-million to $500-million.

The sample is “representative of the big picture” of 300 pension plans with about $340-billion in assets that RBC Dexia tracks, Mr. McDougall said.

While military pensions are a government obligation the money allocated (voted) to pay them is invested in the markets. That asset base has shrunk, too.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline George Wallace

  • Directing Staff
  • Milnet.ca Relic
  • *
  • 178,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23,188
  • Crewman
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2008, 10:44:57 »
Time to increase the base of contributors......More recruiting necessary.     ;D
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2008, 05:57:31 »
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is an interesting and troubling article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081017.wbretton1017/BNStory/International/home/?pageRequested=1
Quote
Wanted: a new financial order

DOUG SAUNDERS

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
October 18, 2008 at 12:05 AM EDT

BRUSSELS — A week ago, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel found themselves strolling together through the cobble-stoned streets of Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, a tiny village in the northeast of France, where they were attending a war-memorial ceremony.

The town is known as a place where French leaders, from the time of Charles de Gaulle, have gone to escape the world and restore their energy. There was much retreating and restoring to be done last Saturday: The previous day, their finance ministers had rushed home early from a Washington crisis meeting after stock markets had crashed dramatically and expensive national schemes to restore the credit system had failed.

None of the patchwork of plans appeared to work and the world economy was threatening to seize up. A few hours earlier, the head of the International Monetary Fund — a Frenchman — had declared that the world financial system was "on the brink of systemic meltdown." Both leaders had been on the phone with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and they had agreed to follow his plan for governments to purchase major stakes in their countries' failing banks, at huge expense. With that done, anything seemed possible.

It was during their stroll, and over lunch afterward, that these two often-feuding leaders arrived at another conclusion: Nothing would be truly fixed, they believed, until there was a new world financial system in place, a new economic watchdog supervising the world's economies.

That was a view that had been pushed strongly by Mr. Brown, in a memo that he had begun circulating among associates and leaders, and it agreed, on the surface, with something similar to what Mr. Sarkozy had been saying for weeks: That this was an unprecedented global crisis, beyond the scope or powers of any national government.

The next step, they agreed, would have to involve the whole world, and would require rewriting the rulebook of global capitalism.

With that lunch, Europe had reached a consensus, at least superficially, on a solution that had not been attempted in 64 years: a major global meeting that would attempt to redesign the world-finance system. It was an acknowledgment, at a high level, that with the current crisis, the entire postwar economic system may have come to an end. What comes next will be a matter of heated disagreement.

By Tuesday morning, the Americans were on board, at least as far as attending the proposed meeting — expected to be held in New York shortly after the Nov. 4 presidential election. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, fresh from his re-election, said Friday he also supports holding the meeting. All the G8 industrialized nations have agreed to attend, at least on paper, and it is expected that China, Brazil and India will take part.

While there's no consensus on what the new financial order should be and there are signs of deeply divergent views, these countries appear at least willing to talk about a new international order at a meeting the three European leaders are calling Bretton Woods II, after the 1944 meeting that started it all.

"Merkel became convinced at Colombey that Brown and Sarkozy were correct that the whole postwar system of finance does not work any more, and something new will have to take its place," said a European Union official involved with the talks.

Saturday morning, the Europeans will try to take Washington a step further. Leaving early from the Montreal summit with the Canadian government, Mr. Sarkozy and European Union Commission president José Manuel Barroso will fly to Camp David to sit down with President George W. Bush and try to persuade him to support Mr. Brown's proposals to create a new set of international institutions.

What they will be trying to sell is a seven-page document that Mr. Brown first made public on Wednesday morning. It proposes a set of organizations — a "new international financial architecture for the global age" — that will monitor risks in the financial system and provide an early-warning system; determine global standards of regulation; supervise international corporations in their cross-border activities, protect markets from excessive activities of speculators; stamp out major conflicts of interest and set standards for pay and bonuses; internationalize accounting standards, and provide transparency in complex financial transactions.

Given these sizable goals, the encounter with Mr. Bush may be the Europeans' least victorious moment: Aides to Mr. Bush said last night that he is not interested in a new international organization, would prefer to have debt and finance overseen by national bodies, and does not even want to fix a date for the meeting. Other Americans, notably Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, are said to be more receptive: After all, it was Gordon Brown's bank-buying scheme that tamed the market crash after Mr. Paulson adopted it in the U.S. on Tuesday, at a cost of $250-billion.

"There's generally agreement that the rules used worldwide in the banking and financial system have probably to be changed," says Philippe Waechter, a world-finance expert who is head of research for the French firm Natixis Asset Management.

What exactly has to be changed, though, is a hugely contentious matter.

In 1944, while tens of thousands of soldiers were still dying in Europe's forests and villages, another era came to an end. Since the beginning of the First World War, the world's economy, which previously had been fluid, open and international, had become divided and segregated along national lines. This nationalism, protectionism and currency isolation had deepened with the 1930s Depression, and leaders of Britain and the United States feared that this would prove economically fatal in the postwar years.

John Maynard Keynes, the British economist, called for a major meeting of world leaders — to be held a few days after the D-Day landings — at the Mount Washington resort hotel in the mountain ski resort of Bretton Woods, N.H. The gathering was known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, although the United Nations did not yet exist.

Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin and Mr. Keynes, along with 700 officials from 44 nations, gathered in Atlantic City, N.J. on June 15 and then took the train to New Hampshire and met for 22 days — a far more leisurely pace than anything that will be held this year.

They were there to address a burning problem raised by Mr. Keynes: If, when the war ended, European recovery and rebuilding was to happen in any meaningful way, there would have to be free flows of capital and investment between borders, and currencies would have to be able to be exchanged for one another. No longer could nations act on their own; they would have to be sending capital across borders, often large amounts of it.

Over cocktails and steak dinners, the leaders built the architecture of the modern financial world: the International Monetary Fund, which provides loans to rescue countries in financial trouble; the body known as the World Bank, which finances the rebuilding of troubled economies, and the institution that became the World Trade Organization, designed to open borders and break down trade barriers.

Bretton Woods began a six-decade process of the de-politicization of money: In ever more dramatic ways, government and finance became separate spheres, and banking became a self-contained, increasingly unregulated world of its own. A flood of savings from the developing world provided banks with huge pools of money they could use to devise new profit-making instruments, free from interference.

Until this week, that is, when government and money came crashing back into one another. Suddenly, governments are the major providers of loans, and the major shareholders in banks, and the ability to keep the money flowing is beyond the authority of any one country. The idea that central banks can quietly stick to keeping inflation at bay is gone. Once again, we are aiming for the prevention of catastrophes.

On Monday, Mr. Brown arrived at a meeting of the 15 countries that have the euro as their currency and laid out, behind closed doors, that vague but sweeping set of proposals he would make public two days later.

"We now have global financial markets, global corporations, global financial flows," he told them. "But what we do not have is anything other than national and regional regulation and supervision. We need a global way of supervising our financial system."

The idea became surprisingly popular in Brussels on that day, partly because Mr. Brown's vagueness turned his seven-page plan into something of a Rorschach test on which could be projected each country's economic fantasies. Italian President Silvio Berlusconi talked about a world without the dollar, where the euro might become the reserve currency.

The otherwise conservative Mr. Sarkozy declared in a grandiose speech that "we need to found a new capitalism, based on values that put finance at the service of companies and citizens, and not the reverse." Such lines play very well in France, but are not likely to win any high-fives from Mr. Bush this morning in Washington.

Before a meeting date could even be set, the leaders squabbled over who had invented the idea. Mr. Sarkozy, through his aides, make it known that he had been proposing since Sept. 23 that a new global regulatory system be built.

Mr. Brown, in turn, had his aides point out that in January of 2007 he had argued that international finance regulation was "urgently in need of modernization and reform."

All of this sounded a bit rich to a community that had watched these European leaders, notably Mr. Brown as Britain's finance minister in the late 1990s, participate in a deregulation and neglect of the financial system that had allowed the complex network of mortgage-backed debt instruments to spiral out of control and destroy the debt-burdened banking system.

My opinion:

•   Bretton Woods still works, or it would if it was just left alone to effect “the de-politicization of money” making “government and finance ... separate spheres” and allowing “banking [to] became a self-contained ... world of its own.” The only question is: to what degree can we and do we need to regulate the global, self-contained banking system?

•   Effective regulation aims to ensure honesty (transparency and, in banking, adherence to generally accepted standards for accounting and reporting) and equality of opportunity by preventing monopolistic behaviour.* Whenever regulation tries to control outcomes – which is what most people want – it is wrong. Only the market can determine outcomes and any and all attempts to interfere will do harm – never, ever ‘good’ for anyone.

•   Brown, Merkel, Sarkozy et al claim the current system is “broken.” I doubt that; in fact, it may be that the system is working quite well – just balancing itself without care (because ‘systems’ cannot care) about the impact on Main Street  where all the voters live.

•   A meeting is, at least, harmless – provided enough dissenting voices are heard.

The Brown/Merkel/Sarkozy proposal smacks of ’world government’ by the backdoor. The closest we have to a world government is the WTO – because, unlike the UN, it has a rules based system for sanctions. Any proposal.

Many banking systems are in trouble because, as Saunders says, ‘leaders’ like Brown, Merkel, Sarkozy and Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush participated in ”deregulation and neglect of the financial system that had allowed the complex network of mortgage-backed debt instruments to spiral out of control and destroy the debt-burdened banking system.” Canada’s banking system (like a few others) is not in trouble. Perhaps the problem is not that the global ‘system’ is broken but, rather, that individual, national systems are inadequately regulated. Perhaps well regulated national banking systems will interact quite well, without further ‘supervision’ within the existing global system.


--------------------
* I always remember an economics lecture several decades back in which we were told that ”there is nothing wrong with a monopoly so long as it is achieved and maintained in a fair and honest manner.” Such things do happen in small, relatively primitive economies – it might be easy to monopolize the milling business in an isolated community – or when new technology emerges – Intel had something close to a monopoly for a brief period but it’s efforts to maintain it were neiher fair nor honest.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2008, 10:35:14 »
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is a good critique of the ‘Sarkozy Plan:’

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=889454
Quote
Dangerous ideas
Canadian authorities should shun ideas at both ends of the ideological spectrum and remain pragmatic

David Laidler,  Financial Post

Published: Saturday, October 18, 2008

Some very dangerous ideas are beginning to circulate: Namely, that financial markets not only need immediate government help to get going again, but continuous supervision thereafter. U. K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for a revamped International Monetary Fund that will provide early warnings of impending crises so that they can be prevented, and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing an international conference to set such changes in motion, while leaving little doubt that he believes the key to crisis prevention lies in a large dose of dirigisme.

The IMF was founded to oversee an international monetary system based on pegged exchange rates -- which broke down in the 1960s and vanished in the 1970s -- not to be the centre of expertise on financial system regulation. Indeed, we already have the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) for that. The BIS gave ample early warnings about the current crisis for anyone who would listen -- and is no doubt learning lessons from what has happened because it was ignored.

Economic policy, however, is the responsibility of elected politicians. Warnings and advice from international organizations, old or new, will be useless so long as politicians ignore them. Those same politicians, moreover, have a long record of turning to international agreements -- the Smithsonian, the Louvre and the Plaza agreements, for example -- as a way of evading their responsibilities for repairing the sources of instability already under their jurisdiction. If and when European politicians have succeeded in putting a coordinated regulatory framework in place for EU financial markets, or even for the smaller Euro Zone, and when they, the Japanese and the U. S. among others, have brought the potentially destabilizing long-term growth of their government debt under control, then it might make sense for them to try to reorganize the whole world's financial system -- but only then.

Perhaps the most dangerous of today's ideas is that it is possible to design a financial system that will promote economic efficiency but never again generate a crisis like the current one. The first modern financial bubble started in Paris in around 1719 and spread to London before bursting in 1721. There have been many since, and it seems unlikely that the current example will turn out to be the last. And even if it was, how could we ever be sure of that? As discussions of financial system reforms proceed over the next few years, therefore, they should pay more attention to improving mechanisms for dealing with the effects of crises than to vainly pursuing allegedly surefire methods of preventing them.

This is not to argue for letting nature take its course during the current crisis. That markets always function, an idea assiduously taught in many business schools for decades, is also dangerous and all too influential. It tempted U. S. Treasury Secretary Paulson into allowing Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt a month ago and misled 200 economists into opposing the rescue legislation that followed. The very market mechanisms that permit the economy to function are precisely what the financial sector provides, and while it can stand occasional individual failures, when the whole industry seizes up because of shared errors among its managers, then so does everything else.

In a financial crisis, each institution tries to look after itself by piling up stocks of safe marketable assets -- liquidity -- and if that requires a stop to lending, so be it. But when such a response becomes system-wide, there is no market cure for what ensues. Only the authorities can provide the liquidity needed to get lending started again.

Meanwhile, worries about inflationary consequences are misplaced. These fears arise from over-generalizing lessons relevant only when markets are functioning. At such times liquidity injections, not being needed, are spent, but in a crisis, they satisfy a desire to hoard, and hence relieve deflationary pressure. When misplaced inflation fears slow down the application of this remedy -- as they seem to have done recently -- institutions that start out lacking liquidity end up needing more capital as losses from declining business pile up.

Likewise, when things have gotten so far out of hand that the only reliable source of new capital is the government, fears of the onset of "socialism" must not inhibit policy. Capitalism is fine when it is working, but to do so it needs a functioning financial system. To do whatever is needed to ensure that system's continued existence is a matter of good government, not the first stage of the Revolution.

In the current circumstances, the Canadian authorities should shun dangerous ideas at both ends of the ideological spectrum and remain pragmatic. The Bank of Canada should provide the liquidity the financial system needs and if output and inflation are now set to fall, it should also ease monetary policy by all feasible means to keep inflation on its 2% track.

As to the federal government, if enabling the financial system to work requires more mortgages to be bought or interbank deposits to be guaranteed, it should do so; and if the budget slips into deficit, this should be tolerated. As to the international financial system, Canada is a small player and should be defensive, supporting changes that might help markets to function and opposing grand designs calculated to paper over those deeper seated threats to stability located in the houses of bigger players.

David E. W. Laidler is a Fellow in-Residence at the C. D. Howe Institute.




It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Kirkhill

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 45,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,640
  • Just plain difficult
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2008, 15:00:10 »
...The first modern financial bubble started in Paris in around 1719 and spread to London before bursting in 1721....

And this maybe a contributing factor to the antipathy of the French Elite towards Anglo-Saxon banking.

Louis XIV had just died and his Great-Grandson Louis XV was on the throne as a child.  He had a regent, Phillip of Orleans - his uncle, ruling in his place.  The Brits had just quashed the latest Bourbon-Stewart attempt to reclaim the British Crowns at Sheriffmuir. The Masons had openly united as the United Grand Lodge of England and declared themselves to be not at odds with the crown or the state.  Gold, which had been a monopoly of the Crown was being freely traded in the London markets.  Lloyds and the London Stock Exchange were finding their feet.  Britain was wealthy.  And at the back of it all was the Bank of England, founded by Huguenots and other Calvinists and sold to the English by a Scotsman, William Paterson, who died in that year of 1719.


France, as a combined result of Louis XIV's wars and Colbert's dirigisme was broke and with no prospects of recouping their losses except the old fashioned way.  Go forth and conquer.  Except that the French weren't up for it.  They were ill, dead-tired or just plain dead after Louis' wars.

Into this fray marches another Scot peddling his wares.  This time promising to do for France what Paterson had done for England and Britain.  John Law of Lauriston promised to create a Bank of France on Dirigiste lines.  And on to Wikipedia,

Quote
....He had the idea of abolishing minor monopolies and private farming of taxes and creating a bank for national finance and a state company for commerce and ultimately exclude all private revenue. This would create a huge monopoly of finance and trade run by the state, and its profits would pay off the national debt. The French Conseil des Finances, merchants, and financiers objected to this plan.

The wars waged by Louis XIV left the country completely wasted, both economically and financially. And the resultant shortage of precious metals led to a shortage of coins in circulation, which in turn limited the production of new coins. It was in this context that the regent, Philippe d'Orléans, appointed John Law, as Controller General of Finances.
 
Contemporary political cartoon of Law from Het Groote Tafereel der Dwaasheid (1720); text reads "Law loquitur. The wind is my treasure, cushion, and foundation. Master of the wind, I am master of life, and my wind monopoly becomes straightway the object of idolatry. Less rapidly turn the sails of the windmill on my head than the price of shares in my foolish enterprises."In May 1716 the Banque Générale Privée ("General Private Bank"), which developed the use of paper money was set up by Law. It was a private bank, but three quarters of the capital consisted of government bills and government accepted notes. In August 1717, he bought the Mississippi Company, to help the French colony in Louisiana. In 1717 he also brokered the sale of Thomas Pitt's diamond to the regent, Philippe d'Orléans. In the same year Law floated the Mississippi Company as a joint stock trading company called the Compagnie d'Occident which was granted a trade monopoly of the West Indies and North America. The bank became the Banque Royale (Royal Bank) in 1718, meaning the notes were guaranteed by the king. The Company absorbed the Compagnie des Indes Orientales, Compagnie de Chine, and other rival trading companies and became the Compagnie Perpetuelle des Indes on 23 May 1719 with a monopoly of commerce on all the seas. The system however encouraged speculation in shares in 'The Company of the Indies' (the shares becoming a sort of paper currency) and inflation. The system was based on Law trading shares in the Mississippi Company in return for government debt. The Banque Royale was created by default as a result of Law attaining the majority of the government issued notes (debt). It effectively became the Central bank of France. In 1720 the bank and company were united and Law was appointed Controller General of Finances to attract capital. Law's pioneering note-issuing bank was extremely successful until it collapsed and caused an economic crisis in France and across Europe. The collapse was staved off by a constant trading off between national debt and shares of the Misissippi company. New shares were issued to dilute the value of each share, and the new capital was used to purchase more government notes. The speculation continued to build, and the companies two brances, the trading arm, and the bank arm, collapsed simultaneously.

Law exaggerated the wealth of Louisiana with an effective marketing scheme, which led to wild speculation on the shares of the company in 1719. In February 1720 it was valued for a very high future cash flow at 10,000 livres. Shares rose from 500 livres in 1719 to as much as 15,000 livres in the first half of 1720, but by the summer of 1720, there was a sudden decline in confidence, leading to a 97 per cent decline in market capitalization by 1721. Predictably, the 'bubble' burst at the end of 1720, when opponents of the financier attempted en masse to convert their notes into specie. By the end of 1720 Orleans dismissed Law, who then fled from France.


Law's Bank turned on its head everything that the Bank of England was.  It was different in every detail except that it was a Central Bank promoted by a Scot.  But I am inclined to think that Law had the same impact on the French consideration of banking that Stalin had on the American consideration of communism or Yeltsin had on the Russian consideration of democracy.  A cautionary tale never to be repeated despite the fact that execution failed to match theory.


And Edward, I disagree that Bretton Woods works.  Between 1694 and 1944 there was a solid golden wire running through the world's economy that instilled market discipline.  The Bank of England and the Gold Standard backed by HMG and the RN.  Recessions and depressions happened and wars were financed but the market always seemed to right itself. 

With Bretton Woods that discipline was shredded until it finally broke in 1971 under Nixon.  At that point the Western Governments took themselves off of the Gold Standard and started issuing Scrip - worth whatever the market deems it to be worth.  But the market never went off the Gold Standard, nor did most third world dictatorships.  All that happened was that Governments believed themselves to be beyond the discipline of the Market.

The Market is now reminding Governments that they are not beyond the Market. 

And that is the most frightening thought of all to the Dirigistes. 

Britain succeeded for so long  because it figured out how to work within the constraints of the rules imposed by the market while at the same time allowing some room for movement within the system. 

Degrees of freedom:

Bear on a chain;
Bear in a cage;
Bear in a zoo compound;
Bear in a park;
Bear in a preserve.

In all cases, no matter how much freedom the Bear perceives, the consequences of breaking the containment are the same - death.

Likewise, even in the most destitute, socialist, command economy people survive through capitalism - through individuals trading toilet paper for shoes. 

Capitalism and the Market set the rules.  Governments have to learn to abide by the rules.

They can no more control the Market than Louis XIV could make Europe an extension of his well manicured gardens at Versailles.

Bretton Woods was an American swing of the pendulum to the opposite extreme.

Bretton Woods was an attempt to free the market of constraints, with the Americans thinking that Britain had been setting the rules to its advantage for 250 years.  If only the market were allowed to work freely then everything would level out over time.  I don't believe that the current "crisis" (behind us in 24 months) is the result of laisser faire economics but neither do I believe that the Market is a self regulating and thus benevolent environment. 

I don't think the Market is any different to the Weather, the Sea or one of the McGarrigle Sisters "white waters where the log drivers learn to step lightly".  They are environment and can't be controlled.   They have to be accomodated.  It doesn't do any good to look for root causes in the hope that you can control the environment.  You are best put to husband your resources to deal with the symptoms, the effects.

I believe the Brits didn't set the rules.  They just accepted and exploited the rules.

Perhaps Canada with its pragmatism is the true inheritor of that philosophy.

In today's National Post George Jonas finished with this quote from Ecclesiastes: "The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise. Time and chance happens to them all.”  Or as Burns would hae "the best laid schemes o' mice and men gang aft agley".








« Last Edit: October 18, 2008, 15:37:04 by Kirkhill »
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 37,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,583
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2008, 10:15:58 »
Read this at one of my fav blogs this AM.
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/blackhedd/2008/oct/21/unraveling-the-threads-of-a-currency-hedging/

Unraveling the Threads of a Currency-Hedging Failure in Hong Kong

This story caught my eye because, ever since the acute financial crisis began around Labor Day, news about how China is handling it has been very sparse.

And that matters a great deal, because China’s reactions to the crisis are key to understanding whether the global financial system has fundamentally changed in recent years. The question, of course, being this: has the economic dynamism of the world shifted away from the United States? Or does distress here still cause major problems elsewhere?

Citic Pacific Ltd. makes steel and does some real estate development. Its shares are listed on the Hong Kong stock market, and its billionaire board chairman is one of China’s richest people.

Citic Pacific is 29% owned by Citic Hong Kong, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CITIC Beijing, which in turn is owned by the Chinese government.

You probably remember these guys. CITIC Beijing almost invested $1 billion in Bear Stearns, but Bear collapsed before the deal could close. And they invested $3 billion in Blackstone Group shortly before the latter went public and started falling in value. In short, and greatly to the annoyance of the Chinese authorities, CITIC have earned a reputation as "dumb money."

So what’s the news item? Citic Pacific has lost about $2 billion, trading currency derivatives. (All money figures in this post are US dollars, not HK dollars. 2 billion USD is about 15 billion HKD.)

What are they going to do? That’s easy. They go to their sugar daddy, the Chinese state, and recapitalize around $1.5 billion. In return, some senior managers of Citic Pacific will be dismissed, and some will probably be shot. (For once, I’m not using a metaphor when I speak of death in managers.)

Of course, this being Asia, the company won’t go out of business, although the amount of the trading loss was considerably larger than the current total value of the company’s stock.

What’s interesting about this is that it points out some of the less visible aspects of the global credit crisis.

Citic Pacific isn’t the only relatively small trading company that has created an awful lot of pain in Asia with currency derivatives. In this case, they appear to have speculated on a continued rise in the value of the Australian dollar, which has been one of the world’s star currencies.

Citic Pacific apparently has major iron ore operations in Australia, so they wanted to hedge their exposure to the Australian currency. This makes sense if you want to smooth out your native-currency cash flow, and every major trading company in the world does it.

But Citic Pacific appears to have screwed this up, not managing their risk properly. And they got caught in the downdraft that has caused the Australian dollar to plunge in value over the last several weeks. All of a sudden, their currency hedges appear to have become exposed to nearly unlimited risk.

This isn’t a unique story about bad decision-making in one relatively small firm in Hong Kong. Similar things have been happening in South Korea, Brazil, and elsewhere. Even in Iceland, where the collapse of the entire country’s banking system broke above the media radar and got fifteen minutes of fame.

Why is this typical? Well, there’s a big contrast between what happens to the US dollar in times of financial stress, and what happens to every other currency. The dollar goes up as everyone seeks the safety of the world’s highest-quality money. And money flows out of high-growth emerging economies like air out of a balloon, which drops their currencies like a rock.

Further evidence that this is the dynamic at work: the value of the Japanese yen. Because yen is the lowest-yielding major currency, it’s a favorite source of funds for “carry trades,” in which you get paid for holding a high-yielding currency. Like the Aussie dollar, the New Zealand dollar, the Brazilian real, or the Icelandic krona.

As high-yielding currencies deflate in the global crisis, money flows out of carry trades and back home to Japan. Right on cue, the yen has joined the US dollar as the only major currencies to appreciate sharply during the current phase of the crisis.

One thing that the Chinese try very, very hard to avoid, is for foreign speculators to deposit money into Chinese banks. Since their interest rates have been incredibly high (in order to damp out the powerful inflation they’ve been suffering for two years or so), they’re theoretically vulnerable to inflows of “hot money” (including carry-trade money), which can exit the country on a moment’s notice and crash the banking system.

So unlike South Korea and even Brazil, which now face extreme financial disruptions from adverse currency movements, Citic Pacific and companies like it ought to be fine.

Still, what the whole episode appears to be telling us, is that the global economy still depends on final demand from the United States.

That, in fact, will be the most interesting thing to watch for as the aftermath of the crisis plays out over the next three years or more. The countries that respond to the crisis with increased regulation and control (which axiomatically includes Europe and Asia), will return to growth much more slowly than the countries that quickly shift back to free markets and light regulation.

At this point, however, political risk enters the calculus. We may elect a President who has already promised higher trade barriers, taxes, and regulations. It’s not a forgone conclusion that America will be a country that returns quickly to free markets and light regulation.

If we do, we’ll emerge from this crisis in a very strongly enhanced position vis-à-vis our economic competitors. We’ll have by far the strongest and most commanding economy on earth, a position that will be unchallengeable for years or even decades.

But if we go down the Democrat path of protectionism, high taxes, and regulation, that won’t happen. And who knows? Given the way the Democrats talk about wanting the rest of the world to love us for our charm, rather than respect us for our strength, the weaker outcome might actually be what they want.

-Francis Cianfrocca


Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,608
  • Freespeecher
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2008, 11:31:11 »
The news gets worse. An "unwinding" of debt will take several years, and taxing away people's income and wealth will prolong the process as they have fewer resources to deal with private debt or recapitalize debt ridden companies through investments or purchases:



Quote
Do our rulers know enough to avoid a 1930s replay?
Events are moving with lightning speed as the global credit freeze evolves into something awfully like a classic trade-depression.
 
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 11:17AM BST 20 Oct 2008

Comments 143 | Comment on this article

The commodity and emerging market booms are breaking in unison, leaving no more bubbles left to burst. Almost every corner of the world is now being drawn into the vortex of debt deflation.

The freight rates for Capesize vessels used to ship grains, coal, and iron ore have fallen 95pc to $11,600 since May, hence the bankruptcy of Odessa’s Industrial Carriers last week with a fleet of 52 vessels. Cargo deliveries dropped 15.2pc at the US Port of Long Beach last month, but that is a lagging indicator.

From what I have been able to find out, shipping is slowing as fast as it did in the grim months of late 1931. “The crisis is now in full swing across the entire world,” said Giulio Tremonti, Italy’s finance minister. “It is hitting the real economy, the productive forces of industry. It’s global, it’s total, and it’s everywhere,” he said.

Italy’s industrial output has fallen 11pc in the last year. Foreign orders have dropped 13pc. But we are all in much the same boat. Europe’s car sales fell 9pc in September (32pc in Spain). US housing starts fell to a 45-year low in September.

Last week, the International Monetary Fund had to rescue Hungary and Ukraine as contagion swept Eastern Europe. It would not surprise me if Russia itself were to tip into a downward spiral towards bankruptcy (again) and fascism (again).

Russia’s foreign reserves have fallen by $67bn since August. Ural crude prices fell to $65 a barrel last week, below the budget solvency threshold of the now extravagant Russian state.

The new capitalists have to repay $47bn in foreign loans over the next two months. In Russia, oligarch fiefdoms built on leverage - Mikhail Fridman (Alfa), Oleg Deripaska (Basic Element), and Vladimir Lisin (Novolipetsk) - are lining up for state bail-outs from a $50bn rescue fund.

Brazil is free-fall as well. Sao Paolo’s Bovespa index is down a third in dollar terms in a month. Hopes that the BRIC quartet (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) would take over as the engine of world growth have proved yet another bubble delusion.

China says 53pc of the country’s 3,600 toy factories have gone bust this year. Economist Andy Xie says China is at imminent risk of its own crisis after allowing over-investment to run rampant, like Japan in the 1980s. “The end is near. They’ve been keeping this house of cards going for a long time with bank support,” he said.

Lord (Adair) Turner, the head of Britain’s Financial Services Authority, offers soothing words. “There is no chance of a 1929-33 depression. We know how to stop it happening again,” he said.

I hope Lord Turner is right, but his Olympian certainty bothers me. It assumes that the economic elites a) understand what happened in the 1930s – on that score I suspect that few, other than the Fed’s Ben Bernanke, have delved into the scholarship (sorry, Galbraith’s pot-boiler The Great Crash does not count);

b) that central banks will now jettison the dogma of inflation-targeting that got us into this mess by lulling them into a false sense of security as credit growth and housing booms went mad. Will they now commit the reverse error as credit collapses?

c) understand that non-US banks – especially Europeans – have used the shadow banking system to leverage a $12 trillion (£7 trillion) spree around the world, and that this must be unwound as core bank capital shrivels away;

Yes, the Fed made frightening errors in the early 1930s by raising rates into the crisis, but they were constrained by the norms of the age: the fixed exchange system (Gold Standard), and fear of the bond markets. Are today’s central banks are doing much better? The Europeans fell into the trap of equating this year’s oil and food spike with the events of the early 1970s.

As readers know, I view European Central Bank’s decision to raise rates to 4.25pc in July – when Spain’s property market was already crashing, and Germany and Italy were already in recession – as replay of 1930s ideological madness.

You could say the ECB also acted under the constraints of the age: its rigid inflation mandate. But I suspect that Bundesbank chief Axel Weber and German finance minister Peer Steinbruck were quite simply too arrogant to listen to anybody.

Mr Steinbruck insisted that “German banks are far less vulnerable than US banks” just days before the collapse of Hypo Real with €400bn (£311bn) of liabilities. Had he not read the IMF reports showing that German and European lenders have an even thinner Tier 1 capital base than American banks?

One can only guess what French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been saying to ECB chief Jean-Claude Trichet, but he must have warned in blunt terms that Europe’s leaders would exercise their Maastricht powers to bring the bank to heel unless it slashed rates. Democracies cannot subcontract monetary policy (with all its foreign policy implications) to committees of economists in a fast-moving crisis. Those accountable to their electorates have to take charge.

Whatever occurred behind closed doors, the ECB is now tamed. It has cut rates to 3.75pc, and will cut again soon, perhaps drastically. The risk is that rates have come too late in Europe and Britain to stop a nasty denouement, given the 18-month lag on monetary policy.

We should be thankful that President Sarkozy and Gordon Brown took action in the nick of time to save our banking systems. Their statesmanship should at least spare us mass bankruptcy and unemployment.

But it will not spare us a decade-long toil of pitiful growth – or none at all – as we purge debt. The world stole prosperity from the future for year after year, with the full collusion of governments, regulators, and central banks. Now the future has arrived.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,362
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #43 on: October 23, 2008, 12:52:07 »
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is the Bank of Canada’s assessment of the impact of the global credit crisis on Canada:

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081023.wboc1023/BNStory/Business/home
Quote
Economy on edge of recession: Bank of Canada

HEATHER SCOFFIELD

Globe and Mail Update
October 23, 2008 at 10:35 AM EDT

The Bank of Canada says the Canadian economy is on the razor's edge of recession, and a full recovery is dubious and distant.

In a blunt 32-page assessment of the global and Canadian economies that is devoid of good news, the central bank says Canada's economy is contracting right now, and won't show any growth in the first quarter of next year.

The forecast ever-so-narrowly avoids projecting a recession, commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. Instead, the central bank sees the economy shrinking at a 0.4 per cent annual pace in the fourth quarter of this year, and showing zero growth in the first quarter of next year, before picking up speed.

“Economic growth in Canada has slowed abruptly this year, following a period of exceptionally rapid growth in the second half of 2007,” the bank said in its quarterly outlook that was layered with cautions about how unreliable forecasting has become in the face of crisis.


The bank reiterated its intention to continue cutting interest rates as needed. But the cuts won't be enough to fend off some tough times ahead.

The housing boom, which supported much of the spending by Canadian consumers over the past couple of years, has come to a sudden end, the bank said.

Household net worth is declining as equity prices plunge and home prices slide.

Business investment is under pressure because the cost of credit has risen and the availability of credit is evaporating.

Trade won't be as much of a drag on Canada's growth as previously anticipated, but only because domestic demand is softening and Canadians aren't buying imports like they have in the past.

The country's income – which has been on fire in the past couple of years because of rising commodity prices and a strong currency – is poised to contract steeply in 2009. Indeed, the bank now forecasts that Canada's gross domestic income will decline 1.9 per cent next year. That's more than six percentage points than its last such projection.

And with the world's financial system in crisis, and the U.S. and global economies in recession, the bank admits that its already gloomy prognostication for the Canadian economy could easily change.

“The global financial turmoil that began in the late summer of 2007 has worsened in the past two months to become the deepest, broadest, and most persistent financial crisis in decades,” the bank said.

Even though central banks around the world have undertaken major extraordinary measures to bolster financial institutions and maintain confidence in credit, the measures will only work gradually to bring financial conditions back to a more normal state, the Bank of Canada warned.

“These financial headwinds will take time to dissipate, even with the extraordinary recent policy actions just announced. These headwinds are expected to adversely affect consumer and business confidence, thereby contributing to a sharper and more protracted downturn.”

In Canada, businesses have faced “considerable” tightening of credit conditions recently, but credit available to households has been surprisingly strong, the bank pointed out. That can't last, it added.

The path to recovery will be bumpy. Canada's economy will be operating below full capacity throughout 2009. Then, as financial conditions normalize and substantial interest rate cuts around the world stimulate consumer demand and capital expenditures, the domestic economy will start to recover in 2010.

Global growth should pick up by then too, after the U.S. economy bottoms out and then resumes growing. So Canada's exports should benefit at that point, the bank projected.

The bank sees global growth of 2.8 per cent in 2009 – a pace widely considered to be recessionary – and then 4.6 per cent in 2010. For Canada, the economy is expected to grow 0.6 per cent in 2009, and recover with 3.4 per cent in 2010.

But the bank's projections, based on data available until Tuesday of this week, were already questionable by Thursday's publication of the report. It assumes that the Canadian dollar will average 85 cents (U.S.), that the U.S. dollar will depreciate, that oil will be trading around $82 a barrel for the next six months, and that the measures taken recently by major central banks will actually work to stabilize financial markets and credit conditions.

But the Canadian dollar was hovering around 79 cents on Thursday morning, the U.S. dollar was appreciating, and oil was at about $68 a barrel. And it's far from clear that the central bank measures will be effective, or when.

Even if the Canadian and global economies begin a recovery late next year, Canada can't expect to grow any more than 2.4 per cent on average, without prompting the central bank to crack down on inflation, the report stated.

That's because Canada's productivity has been so abysmal over the past decade that the economy's ability to grow without exacerbating inflation has eroded, the central bank said.

So, two quarters (4th of ‘08 and 1st of ‘09) of essentially zero growth, followed by slow but steady growth through 2009 and recovery in 2010 ... they hope.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concernign Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 129,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,831
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #44 on: October 23, 2008, 13:11:43 »
With our dollar below 80 cents US, this should help manufacturing keep getting orders through this tough period.

The US businesses know as well as we do that a 20% savings by ordering from Canada is going to help their bottom line. Why else would they order their stuff manufactured in the far east?
REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *
  • 129,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,831
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #45 on: October 26, 2008, 00:44:30 »
Heed the advice of The Smartest Man
DEREK DeCLOET Globe and Mail Update October 25, 2008 at 6:00 AM EDT
 Article Link

Crackpot. Crank. Scaremonger. Alarmist.

The Smartest Man We Know has heard the slurs. When you make your living on Wall Street, yet hold the opinion that Wall Street is populated by incompetent fools, you're not going to win a lot of friends at dinner parties, are you?

And when you bet millions that the American financial system is going to fall apart, that its economy will be seized with fear – and when you were doing this and saying this before there was any hint of real trouble – well, you couldn't really expect other people to welcome the message, could you?

The Smartest Man, when delivering his prophesies, did not sugar-coat them. “This could potentially make Long-Term Capital [the financial crisis of 1998] look like some kind of walk in the park,” he predicted. “The reckoning has started.” No soft landing this time: It could even be “like the Great Depression of this century.” He said these things not last week, not last month, but on July 26, 2007. That day, the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 13,473.

But The Smartest Man was just getting warmed up. Checking in with him again this January, he was every bit as gloomy. By that point, credit fires were burning all over the place; the Dow was at 12,500; the world's biggest banks had been forced to turn, cap in hand, to Singapore, China, the Middle East and elsewhere for billions of dollars. It won't be enough, he said. “There's a whole bunch of companies that just have to hit the wall. They can't survive.”

What kind of companies? U.S. financial institutions, mostly. Wachovia looks bad. The major investment banks are shaky. It's about to get a lot uglier, warned The Smartest Man. “The implications of what's going on for the U.S. economy, credit, for lending over all, are not that pleasant to think of.” Two months and two days later, Bear Stearns was gone.

So you can imagine our surprise when the Smartest Man – his real name is Krishnamurthy Narayanan, and he goes by Nandu – showed up in town this week and was bullish.

“I think we're ending the financial crisis now,” he said. “There will be countries, like the U.S., that will go into recession. But this need not be a global recession. And there are some encouraging signs on that front.”

In a different era, The Smartest Man might have been a rocket scientist, or an engineer, or a medical researcher, or maybe a university professor. The academic résumé says: MBA, PhD in finance and economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, studied under Paul Krugman, who just won the Nobel prize for economics. But this is – or at least was – the age of finance, and The Smartest Man became a hedge-fund manager, placing money on his views rather than just writing them.

Lately, that has worked out rather well. His CI Global Opportunities Fund has returned 57 per cent in the past year, 19 per cent (compounded) over the past five. Nice numbers, but once you've made your money calling the credit crisis and short selling Washington Mutual, what do you do then?

You buy Canada, says Mr. Narayanan, who can't believe the way the loonie has been savaged. “The currency is ridiculously undervalued. I can't think of any country in the world that has no fiscal deficit, no trade deficit and no inflation – except Canada. I think the Canadian dollar should go through parity.

“I like the whole Canadian market. I don't particularly dig the banks because I just don't know what's in there [on the balance sheet]. But I'd say virtually everything else is fine.”

You buy some emerging markets, even though they, too, have collapsed in the meltdown. “You can't play the emerging markets by listening to the market action. If the Indian market's down 50 or 60 per cent from its peak, I can assure you nothing's really changed in India. Nothing's changed. The vast majority of people in India don't believe in the stock market,” said Mr. Narayanan, who was born in Chennai, India.

You look to the currencies of Asian countries that are growing and still financially healthy. Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand all have trade surpluses and single-digit inflation. “Most of the Asian emerging markets and emerging currencies are ridiculously priced right now.”

You buy uranium stocks: “Ridiculously cheap.” Gold miners: “Ridiculously cheap.” Pipelines, too: “How bad a business is that? It's a fantastic business. You're just shipping gas. Why are people selling those?” Energy: “Unless there's an absolute collapse in oil demand, you really can't see oil plunge all that much [more].”

There are, however, some things The Smartest Man wouldn't touch. They happen to be the assets the investing masses have flocked to in this crisis: U.S. Treasuries and the greenback. “I don't think it can hold for that much longer.” Once the world has to absorb trillions of dollars in new U.S. debt – watch out. In fact, he thinks the odds of the U.S. having its own currency crisis are “at least 30 per cent.”

Would you want to bet against him?
More on link
REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Offline JackD

  • jackd
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 341
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2008, 10:04:40 »
implications in my side of the pond:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/business/worldbusiness/27poland.html?th&emc=th
October 27, 2008
Credit Crisis Slows Economy in Once-Hot Poland
By NICHOLAS KULISH
WARSAW — Poles were jolted last week by the sudden discovery that they were not immune to the financial crisis contagion rippling across the globe. The plunging stock market here and the drastic weakening of the Polish currency proved, as in so many corners of the fast-growing developing world, how wrong they were.

The go-go atmosphere in Poland has abruptly stilled to a cautious wait-and-see. Developers across the country have halted building projects for thousands of apartments as banks have grown stingy with lending. The boomtown energy here has been replaced by nervous eyeing of the once powerful zloty, as it retreats in value against the dollar and the euro.

The daily newspaper Dziennik summed up the mood on Friday with a front-page headline, “Welcome to the Tough Times.” In a country that seemed to be on the fast track to full membership in the Western club, the question on everyone’s lips is, “Why us?”

Emerging markets that seemed healthy, even thriving, barely a month ago are beginning to find themselves caught in the worldwide panic. This sharp turn has caught even the local financial guardians and experts by surprise, as they have clung to their indicators of fundamental economic soundness while forgetting that capital stampedes rarely tarry for fine distinctions.

From Europe’s former Communist bloc to South America, fear and disbelief mingled with frustration that a breakdown in the United States mortgage market — one that most investors and institutions in emerging markets had avoided — was beginning to lead once again to their punishment at the indiscriminate hands of the capital markets.

“Everything is going down,” said Lukasz Tync, 28, an information technology consultant in Warsaw, who said he owned shares in 10 companies and several mutual funds and had been hit hard by five consecutive days of falling stocks at the Warsaw Stock Exchange. The country’s leading index was down 12.6 percent for the week and more than 50 percent for the year.

“The thing is that there is no fundamental basis for such moves,” Mr. Tync said. “It’s just panic.”

Adding to the pain, the zloty has fallen around 17 percent against the dollar over the past week, and more than 10 percent against the euro. The currency has fallen roughly 30 percent against the dollar in October. Economic experts are cutting growth forecasts.

Poland is still considered relatively healthy compared with Hungary and Ukraine, which have been among the hardest hit. On Sunday, the two reached tentative agreements with the International Monetary Fund for loans and other assistance aimed at preventing their financial systems from collapsing. Ukraine will get a loan of at least $16.5 billion. The value of Hungary’s rescue package has not been specified. Still, alarm about Hungary and Ukraine has infected Poland.

“A week ago, people would have told you that this is an oasis of calm and stability,” said Marek Matraszek, founding partner and managing director at CEC Government Relations in Warsaw, a political consulting firm for foreign investors. “They didn’t expect that the lack of confidence in Central Europe would bleed over from Hungary and Ukraine.”

The bleeding has extended much farther. In South Africa, the price of platinum, a major earner of foreign exchange, has cratered, from more than $2,000 an ounce in June to less than $800 now, contributing to a sharp depreciation in that country’s currency. Brazil’s currency has fallen by more than 40 percent against the dollar since August. The Turkish lira has fallen by more than 30 percent against the dollar in recent weeks and almost 20 percent against the euro.

Fuat Karatas, 41, a dental technician in Istanbul, buys some imported materials priced in euros but cannot pass on the rising price to customers, who pay in lira, he said. “Now with the euro going crazy, I have no idea how things are going to work out for me,” he said. “I just want to be able to keep my lab open, nothing more.”

During more prosperous times the risks in emerging market countries were strongly underestimated, said Marek Dabrowski, president of the Center for Social and Economic Research in Warsaw. “Naturally, the global credit crunch and economic slowdown caused overshooting in the opposite direction,” he said.

Emerging-market countries are hardly a homogenous group, but they face similar challenges. The outflows of investor capital driving down their stock markets and pressuring their currencies have occurred just as the demand abroad for their products, whether commodities like oil or manufactured goods like automobiles, has begun to weaken.

But the crisis has not hit the streets right away, buttressing the confidence of many in affected countries that the problems are temporary and can be weathered. Some argue that the declining value of local currencies is even a plus, because it will help these countries sell more goods abroad by making them more affordable.

“When the zloty was so strong, my import was profitable. Just now, I hope my exports will be improving,” said Krzysztof Izydorczyk, 52, owner of Comexpol, an importer and exporter of stainless steel products based in Katowice.

In South Africa, Finance Minister Trevor A. Manuel gave a budget speech to Parliament last week, saying he had seen the warning signs of trouble and had taken appropriate action.

But South Africa is not just facing unpredictable economic pressures. It is also at a perilous political moment, with a likely split in the governing African National Congress and a strong possibility that the unemployment rate will worsen. The economy had been weakening before the global crisis, according to Pieter Laubscher, chief economist at the Bureau for Economic Research at South Africa’s Stellenbosch University.

The commodities boom had drawn investment into the country and had helped drive economic growth, Mr. Laubscher said, but that boom has now fallen victim to the worldwide slowdown.

In Brazil, leaders took pains to save wisely during the commodity boom, reform the country’s banking sector after a financial crisis in the late 1990s and diversify its trade partners. “This country has never been so prepared to face up to adversity as it is now, economically, politically and, I’d say, ideologically,” President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said early last week.

But on Wednesday the government empowered state-controlled banks to buy stakes in private financial institutions. Although officials denied any private banks were in danger, the announcement fueled jitters that some could fail, helping send Brazil’s stock market down more than 10 percent that day.

Poles had good reason to believe that they had avoided the stigma that causes investors in emerging markets to flee at the first hint of financial panic. Poland had joined the European Union and NATO, it was a close ally of the United States, it was growing robustly and enjoying swiftly rising living standards unimaginable under Communism.

Experts say there was a consensus locally that Poland would not be affected by the crisis, and that membership in the European Union would buffer it from the worst of the shocks. That consensus has begun to break down.

When the Central Bank of Hungary surprised markets last week by raising interest rates three percentage points to defend its currency, the vulnerability of Central and Eastern Europe received harsher scrutiny.

Poland illustrates the illogic but also the relentless pressure this crisis has exerted, because in many ways it was in good shape. Compared with Hungary, Poland has higher growth, lower inflation, lower interest rates, less public debt relative to the size of its economy and a smaller share of foreign loans. Poland has stronger domestic demand than Hungary to prop up the economy as consumers among its Western trading partners cut spending.

But Poland has not adopted the euro, which might have helped insulate it somewhat. Now the prime minister, Donald Tusk, says Poland hopes to by 2012.

Government officials in Warsaw, including the prime minister, the central banker and the finance minister, have been saying that the Polish economy remains strong and that they expect markets to stabilize.

Indeed, the latest economic news out of Poland has been largely positive. Retail sales rose 11.6 percent in September, compared with the previous year, and the unemployment rate, which exceeded 20 percent just five years ago, fell 0.2 percentage points last month, to 8.9 percent.

At Miedzy Nami, a restaurant in downtown Warsaw, the owner, Ewa Moisan, said she had not seen a slowdown. Yet some customers said they were beginning to feel the pinch. The monthly payment for the apartment mortgage of one customer, Jarek Wiewiorski, has gone up by a fifth, to 1,800 zloty, about $600. “It’s not catastrophic, but it’s painful,” Mr. Wiewiorski, 40, said. “One minute it’s America, the next it’s Hungary, and then suddenly, it’s here.”


Reporting was contributed by Sabrina Tavernise and Sebnem Arsu from Istanbul, Celia W. Dugger from Johannesburg, Alexei Barrionuevo from Rio de Janeiro, Andrew Downie from São Paulo, Brazil, and Michal Piotrowski from Warsaw.


To put things in perspective, my salary (net) per month for my main job is 980 zloties  (after 9 years teaching at college level).... Poland is becoming a two class society - rich and poor....

Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,608
  • Freespeecher
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #47 on: October 27, 2008, 16:49:45 »
The sad fact of the matter is so long as people  are in the grip of irratiional panic, the "good" will be pulled down with the "bad". Canada and Poland are relatively small economies on the global scale (as I recall, the Canadian stock market is all of 2% of the global investment community), so no matter how hard we pull on the oars, we will still be sucked along by the ebb tide. Picture us on a nice sound rowing boat with a picknik basket and well rested crew on the Bay of Fundy and you get the idea.

We will see Poland and other nations with sound economies struggling with the tide in the distance (in this analogy), but the best thing to do is place yourselves in the best position to run out with the tide and be prepared to pull on the oars as the tide slackens. Get your cash ready to invest, as lots of good bargins will be in front of us. On the other hand, many politicians intend to use this crisis (caused by malformed regulatory regimes and regulatory failure) as an excuse to intervene further in the market economy and erode our freedoms further. Can Fascism be far behind?

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/26/europe-on-the-brink/

Quote
Europe on the brink? (And Russia close behind?)

In September, when the financial crisis in the U.S. really started heating up, we were treated to good deal of unattractive crowing from our European and Russian friends. Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, announced that the time of “laissez-faire” capitalism, “not . . . constrained by any rules,” was over. Why, I wondered, had he not noticed that capitalism unconstrained by any rules had never been the order of the day and that for the last 150 years or so, capitalism, especially in Europe, had been hemmed in by thousands–actually, tens of thousands–of pages of rules and regulations? Dmitry Medvedev, the puppet president of Russia, told us that the age of U.S. economic dominance was at an end and that the world required a “more just” economic system. But that was before the price of oil had plunged from $145 to $65 a barrel over the course of a few weeks and the tsunami of credit woes that originated in the U.S. had made its way East to Europe and Asia.

How will this financial mess play out? No one knows for sure. Believing as I do in the resilience of capitalism and the resoluteness of the American worker, I suspect that things will sort themselves out in due course. (And how long is a “due”? That’s a good question that I cannot answer.) One thing that is becoming ever more clear, however, is that the economic situation in Europe and Asia is likely to be far worse for a longer period than in the United States. Writing in the London Telegraph today, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard observes that Western European banks hold about three-quarters of the $4.7 trillion in in cross-border bank loans to Eastern Europe, Latin America and emerging markets in Asia. This, Evans-Pritchard notes, is “a sum that vastly exceeds the scale of both the US sub-prime and Alt-A debacles.”

For the last few decades, the West has been pumping money into economic backwaters, taking care first to assure everyone that they were “emerging” markets. But what if it turns out that they only seemed to be emerging when propped up by easy capital, in the absence of which some or all of them reverted to being what they always had been, i.e., submerging markets? What then?

“Europe,” Evans-Pritchard observes, has already had its first foretaste of what this may mean. Iceland’s demise has left them nursing likely losses of $74bn (£47bn). The Germans have lost $22bn.” Demise? Iceland? Well, economically, it pretty much amounts to that: as a professor at the university of Iceland put it earlier this month, “Iceland is bankrupt. . . . . The IMF has to come and rescue us.”

But what happened in Iceland was only the beginning. The crash of so-called “emerging markets” is sending shock waves throughout Europe and parts of Asia. Evans-Pritchard sketches the dismal picture:

Austria’s bank exposure to emerging markets is equal to 85pc of GDP – with a heavy concentration in Hungary, Ukraine, and Serbia – all now queuing up (with Belarus) for rescue packages from the International Monetary Fund.

Exposure is 50pc of GDP for Switzerland, 25pc for Sweden, 24pc for the UK, and 23pc for Spain. The US figure is just 4pc. America is the staid old lady in this drama.


Amazingly, Spanish banks alone have lent $316bn to Latin America, almost twice the lending by all US banks combined ($172bn) to what was once the US backyard. Hence the growing doubts about the health of Spain’s financial system – already under stress from its own property crash – as Argentina spirals towards another default, and Brazil’s currency, bonds and stocks all go into freefall.

Broadly speaking, the US and Japan sat out the emerging market credit boom. The lending spree has been a European play – often using dollar balance sheets, adding another ugly twist as global “deleveraging” causes the dollar to rocket. Nowhere has this been more extreme than in the ex-Soviet bloc.

The region has borrowed $1.6 trillion in dollars, euros, and Swiss francs. A few dare-devil homeowners in Hungary and Latvia took out mortgages in Japanese yen. They have just suffered a 40pc rise in their debt since July. Nobody warned them what happens when the Japanese carry trade goes into brutal reverse, as it does when the cycle turns. . . .

Russia too is in the eye of the storm, despite its energy wealth – or because of it. The cost of insuring Russian sovereign debt through credit default swaps (CDS) surged to 1,200 basis points last week, higher than Iceland’s debt before Götterdammerung struck Reykjavik.

The markets no longer believe that the spending structure of the Russian state is viable as oil threatens to plunge below $60 a barrel. The foreign debt of the oligarchs ($530bn) has surpassed the country’s foreign reserves. Some $47bn has to be repaid over the next two months.


In a rational world, these developments would prompt our leaders to reconsider the utopian policies–underwritten, to be sure, by a healthy dose of the profit motive–to issue and guarantee such quantities of risky debt. It should lead to more responsible lending, i.e., lending that proceeds according to the checks and balances of a free market rather than one that is everywhere constrained by the socialistic imperatives of governments that grow ever larger and more controlling. In this world, however, I fear that what we will see are ever more meddlesome initiatives both in the United States and, especially, in Europe. Already we have witnessed tax-and-spend politicians seize upon the credit crisis to propose measures that would take the “private” out of “private property” and would deliver ever more aspects of the economy into the governments’ hands, aiding and abetting their increasingly ambitious efforts to “spread the wealth around.” I shudder to think what embracing such policies would portend for prosperity and freedom.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2008, 18:00:52 by Thucydides »
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Kirkhill

  • Milnet.ca Subscriber
  • Milnet.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 45,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,640
  • Just plain difficult
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #48 on: October 27, 2008, 23:56:30 »
And here Diane Francis declares Warren Buffet to be wrong.  Apparently this is because he has cash to invest and she doesn't.  Ergo he lives in some weird parallel universe. 

My self, I'm inclined to think he might have the rights of the thing.  After all, he has cash to invest and apparently she doesn't.

Regardless of that it was actually this comment that really got my interest (okay poor choice of words these days, my attention):

"The problem with stock markets right now, and for an indefinite time, is that they cannot fulfil their function which is to properly determine price for equities and debt."

I thought that stock markets were merely fora where willing buyers and sellers could engage in commercial transactions at whatever value they deemed mutually acceptable.  The exchanges, I thought, were merely required to ensure that certain rules on information were followed so that buyers and sellers could make informed decisions. 

Apparently Diane Francis is another individual relying on public institutions to give her the "right" answer.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

Offline Thucydides

  • Milnet.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 82,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,608
  • Freespeecher
Re: US/World Economics' effect on Canada
« Reply #49 on: October 28, 2008, 15:57:24 »
More from Arthur Laffer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506830024970697.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Quote
The Age of Prosperity Is Over
This administration and Congress will be remembered like Herbert Hoover.By ARTHUR B. LAFFERArticle
 
About a year ago Stephen Moore, Peter Tanous and I set about writing a book about our vision for the future entitled "The End of Prosperity." Little did we know then how appropriate its release would be earlier this month.

Financial panics, if left alone, rarely cause much damage to the real economy, output, employment or production. Asset values fall sharply and wipe out those who borrowed and lent too much, thereby redistributing wealth from the foolish to the prudent. This process is the topic of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book "Fooled by Randomness."
 
David GothardWhen markets are free, asset values are supposed to go up and down, and competition opens up opportunities for profits and losses. Profits and stock appreciation are not rights, but rewards for insight mixed with a willingness to take risk. People who buy homes and the banks who give them mortgages are no different, in principle, than investors in the stock market, commodity speculators or shop owners. Good decisions should be rewarded and bad decisions should be punished. The market does just that with its profits and losses.

No one likes to see people lose their homes when housing prices fall and they can't afford to pay their mortgages; nor does any one of us enjoy watching banks go belly-up for making subprime loans without enough equity. But the taxpayers had nothing to do with either side of the mortgage transaction. If the house's value had appreciated, believe you me the overleveraged homeowner and the overly aggressive bank would never have shared their gain with taxpayers. Housing price declines and their consequences are signals to the market to stop building so many houses, pure and simple.

But here's the rub. Now enter the government and the prospects of a kinder and gentler economy. To alleviate the obvious hardships to both homeowners and banks, the government commits to buy mortgages and inject capital into banks, which on the face of it seems like a very nice thing to do. But unfortunately in this world there is no tooth fairy. And the government doesn't create anything; it just redistributes. Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.

If you don't believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they'll do with Wall Street.

Some 14 months ago, the projected deficit for the 2008 fiscal year was about 0.6% of GDP. With the $170 billion stimulus package last March, the add-ons to housing and agriculture bills, and the slowdown in tax receipts, the deficit for 2008 actually came in at 3.2% of GDP, with the 2009 deficit projected at 3.8% of GDP. And this is just the beginning.

The net national debt in 2001 was at a 20-year low of about 35% of GDP, and today it stands at 50% of GDP. But this 50% number makes no allowance for anything resulting from the over $5.2 trillion guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assets, or the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Nor does the 50% number include any of the asset swaps done by the Federal Reserve when they bailed out Bear Stearns, AIG and others.

But the government isn't finished. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- and yes, even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke -- are preparing for a new $300 billion stimulus package in the next Congress. Each of these actions separately increases the tax burden on the economy and does nothing to encourage economic growth. Giving more money to people when they fail and taking more money away from people when they work doesn't increase work. And the stock market knows it.

The stock market is forward looking, reflecting the current value of future expected after-tax profits. An improving economy carries with it the prospects of enhanced profitability as well as higher employment, higher wages, more productivity and more output. Just look at the era beginning with President Reagan's tax cuts, Paul Volcker's sound money, and all the other pro-growth, supply-side policies.

Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan added their efforts to strengthen what had begun under President Reagan. President Clinton signed into law welfare reform, so people actually have to look for a job before being eligible for welfare. He ended the "retirement test" for Social Security benefits (a huge tax cut for elderly workers), pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress against his union supporters and many of his own party members, signed the largest capital gains tax cut ever (which exempted owner-occupied homes from capital gains taxes), and finally reduced government spending as a share of GDP by an amazing three percentage points (more than the next four best presidents combined). The stock market loved Mr. Clinton as it had loved Reagan, and for good reasons.

The stock market is obviously no fan of second-term George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama or John McCain, and again for good reasons.

These issues aren't Republican or Democrat, left or right, liberal or conservative. They are simply economics, and wish as you might, bad economics will sink any economy no matter how much they believe this time things are different. They aren't.

I was on the White House staff as George Shultz's economist in the Office of Management and Budget when Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls, the dollar was taken off gold, import surcharges were implemented, and other similar measures were enacted from a panicked decision made in August of 1971 at Camp David.

I witnessed, like everyone else, the consequences of another panicked decision to cover up the Watergate break-in. I saw up close and personal Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush succumb to panicked decisions to raise taxes, as well as Jimmy Carter's emergency energy plan, which included wellhead price controls, excess profits taxes on oil companies, and gasoline price controls at the pump.

The consequences of these actions were disastrous. Just look at the stock market from the post-Kennedy high in early 1966 to the pre-Reagan low in August of 1982. The average annual real return for U.S. assets compounded annually was -6% per year for 16 years. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a bear market. And it is something that you may well experience again. Yikes!

Then we have this administration's panicked Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course the deer-in-the-headlights Mr. Bernanke in his bungling of monetary policy.

There are many more examples, but none hold a candle to what's happening right now. Twenty-five years down the line, what this administration and Congress have done will be viewed in much the same light as what Herbert Hoover did in the years 1929 through 1932. Whenever people make decisions when they are panicked, the consequences are rarely pretty. We are now witnessing the end of prosperity.

Mr. Laffer is chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of "The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy -- If We Let it Happen," just out by Threshold.

Of course the worst case scenario is the "forward looking" expectations of the market is a tax and spend Obama Administration, Democratic supermajority in the Congress or both; causing the market to tank entirely and the economy slide into a depression. The bumper sticker advocating canned goods (Doomed '08) may well become a symbol of good forward planning.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.