House and Senate Pass Resolutions on Chinese Crackdown of Tibet
On Wednesday, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on China to “end its crackdown on Tibet and release Tibetans imprisoned for “nonviolent” demonstrations.” The resolution passed on a vote of 413-1, with ”Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who recently dropped out of the presidential race, was the lone congressman voting against it.”
(Reuters)
This entry is given prominence in Reuters' site (world news section), but is three months old, a point I didn't spot at first. Still, I think the underlying issues are enduring and (given the imminent start of the Games) topical.
The almost-complete unanimity of the vote seems rather suspicious, but although we are used to the army being out of step with Ron Paul in financial matters, is he right in this case? Some might think you cannot have a policy of "liberty in one country", any more than "socialism in one country."
Can't find much in Google News about it, but here's a bit of blog discussion, updated here.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Bear market: Steiff comes home
Chasing lower costs, Steiff outsourced around a fifth of its production to China in 2003 but has now decided to come back because of concerns about quality and staff turnover.
Steiff is one of a small number of German firms which are swimming against the tide and leaving China, despite its cheaper workforce and a burgeoning consumer population. With fuel at record highs, some cite mounting transport costs.
Production of Steiff toys, which include a distinctive long-limbed bear with a melancholy growl, will come back to Germany and other countries in Europe by the end of 2009.
(Reuters)
That's sort of heartening, except that as it continues to develop, China will deal with quality issues. Japan listened to W. Edwards Deming in the 1950s and soon "Made in Japan" meant, not cheap, tinny and shoddy, but innovative, reliable and affordable.
In any case, this is clutching at straws. Tiny companies making high-value toys won't sustain Western Europe. We need major changes if we're going to become globally competitive. For example, health and welfare provision will have to be reassessed as the budgets shrink.
And here's a big debate to come: how much education? How much benefits the economy, how much is positional (Swiss finishing school for your daughter, etc), and how much is luxury consumption, like foreign holidays and Lagerfeld dresses?
How much education is simply an illogical, implicit pretence that the government is doing something to give all children relative advantage, particularly yours? How much is to disguise unemployment? How much is to keep potential young criminals penned-in during the daytime on weekdays? How much is to baby-mind children so that women can be driven out of their homes to do low-paid work?
As the money dries up, there will be an education debate, and it will be messy.
Steiff is one of a small number of German firms which are swimming against the tide and leaving China, despite its cheaper workforce and a burgeoning consumer population. With fuel at record highs, some cite mounting transport costs.
Production of Steiff toys, which include a distinctive long-limbed bear with a melancholy growl, will come back to Germany and other countries in Europe by the end of 2009.
(Reuters)
That's sort of heartening, except that as it continues to develop, China will deal with quality issues. Japan listened to W. Edwards Deming in the 1950s and soon "Made in Japan" meant, not cheap, tinny and shoddy, but innovative, reliable and affordable.
In any case, this is clutching at straws. Tiny companies making high-value toys won't sustain Western Europe. We need major changes if we're going to become globally competitive. For example, health and welfare provision will have to be reassessed as the budgets shrink.
And here's a big debate to come: how much education? How much benefits the economy, how much is positional (Swiss finishing school for your daughter, etc), and how much is luxury consumption, like foreign holidays and Lagerfeld dresses?
How much education is simply an illogical, implicit pretence that the government is doing something to give all children relative advantage, particularly yours? How much is to disguise unemployment? How much is to keep potential young criminals penned-in during the daytime on weekdays? How much is to baby-mind children so that women can be driven out of their homes to do low-paid work?
As the money dries up, there will be an education debate, and it will be messy.
US lending market: Apocalypse Now?
Some points from Denninger's latest (summary in my words):
It's getting hot. The collapse of IndyMac may take 10% - 20% of the FDIC's balance sheet, and that's assuming a savers' panic doesn't start.
If the government underwrites Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal public debt doubles (goes up by $5 trillion), the US' credit rating is compromised (it's starting to happen already) and all debts will cost more in interest - maybe 3% extra. KD's recommendation is that the two monster lenders be put into receivership and wound down over time; this means a steep drop in house prices so that they can be afforded on more sensible terms and conditions.
His advice to you: head for the high ground. Get out of debt, get your savings balance below the FDIC's $100k ceiling, think about buying Treasury bonds. "If the government goes down you will need steel, lead and brass, not money."
BUT...
See Jim from San Marcos on the same matter. And someone copied Denninger's piece whole into a comment at Jim's, to which the latter responded:
"There is a very peculiar situation here from a stock ownership position. These two stocks are being shorted en-mass. I kind of get the feeling that neither one is going to zero. I smell a bear trap here. You can be right but still be dead wrong."
It's getting hot. The collapse of IndyMac may take 10% - 20% of the FDIC's balance sheet, and that's assuming a savers' panic doesn't start.
If the government underwrites Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal public debt doubles (goes up by $5 trillion), the US' credit rating is compromised (it's starting to happen already) and all debts will cost more in interest - maybe 3% extra. KD's recommendation is that the two monster lenders be put into receivership and wound down over time; this means a steep drop in house prices so that they can be afforded on more sensible terms and conditions.
His advice to you: head for the high ground. Get out of debt, get your savings balance below the FDIC's $100k ceiling, think about buying Treasury bonds. "If the government goes down you will need steel, lead and brass, not money."
BUT...
See Jim from San Marcos on the same matter. And someone copied Denninger's piece whole into a comment at Jim's, to which the latter responded:
"There is a very peculiar situation here from a stock ownership position. These two stocks are being shorted en-mass. I kind of get the feeling that neither one is going to zero. I smell a bear trap here. You can be right but still be dead wrong."
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Roubini: bailing out government mortgage lenders could downgrade the USA's national credit rating
If we fiscalize all of these losses the U.S. may fast lose its AAA sovereign debt rating and eventually end up like an insolvent banana republic.
Nouriel Roubini, quoted in Mish's.
Nouriel Roubini, quoted in Mish's.
The housing bubble: 5 - 12 years to the turn
According to iTulip, we are at Step D in a timetable (published in January 2005) that implies we have quite some years to go before a housing upturn.
Their point about real estate being an illiquid market seems valid to me, and I've suggested before now that we should expect a decline and a long stall, rather than an equity-style crash.
Their point about real estate being an illiquid market seems valid to me, and I've suggested before now that we should expect a decline and a long stall, rather than an equity-style crash.
Zimbabwe: racism and international meddling
Mines in ZimbabweZimbabwe on Saturday welcomed the failure of a Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolution to impose sanctions over its violent presidential elections, calling it a victory over racism and meddling in its affairs. (Reuters)
Racist...
Robert Mugabe is a member of the Shona tribe (as is opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai), which comprises 70% of the population of Zimbabwe, occupying the centre and north of the country.
The Matabele (Ndebele) tribe, who tend to live in the southern part, make up half of the remaining minority, and (not surprisingly, in view of their post-Independence massacres by Mugabe's troops) are supporters of the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change). ''The denial of food to opposition strongholds has replaced overt violence as the government's principal tool of repression,'' the ICG wrote in August 2002.
Meddling...
Zimbabwe's natural resources include "coal, chromium ore [10% of the world's reserves], asbestos, gold, nickel, copper, iron ore, vanadium, lithium, tin, platinum group metals" (CIA World Factbook), and there are 10 or so foreign-owned mining companies operating there. The Zimbabwean kleptocracy has turned from seizing farms (which they either don't know how to run, or can't be bothered to), to grabbing controlling interests in foreign-owned firms, and a 25% no-compensation stake in mining companies. Presumably, in the latter case, they'll leave the operational side to the experts.
In 2005, the Chinese government and Chinese businesses supplied T-shirts for ZANU-PF supporters, jets and trucks for the Army, and the architectural plans and blue tiles for Mugabe's new 25-bedroom mansion. The recent attempt (April 2008) to ship a load of arms in, so that Mr Mugabe could deal with his little local difficulty, was described by the Chinese as "normal military trade". Annual trade between these two countries was expected to reach $500 million this year.
Zimbabwe is touting Russia for trade and business deals, including tourism (uniformed hunting trips in Matabeleland?)
Perhaps the reason 84-year-old Mugabe is hanging on, is that he and his entourage have a tiger by the tail. How could they get out of their land-locked country alive?
UPDATE
But why Russia? The New York Times fishes for an explanation as to why Russia indicates some willingness to consider sanctions, and then reneged, dragging China with her. The NYT is baffled, limply quoting the US Ambassador to the UN: “Something happened in Moscow.”
Could it be that Zimbabwe in itself has little interest for Russia, but this veto is a dog-whistle to other African nations where the Ivans may develop more serious business links?
Or could it be, as this blogger hypothesises, part of the Great Game between Russia and the US, particularly reflecting missile defence technology?
How skilfully does Robert Mugabe, the Dom Mintoff of East Africa, play off great nations against one another! If only his skills benefitted his country, also.
Stephen Glover, in today's Grumbler:
The English libel laws used to be much loved by the rich and famous, and to a large degree London remains the libel capital of the world to which freebooters of all nationalities, including our own, flock in order to pick up some usually undeserved loot.
Now these and other folk have fastened on to Article Eight of the Human Rights Act. Of course, their and everyone else's privacy must be respected, but so must the right of a free Press to write about the private misbehaviour - more often financial rather than sexual - of the rich and powerful.
Does Mr Glover think this should apply to celeb journalists, also? It seems to me that some members of the Fourth Estate are rich and powerful, when compared to the rest of us.
The English libel laws used to be much loved by the rich and famous, and to a large degree London remains the libel capital of the world to which freebooters of all nationalities, including our own, flock in order to pick up some usually undeserved loot.
Now these and other folk have fastened on to Article Eight of the Human Rights Act. Of course, their and everyone else's privacy must be respected, but so must the right of a free Press to write about the private misbehaviour - more often financial rather than sexual - of the rich and powerful.
Does Mr Glover think this should apply to celeb journalists, also? It seems to me that some members of the Fourth Estate are rich and powerful, when compared to the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)