|
Money matters: Early winter is here (Part
5)
Graham Macdonald
MBMG International Ltd.
Last week we looked at America’s inability to service
its debts and the likely ensuing major devaluation of the US$ and promised
that today we’d look at another factor that would make this likely.
The world’s second richest man, Warren Buffet, no longer has any
confidence in the dollar as an investment vehicle and for the first time
has hedged against the dollar - a move which he delayed because he
regarded it as unpatriotic, or at least unhelpful to American interests
until he felt that he had no choice but to do so.
He finally took this action because the United States is running a huge
trade deficit (i.e. it is importing far more foreign goods and services
than it is selling American goods and services overseas) which is causing
income to flow out of the country at such a rapid rate that it will soon
become unsustainable.
In a letter to shareholders in his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway
he warned that the US trade deficit risks creating a “sharecropper’s
society”. What concerns him is that long term American assets are being
transferred overseas in return for imports of consumable items. Last year
Buffett’s short positions against the US dollar nearly doubled to over $20
Bn. More than two full pages of the annual Berkshire Hathaway report were
devoted to his warnings about the US trade deficit and the need to finance
it with foreign investment.
Buffett is far from being a voice in the wilderness (although even if he
were, you’d have to listen to the Sage of Omaha based on his track record
alone). Former ECB head Wim Duisenberg was quoted by Spanish Newspaper El
Pais as saying, “A dollar devaluation seems inevitable due to the
tremendous US Current Account deficit.” Similar views have been expressed
by Duisenberg’s successor as European Central Bank president, Jean-Claude
Trichet, the world’s richest man, Bill Gates, and German Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder.
At $US 57.0 billion, April’s trade deficit was up 18 percent from one year
ago. Annualising the April trade deficit gives an annual deficit of $US
684 billion. US goods imports were up 15 percent from April 2004 to $US
136.8 billion. US exports were up 13 percent to $US 74.5 billion. US May
import prices were up 5.7 percent from one year ago. That hits right at
the everyday American’s standard of living, unless his or her earnings
(less taxes) have also climbed by 5.7 percent.
It also hits businesses in the US if they have to acquire imports in order
to complete their final products. Unless they can raise their selling
prices to cover for this cost increase, they will take the hit right on
their bottom line.
The US trade deficit with Japan narrowed to $US 7.2 billion from $US 7.8
billion. The deficit with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries widened to $US 7.1 billion from $US 6.6 billion. The deficit
with Canada, the largest US trading partner, widened to $US 9.8 billion
from $US 9.3 billion. The gap with Mexico widened to $US 4.4 billion from
$US 4.3 billion. The US deficit with Europe increased to $US 11.8 billion
from $US 10.9 billion.
The real geo-political issue that arises here is why is China’s trade
surplus with the US such a huge problem? After all, the US has a GLOBAL
trade deficit. The US trade deficit reached $US 228.7 billion over the
first four months of 2005. The equivalent in 2004 was $US 187.3 billion.
Over 2004 as a whole, the US trade gap reached a new record of $US 617.6
billion. The first four months of 2005 annualised comes to almost $US 700
billion. The OECD has predicted a $US 900 billion trade deficit for 2006.
We are looking at a totally out-of-control situation. Its cause is
straightforward. It is the immense generation of credit in the US; new
additional credit issued through loans and then spilling over into
external trade as purchases with the money which has been borrowed
internally.
Alan Greenspan himself has made it clear that US policy for reducing the
trade deficit is based around a planned devaluation of the Greenback -
although he no doubt hopes that this debacle can be delayed until after
Jan 1st next year when he retires. The trade deficit mushroomed to an
all-time high of $617.7 billion in 2004 (almost hand in glove with the
budget deficit).
Also, America is printing money at an unprecedented rate - while this can
reduce debt, it devalues your currency (if there are twice as many dollars
in circulation tomorrow backed by the same value of assets as today, each
one is really only worth half of what today’s dollars are worth).
Over the week to May 27, US M3 money supply jumped $US 23.8 billion to $US
9.622 TRILLION. In one week, the US credit money machine created an
additional US $23.8 billion out of thin air. Those new US dollars are now
in full circulation.
If the US Federal Reserve keeps this weekly rate of money creation up for
a year it will have added an additional $US 1 trillion 237 billion to the
already outstanding stock of money in the US monetary system. The wider US
M3 money supply has grown from $US 7.3 trillion at the start of 2001 to
$US 9.622 trillion through May 2005. Over the mere four and one-half years
from the start of 2001, the US money machine has decanted this additional
$US 2 trillion 322 billion on top of the pre-existing $US 7.3 trillion,
which is an increase in the total stock of money in the USA of 31.8
percent in that time! That alone should have weakened the dollar by almost
one third (depending upon M3 data for other currencies).
Continued next week…
|
The above data and research was compiled from sources believed to be
reliable. However, neither MBMG International Ltd nor its officers can accept
any liability for any errors or omissions in the above article nor bear any
responsibility for any losses achieved as a result of any actions taken or not
taken as a consequence of reading the above article. For more information please
contact Graham Macdonald on [email protected]
|
Snap Shots: Forget the pixels, look at the glass
by Harry Flashman
 A
good shot through good glass.
Having written last week that film is dead (at the 35 mm
range at least), this has brought up much discussion amongst local
camera buffs and interested amateurs. I stick by my thoughts that this
is true, provided you are only using 35 mm cameras. If you require 5x4
or 10x8, then it’s film transparencies all the way. However, if you are
using 35 mm and are not trying to blow the pic up to be the size of a
barn door, the results you will get from a digital SLR will be better
than those from a film SLR.
There are many reasons for this, including the digital’s ability in low
light situations and the ease in finding image detail in shadows, let
alone the ability to instantly check to see if you really have got the
shot you wanted. I have written before about Polaroid film checks being
the insurance used by professional shooters. In 35 mm you can forget
about Polaroid as well. Consign it to the industrial skip in your garden
for collecting hooks for fastening button-up boots, 8 track stereo
players and 78 RPM LP records (especially the ones with the large
central hole).
One man who does know much more than I as far as digital imaging is
concerned is Don Sambandaraksa, who writes the occasional column in the
Bangkok Post. In one of his recent articles he explored the entire
“pixel” postulation and was brave enough to point out that pixel and
perfection may both start with the letter P, but it is not the whole
story on image quality. In this column last week I finished by saying,
“Remember too, that the ultimate factor in print sharpness comes down to
the lens you use. A good quality prime lens from the camera body
manufacturer will give you good quality final prints, be that from film
or directly digital.” Don S (I can’t type his whole name again), backs
this up when he writes “In the real world of meetings and seminars with
less than perfect lighting, the limiting factor is the lens, not the
number of megapixels.”
However, it should be noted that both Don and myself are referring to
SLR cameras. While the mini-compacts are packing in 8 megapixels, more
than most digital SLRs, the results are not as good as an SLR, and much
of this comes down to the lens. The friendly chap in the photo store
(who is trying to earn his commission) will tell you that it has a Zeiss
lens or whatever, but just step back for a second and look at the sheer
physical size of an SLR lens, compared to the fiddly little protuberance
on the front of the compact. There is no comparison. Comparing a compact
with an SLR is attempting to compare apples and oranges. Both are
fruits. Both are quite different. End of story. Compacts and SLRs are
both cameras. Both are quite different. End of story.
Unfortunately, with the sheer ease of using a digital compact, there is
a tendency to make that the ultimate yardstick. However, the yardstick
in photography has to be image quality, or we may as well all go back to
Kodak box Brownie’s. Five years ago, I wrote, “No matter how fancy the
electrogizmos inside, if there is a rotten piece of glass up front, you
will get lousy quality photographs. The good quality lenses come from
the good quality manufacturers. If you’ve never heard of the camera and
it’s very cheap, then there’s every chance its got a cheap and nasty
lens too. Like everything, you get what you pay for!”
It must also be remembered that everything is a trade-off one way or
another. If you want to slip your camera in your trouser pocket, you
have to be prepared to sacrifice image quality for miniscule size. If
you are striving for sharpness, you have to sacrifice the ease of
carting around on the altar of image quality.
You see, whether you are using digital or film, the image gets there via
the lens. Pixels have nothing to do with the light coming through the
piece of glass up front. Nothing!
Modern Medicine: Diverticulitis – A wayside inn of ill repute?
by Dr. Iain Corness, Consultant
The term diverticular disease comes from the Latin word
“diverticulum” which apparently means a “small diversion from the normal
path”; however, my anatomy professor many years ago claimed that
“diverticulum” was Latin for “a wayside inn of ill repute”, which sounds
much more romantic (and kept the interest of young medical students)!
The colon, or large intestine, is involved in water absorption, which is why
the fluid contents of the stomach end up as semi-solid “poo” (lovely medical
word) after the water has been removed. If this fluid absorption is upset,
as in the case of rampant diarrhoea, the person can become dehydrated very
quickly. This is why diarrhoea in infants can be life threatening.
Now like all organs, the colon needs a blood supply. The small vessels which
supply blood to the large intestine do so by penetrating the muscle coat of
the colon thereby producing a small defect through which the inner lining of
the bowel can protrude or herniate out. These small protrusions are called
diverticulae (Latin plural).
Diverticulae are more common in industrialized countries than in third world
countries. The reason given for this is the lack of bulk present in the diet
of industrialized countries allowing muscle contractions to create localized
areas of high pressure popping the diverticulae through the bowel wall. The
pressure created by muscle contractions of the left side of the colon are
considerably greater than those of the right side. This fact explains why
diverticulae are more common on the left than right side of the colon. The
prevalence of diverticulae also increases with age. While fairly uncommon
during the first 4 decades of life they reach a frequency of 50 percent in
people greater than 65 years old.
So we get more diverticulae as we get older, but where does “diverticulitis”
come from? What happens is that they can become inflamed, so consequently,
the bowel does not work properly. This is then called “diverticulitis”
(“itis” referring to inflammation). The colon can swell so much that your
stomach becomes like a drum, and it is almost impossible to do up ones
trousers, and even sitting down is uncomfortable. The diverticulae can also
rupture and bleed, both internally and externally (into the lumen of the
bowel).
The first time I had these symptoms I was around 45 years old and I rang my
favorite gastroenterologist and relayed the symptoms. “You’ve got
diverticulitis,” was his reply. “I can’t have,” said I, “I’m too young for
that.” “No you’re not,” said he, “because I’ve got it too, and I’m younger
than you!”
So if the gastro boys can get it, what can you do to try and avoid it? Well,
eat plenty of “roughage” – vegetables - and lay off peanuts. Some bran on
your morning cereal is also a good plan.
And what to do when you get a bad attack? Well, first you have to make sure
it really is just diverticulitis. Acute diverticulitis can often be
diagnosed by a typical history and a physical exam showing impressive
tenderness over the sigmoid colon which is located in the left lower part of
the abdomen. If fever and a high white blood cell count are present this is
confirmatory. A barium enema or a lower GI X-Ray are not useful because a
ruptured diverticulum is not seen on the X-Ray. A CT scan or ultrasound of
the lower abdomen can be very helpful in showing an inflammatory mass over
the sigmoid colon.
The treatment includes plenty of fluids and appropriate antibiotics for a
few days. But do check first! OK?
 Heart to Heart with Hillary
Dear Hillary,
I work in a large office block and there is a young girl who gets off on my
floor who always smiles at me and says hello. I have been smiling back OK
but by the time I want to say something to her the doors are open and
there’s lots of people everywhere. I don’t want to embarrass her or make her
lose face or something, but I would like to get to know her a bit more. I
know it is different between the girls in the bars and the girls working in
the office, but I’m not really sure of how to go here. I’m 27 and single and
out here on a two year contract and I’ve only been here for one month.
George
Dear George,
How nice it is to find a farang male who does understand there is a
difference between professional ladies of the night and the hard working
professionals of the day, of which Hillary is a shining example. Now then,
my shrinking Petal, what is wrong with you? Here you are, 27 years old,
still in the first bloom of youth (it seems), with a young lady giving you
the eye, and you don’t know what to do. However, the hormones are obviously
working, even if the brain is not sure on how to drive them. George, George,
Valentine’s Day is coming, it is time for you to formulate (there’s a nice
word) your plan of action. I am sure you have a secretary or an office girl.
You have to get her to find out the young lady’s name and who she works for.
If she gets off at the same floor as yourself then there’s a limited number
of companies she can work for. Thai women are good at this kind of detective
work and you will soon have her name and details. On the 14th of February
have some roses and a card with “From your admirer in the lift” delivered to
her office (use a motorcycle taxi driver to add to the intrigue) but add
your mobile phone number. If she wants to continue further, then she’ll give
you a call. Best of luck (but knowing the Thai grapevine, she’ll know
everything about you already!).
Dear Hillary,
Hi my chocolate, just want to tell you how much I enjoy your column, I have
been reading for a few years now. Just want to say that sometimes there is a
silver lining to some things. I have been coming to Thailand for about nine
years now, at first single to do the wild things, then five years ago I met
a bar girl in Pattaya (won’t say which bar). Saw her the first night of my
arrival. Did not speak to her, but felt something there, went back the next
night and introduced myself. To make a long story short, we have been
married five years have a beautiful son three years old, and this woman has
been the best thing that has happen in my life. I work in the Middle East
and my family is with me here. We have a home in Pattaya and I plan to
retire here. (Also not once have we ever had a cross word between us.)
Thanks, one happy American, not fat or bald either, nor a millionaire.
Dear OHANFOBENA millionaire,
I am so pleased that you have managed to find the girl of your dreams, and
it does show that silver linings still exist. Just keep it well polished and
make sure it doesn’t tarnish, that’s a good chap. Whilst there are many
failures in relationships from the bar scene, it should never be forgotten
that the ladies of the night are thinking, breathing human beings with all
the emotions that everyone has. When you find a good one, look after her and
she will look after you too.
Dear Hillary,
I see all these old farangs being helped into the song taews by some young
Thai bird and you have to wonder. Don’t they realize they’re going to get
ripped off, if not tonight, then in the morning? No girl in her right mind
would want to spend the night with these geezers. It’s an old joke, calling
them ATM’s, and they sure are old jokes all right. I used to have a Thai
girlfriend, but when I saw her getting on a bus with an old guy, I knew she
wasn’t the one I would want to be with for a lifetime. I may only be 23, but
I could see where it was heading.
Not an ATM
Dear Not an ATM,
I am so happy for you, Petal, you think you know it all and have the
incisive eye that can see through these young girls with the older men. Keep
going with all your prejudices. Or do I detect a hint of jealousy? Here you
are all young and virile and your girlfriend chooses an older man instead.
Dear Oh Dear! Perhaps she didn’t want to stay with you because the
“lifetime” would be too long. Remember there’s no pockets in shrouds, so let
the senior citizens spend it before they go, and if it is company they want
to buy, then they are just as entitled to do it as you, young man.
Psychological Perspectives: Psychologists’ evolving understanding of the development of phobias
by Michael Catalanello,
Ph.D.
My nine year-old son Joseph has an
overwhelming fear of dogs. In the language of psychology, he has a phobia,
an intense and irrational fear of a specific object, resulting in avoidance
of the object. This became painfully obvious recently when my family and I
attended a party for Asian University students at the home of the
University Vice President for Administrative Affairs Khun Panit.
During the course of the evening, a small, extremely active, yet obviously
friendly and harmless dog was scampering about on Khun Panit’s front lawn,
endearing himself to all of the guests; all, that is, except Joseph.
Initially, Joseph took steps to avoid the dog. Following a few close
encounters, however, it became clear that he could not maintain a
comfortable distance between himself and the animal. Eventually, Joseph
began crying hysterically, eventually prompting us to leave the party a bit
prematurely.
As we were leaving, one of my psychology students asked me if Joseph had
had a previous traumatic experience with dogs. I replied that, to my
knowledge, he had not, although his eleven year-old brother Michael had
recently been bitten by a stray. The dog bite had made it necessary for
Michael to undergo a series of unpleasant injections to prevent rabies.
Surprisingly, Michael continues to show no signs of fear or apprehension
when in the presence of strange dogs. Joseph’s fear, however, appeared long
before Michael’s unfortunate experience. Why, then, would Joseph develop a
phobia, while Michael would not?
The traditional psychological explanation, originally proposed by the
behaviorist John Watson in 1920, suggests that phobias result when a
traumatic event becomes associated with a neutral stimulus, like an object
or place. In the classic experiment, Watson repeatedly exposed his subject,
“Little Albert” to the frightening sound of a loud noise while the child
was in the presence of a white rat. As a result, Little Albert developed a
fear of the rat, as well as other objects resembling the rat. Watson
referred to this as conditioned fear.
Many people with phobias can, in fact, trace their fear to some traumatic
event. Like my son Michael, however, many people exposed to traumatic
events do not develop a phobia. Watson’s theory concerning the development
of phobias fails to explain the development of a phobia in one who, like
Joseph, had never been exposed to trauma, or the absence of a phobia in one
who, like Michael, had experienced trauma.
In the January 2006 issue of the journal American Psychologist published by
the American Psychological Association, psychologists Susan Mineka and
Richard Zinbarg reviewed contemporary research which offers a better
understanding of how anxiety disorders like phobias develop. Essentially,
they propose that there are individual differences in peoples’
susceptibility to developing phobias. These differences could be produced
by genetic variations among individuals, as well as by differences in life
experiences.
The authors cited research indicating that genetic factors can produce
variations in what they call “trait anxiety,” an enduring tendency some
people have to be a bit more nervous or high-strung than average. There is
evidence that high trait anxiety, in turn, can affect the speed and
strength of conditioning. Likewise, timid or excessively shy toddlers have
been shown to be more prone to developing phobias than more outgoing
youngsters. In this view, genetically produced personality factors could
account for differences in people’s susceptibility to the development of
phobias. Indeed, Michael is the more outgoing of my sons; Joseph is a bit
more anxious and shy.
In addition to genetics, life experiences can also affect people’s
susceptibility to the development of phobias, for better or worse. For
example, children who had experienced more nontraumatic visits to the
dentist’s office were less likely to develop dental anxiety in response to
dental trauma than children with fewer nontraumatic encounters. Thus, it
appears that previous exposures to a potentially fearful object or
situation could serve to “inoculate” an individual against the development
of a phobia.
Similarly, other life experiences could affect people’s susceptibility to
the development of phobias following traumatic experiences. Children raised
in households in which they experience greater control over their
environments, for example, show less fear when confronted by potentially
frightening events, compared to children raised with less of a sense of
control.
Again, our own family experiences lend some support to developments in
learning theory emerging from the research literature. Michael spent the
first three years of his life in our household in the U.S. with our pet dog
Pancho. At two years of age, he was leading Pancho around on a leash. He
would abuse the poor dog mercilessly, and Pancho would take it.
Shortly after Joseph’s birth, however, we were forced to give Pancho away
in preparation for our move to Thailand. Joseph had none of Michael’s early
experiences of having a pet in the home, and of mastering the animal. It
seems plausible, therefore, that different experiences like these, in
concert with their different personalities, could help account for the
boys’ remarkably contrasting susceptibility to developing a fear of dogs
later in life.
|
Dr. Catalanello is a licensed psychologist in his home State of Louisiana, USA, and a member of the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Asian University,
Chonburi. You may address questions and comments to him at [email protected], or post on his weblog at
http://asianupsych.blogspot.com
|
A Female Perspective: What is work?
with Sharona Watson
For any woman who is familiar with the
term “trailing spouse”, or who is sometimes referred to by this title, the
subject of this week’s column will probably be familiar. I have to say that
I don’t think the term “trailing spouse” sounds very nice. Whilst I
acknowledge that it is not necessarily a sexist term, because there are
plenty of men who are trailing spouses, for me it does rather conjure up
images of a fakir waddling down the street with his harem ten or twenty
yards behind him. I mean, the word “trail” doesn’t exactly sound like it
involves any kind of equality, does it? And that’s one of my main points.
For those of us who have “trailed” behind their spouses with varying degrees
of enthusiasm and in so doing have left a profession behind, as I did, the
whole derogatory aspect about “trailing” or “bringing up the rear” as my
dictionary tells me the word means, is unacceptable. One moment, I have my
own business and I’m working all the hours I can find and enjoying it, the
next I’m in a different country, culture and environment and I have nothing
to do. Except of course, I don’t have “nothing” to do. When I say “nothing”
I’m being cynical, because if you don’t have an employer, or people don’t
see you travelling somewhere to work in an office or school or newspaper or
TV or something, it seems they assume that you are doing “nothing”. To
“assume” as they say, really does make an “Ass” out of “U” and “Me”.
In fact, sometimes I find myself working so hard doing “nothing” that I wish
I was back behind my sewing machine, designing and selling children’s
clothes in Europe. It would be less work! And I have seen so many people who
are employed, actually pretending to work by “looking busy” when in fact
(especially if they are behind a computer) they are doing what Andy calls
“personal admin”.
I’ll be honest. I’m surprised, upset and disgusted sometimes, when my
husband comes home to a beautifully clean home from whatever kind of work
he’s been doing - TV, newspaper, school, whatever - and asks what I’ve been
doing all day. Open your eyes, man! Look around you! Do you think the elves
have been in again? How is it, I ask myself, that a man seems to assume
(that word again) that not only is housework simple and thoughtless, but
that it’s easy and quick as well. So have a go yourself if it’s so easy, and
I’ll sit back in my hammock and wait for you to crawl back to me with an
apology!
Then there’s the money issue. Whenever the time comes to discuss what we are
going to do with our money, how we are going to spend it, where we might go
on holiday, it’s as if Andy cannot resist making the point that he’s the one
who earns the cash. It’s not like he demands to be in control over what we
do – quite the opposite – but he always seems to slip in the fact that I
don’t bring cash home and he does. He says he doesn’t mean to put me down
but it feels like it. I admit, it’s frustrating. But give him credit, he
seems to accept that “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine”.
But my point is very simple; it’s not my fault that I don’t get paid for the
work I do nor that he does get paid. So let’s recognise this in our house
and split everything equally. Not only in money terms but in recognising the
work that each of us does. Anyway, Andy’s the expert at not getting paid for
work. Six months is his record. And as an artist, which he was when we got
married, the cheques were few and far between. So they were large I admit,
when they came, but nevertheless, they were few and far between.
Then, there’s the question of what people do at work. Both Andy and I try to
get the job done as best we can in the fastest time, without cutting corners
by the way. It’s a challenge we set ourselves and it’s become a good habit.
I think that’s something to do with being self-employed, as we used to be.
If you didn’t work, then as the Good Book says, “neither did you eat.”
Whereas I have seen some people who are so slow at what they are doing that
I think they shouldn’t be doing the job. They can’t be enjoying it can they?
Definitely not if they are really bad at it as well? My advice is very
simple: stop doing the job you can’t do or aren’t suited to or aren’t happy
doing. If your workplace is an unhappy place, get out!
There was a lovely old man on the Kibbutz called “Tsetse” who used to
question what work was and why we did it and how we thought about it,
especially in relation to our lives outside “work”. He thought that we spend
so much time developing a “work mentality” that we sometimes seem to
programme ourselves to only be able to enjoy our lives outside work. But,
because we spend so much time “at work”, not enjoying that time means it’s a
massive waste of our lives. So, there are two solutions: first, don’t do
something you don’t enjoy doing and second, enjoy what you do, whatever it
is you have to do. Considering most people don’t have that much choice about
what they can do for work, the second option seems to me to be a good idea.
As for the housework, I often say that to replace a woman who has the job of
“housewife”, you’ll have to bring more than just one man. And I’d like to
see a man pay such attention to detail. If the job is so easy, why don’t men
want to do it? After all, if they really are a lazy bunch, they’d enjoy it,
right? Then (with apologies to male trailing spouses) I’ll go out and work
and you can “trail” behind me for a change.
Next week: Quincy Tanner
[email protected]
|
