Bloomberg: Emerging Stocks Head for Biggest Drop in Week
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/emerging-market-stocks-decline-most-in-a-week-on-economic-growth-concerns.html
I have been looking for an opportunity to get into emerging market stocks, and this could be it:
Emerging-market stocks headed for the biggest decline in a week as reports signaled slowing economic growth and as technology stocks dropped after Hewlett- Packard Co. forecast profit that fell short of estimates.
The MSCI Emerging Markets Index (MXEF) retreated 0.4 percent to 1,060.27 at 10:45 a.m. London time, set for the biggest drop since Feb. 16. South Korea’s Kospi Index (KOSPI) fell 1 percent, the most in a week, and the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index (HSCEI) of Chinese companies traded in Hong Kong slipped 0.9 percent. The ISE National 100 Index (XU100) slid 0.7 percent in Istanbul.
Samsung Electronics Co. (005930), Asia’s biggest exporter of consumer electronics, paced losses by technology companies after Hewlett-Packard said revenue from personal computers, servers and printers declined in the three months ended in January. The 17-nation euro economy will contract 0.3 percent, the European Commission said, abandoning a November forecast of 0.5 percent growth.
“The rally seems to be taking a break, which could be healthy for another leg up when the ECB injects more liquidity with the second 36-month LTRO next week,” analysts at BNP Paribas SA including Bartosz Pawlowski in London wrote in an e- mailed note to clients. The rest of this week could see “consolidation around the current levels,” the analysts wrote.
Global stock markets have rallied since the European Central Bank offered unlimited three-year cash to euro region banks via its longer-term refinancing operations in December, which had a take-up of 489 billion euros. The central bank will offer a second round of LTRO loans on Feb. 29.
You see the connection, right? In the U.S., the market saying is “don’t fight the Fed”. But in world markets, the same could be said of the European Central Bank.
CBS New York: Christie: Billionaire Warren Buffett Should Just ‘Cut A Check And Shut Up’
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/22/christie-says-buffett-should-write-a-check-and-shut-up/
From New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, definitely the quote of the day about Warren Buffett’s call for higher taxes on the rich:
“Cut a check and shut up, that’s what I say, okay?” Christie said Wednesday. “I’m tired of hearing about it. He wants to pay more taxes, pay more.”
Amen to that.
Daily Mail: Santorum campaign suggests Mitt Romney may have done deal to make Ron Paul his running mate
http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/02/santorum-campaign-suggests-romney-may-have-done-deal-to-make-ron-paul-his-running-mate.html
Sorry, but I cannot picture this. Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has to understand that a frontrunner status is going to bring more attention from all of the other candidates, and it doesn’t necessarily mean anything except the usual political game of “king of the hill”.
However, assuming it is true for the sake of argument, both Romney and Paul would have to find a common ground in their political beliefs, since they are both pretty far apart. Picture Obama making Santorum his running mate, and you have an idea of the ideological divide between Romney and Paul.
Good article. These 2 should be on a ticket for the Presidency? Maybe they would actually solve some of our problems. Amazing how Wyden is being savage by the left and democrats for working with Republican Ryan to solve problems. I have not read anything about Republicans attacking Ryan for reaching across the aisle to do this. Looks like Dems talking out of both sides of their mouth, telling the voters that the other side are obstructionists while savaging one of their own for trying to get things done.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577227682039248376.html
Thanks for sharing that Sam. Obstructionism isn’t just a one-way street in D.C.
True but Obama ran on reaching out to the other side and from the start he has been one of the most partison politicians ever in the WH.
Sam, Unfortunately, I think the partisan has come from the Republican side of the isle. I recall lots of time in the budget morass that Obama was criticized for giving too muhc to the Repub’s… then they just say they want more and talks broke down.
I would say the Tea Party has created very patisan divide.
I did want to note – I don’t think the tea party is necessarily bad. Just understand that compromise is how things get done.
From New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, definitely the quote of the day about Warren Buffett’s call for higher taxes on the rich:
“Cut a check and shut up, that’s what I say, okay?” Christie said Wednesday. “I’m tired of hearing about it. He wants to pay more taxes, pay more.”
Amen to that.
The idea here is not that Warren Buffett writes a check. WB knows that, the Rich know that and Ed knows that. It is obvious the Rich will not write that their checks voluntarily. The idea is to make Rich write those checks. The idea is to make the Rich spit blood and use it as ink while writing their checks and WB knows that, the Rich know that and Ed knows that. And Ed, you buy into Christie’s BS with your Amen.
bsdgv,
The point is that Buffett is being disingenuous by proposing it, when he isn’t willing to do it without government coercion.
Buffett is trying to influence policy. Writing a check to the IRS would have no impact on policy.
Cheers,
Robb
Well maybe a lot of think his influence on policy should be the same as ours-ONE VOTE
He has every right to have an opinion on policy and since he has money in the US that means he has more influence than normal people. Like it or not that is how our political system works.
Anyways regardless of how you feel about his stated policy (I happen to think it makes sense) saying he should just write a check is equivalent to telling anti-abortion folks that they should just not have abortions.
Cheers,
Robb
Robb,
To use your abortion analogy, it is more like a pregnant woman saying that all pregnant women should get abortions, without actually getting one herself.
So Robb you are saying that he should get more than one vote because he has money-big mouth and liberal. Or should everyone that has money get more than one vote on such things. Me see I think he still should only have one vote.
The point being that to attack Buffett’s position because he doesn’t voluntarily send money to the IRS is off point and doesn’t in any way address the inequity in our tax system. Many Republicans hate big government but I don’t see them turning down government services.
Robb
Mike,
We are not a democracy we are a Republic. The whole one vote thing is not reality.
People with money have the ability to lobby for what they believe it. People without money have the same ability but are not as likely to be heard. There are many, many deep pocket Republicans and Democrats. All of them have much more influence on policy than you or me.
Cheers,
Robb
But it is alright for him to attack- challenge them to pay more than required. Sounds kinda like a double standard that is becoming the law of the land.
Just like “crandown ” is good as look as the Dems are doing the cramming!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Robb I agree more money is more influence but just because buffet flaps his yapp does not make it the law of the land- Just the ol buzzards opinion.
Double standard? Not sure I understand where that is coming from.
Buffett has said our tax policy unfairly favors the wealthy. He has given real life examples of why this by comparing his taxes to those working for him. He advocates a tax policy that does not favor the wealthy. Where is the double standard?
Many folks think that taxes are too high yet they still pay their taxes instead of what they think they should pay. Does that make them hypocrites?
Robb
I agree it is his opinion and it looks like some Democrats will try to make it law but have 0% chance of succeeding since the Republican house will not pass it.
I happen to think we should get rid of most all deductions and treat all income the same from a tax perspective. We could then lower taxes across the board. We had a much simpler tax code at one point but Congress decided to add a ton of exceptions in order to curry favor with the wealthy, the poor and the middle class.
Cheers,
Robb
“Many folks think that taxes are too high yet they still pay their taxes instead of what they think they should pay. Does that make them hypocrites?” Robb I think they pay their taxes cause they do not want to go to jail. Buffett uses every tax break in the book- if he or anybody does not like this but uses these breaks- are they not the hypocrites?
Nope just savvy business men…
To me politics suck because instead of addressing the inequity in our tax system that Buffett raises the opposition attacks Buffett. Show me evidence that the tax breaks for the wealthy are justified so we can debate the issue. Attacking the proponent of the issue simply muddies the issue being discussed. Attacking the person is the tried and true approach when you can’t defend the policy they are questioning.
Robb
Robb,
If Buffett were being honest, he would say we need to eliminate all the deductions in the tax code. Otherwise, they can raise the rates on the wealthy to 100% and still not collect a dime more.
Now Mike, you can influence policy more if you want. have a press conference, contribute (lobby / bribe) politicians.
btw – let me know when you get on tv and Youtube it somewhere and send me a link. Handling the media lokks easier than it really is.
No argument from me Ed. However I prefer some change to no change. Re-writing our entire tax policy is unlikely to happen. Tweaking our tax policy is much more likely to occur (though in this political climate it is still pretty unlikely).
Robb
I know this is an absolutely absurd thought what about SPENDING LESS………………….
I might also add with the current Administration- pretty unlikely……..
Robb,
I have reached the point where I am fed up with Washington’s half-arsed approach to everything, and that is when they actually do anything at all. The entire tax policy can be tossed out in one sentence of one bill if they want to do it. The fact is they don’t want to do it, and the Warren Buffetts of the world don’t want it done either. So they toss out this red meat Buffett tax to appease the masses, while the rich can chuckle all the way to the banks about it…
Mike,
We need to do that too. But with $16 trillion in debt, the money has to come from somewhere.
What amazes me is that I think we have a pretty broad spectrum of political ideology discussing things in this blog and yet we can come to an agreement and understanding. Why the hell can’t our politicians do the same?
We need to spend less and raise more revenue to tackle the current public debt. It is crazy that we are projecting deficit spending out to 2022. How on earth is that sustainable? I have yet to hear word one about paying down our public debt yet alone stopping deficit spending.
Unfortunately it is going to take a crisis to enact any meaningful change and don’t see that happening in the near to mid-term. Instead politicians on both sides will continue to spend money we don’t have. Whether it is in the form of aid to the needy, defense or tax breaks.
Mike the other thing to remember is that Congress sets the federal budget not the president so everyone on both sides is complicit in the over-spending.
Robb
Robb, I agree- first simplify tax- no deductions-period- 0-50K 5% 50-100K 7.5 % 100-200 K 10% above 20% No deductions Now we will save 500 billion a year just on tax lawyers and accountants cause they will be out of job. Now if these % do not make for added revenue adjust. All additional revenue goes to debt and a mandate that for this we reduce spending 2.5% a year. Robb I also agree that congress sets budget so why do we blame Bush for 6 years of Dem congress spending. We need to fire all present politicians except for the 2 sam points out working together.
“Spit blood and use it as ink” whew- bit testy here this morning. Sounds like more reaching across the aisle!!!!!!!!!!! Sounds a lot like “hard wanters” want more for less….
Where were you hiding yesterday, Mike?!!
I’m starting to look at JRCC again…
I am watching it and will post when I buy that good for nothin BK dirty ol coal company again……….. Not trading much- this market is not very suited for my style.
As I really could care less whether a politician is Republican, Democrat or Independent (there votes are generally for sale to someone), I have one question.
Have we really elected an effective President since Ronald Reagan.?
I might as well be pulling a name out of a hat in the upcoming presidential vote, as most of theirs votes are bought and paid for by someone.
Morally I do not like him but I think Clinton reached across the aisle and was an effective president. 6 years he had a Rep controlled congress and managed to govern.
I have to second Mike’s view on Clinton. He made his early mistakes, but then bounced back. As much as I didn’t like him at the time, I do have to give him begrudging respect in hindsight.
How much was a good economy part of Clintons good governing? I still look back and the computer – internet revolution was so big in the 90′s and why we had such good economic growth, etc.
(Here is why I say we need something for the 2010′s – how about green energy
“how about green energy” Sounds a lot like what the peanut farmer said- look how that turned out. How about “Drill baby Drill” They sure are liking that in ND.
Art,
One key to any good economy is the president avoids standing in the way of it. Clinton did that when he gave up on healthcare.
Undoubtedly as no one thought either Bush Sr. or Jr. were very effective, so why is everyone so adamant about having a Republican president this time around?
Sometimes it is better to have different ideologies in the White House (even it was an idependent) and Congress. Or better yet limit all elected federal employees from holding office for longer than 8 years.
I am not against either Bush but Jr could not veto any spending. 6 years democratic congress has to shoulder their share of blame for debt increase. I agree with you though Reagan was a what you see is what you get Pres. he planted the seeds for the affluence we had for decade+.
wb3355,
In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m not adamant about either the R’s or the D in the White House. I’m more than willing to try another letter of the alphabet.
Art both sides have people who don’t want to compromise. If you think back to when Reagan was in office he worked with the likes of Tip Oneil and Ted Kennedy to move stuff along.
I actually think the current tone was set right after the election. Obama and the democrats won big and on the theme of working across the aisle.,When they had the first public discussions Obama got frustrated with Eric Cantor talking about whaf the republicans wanted and he said something like I won you lost we do it my way.
Which is exactly correct but you say that behind close doors not in front of the press. It is humilating someone in front of everyone and then going to them later and needing their help. Most people wil not forget.
test
I know liberals don’t like facts to get in the way of their opinions, but here is data from the IRS that debunks the theory that the rich don’t pay their fair share.
http://johnsbytes.com/2011/08/01/how-much-taxes-are-actually-paid-by-income-level/