2001 05 14 De Rosa Keynes and Pearl Harbour Benny and Ozy macau@consilia.com 05/14/01 3:12 PM De Rosa, Keynes and Pearl Harbour David De Rosa is once more slipping into one of the basic errors of non-voodoo conservatives.In a paper dated may 13th, and dealing with Koizumi's effort to distance himself from Japanese-style keynesism, De Rosa criticizes both Bush administration and Koizumi for supporting the project of new Japanese investments in defense. The two reasons for criticizing Japan are - according to De Rosa: 1) that the project will infuriate the Chinese; 2) that Japan will slip once more into keynesian spending.I acknowledge that there's no way to be sure that the "defense investments" will not turn, in the hands of a Japanese liberal-social-nationalist, into plain deficit spending. But De Rosa himself credits Koizumi with a genuine effort to change politics. If he is cheating on weapon spending, he'll cheat on everything else: in that case, one destroyer will not destroy Japan's economy more than two more bridges or highways would do.But AKNOWLEDGING that the "new economy" (which exists, while "new economics" don't) NEEDS weapons, security, routes, is one fundamental step. New technology-based economy needs a suitable cultural, political, fiscal and geopolitical framework. It needs protection of infrastructures, but also of users [i.e.: ensuring that using an internet connection doesn't bring you to jail]. In short, it needs free society, protected ALSO by the legitimate use of force. Defending infrastructures and communications from the remnants of Communist Era Asian politics is a fundamental step. It has been wrong (and it was a not irrelevant reason of the long Japanese and Asian crisis) to think that the new economy could prosper in a context of geopolitical appeasement. This is the perfect [perfectly WRONG] corollary to the idea that the "new economy" could prosper in an anti-capitalist cultural environment. Filling the internet hype with free-lunch rhetoric was not a minor reason of the demise of tech stocks in the last year (ref: "Destruction of Language, Selling at a Loss and Moral Sanction of Book Cooking in Amazonian Tribes, Yale University Press, 2023).So, the new economy needs force. Military force too.And military force, to be legitimate, needs to be supported by political accountability. Local chains of command and regional funding and handling of weapons are a requirement of political accountability. The fact that Japan takes care of its own security IMPROVES political accountability of the military.Nobody needs a social-nationalist armed Japan. No, thanks. But the problem is social-nationalism, not weapons. If Japan is NOT swinging towards sound money and away from social-nationalism, then it should better NOT be armed. Asia doesn't need TWO imperial examples of arrogance clashing. ME, on the other side of the planet, I don't need two armed tribes clashing either.But if Japan is going to establish itself (finally, after too many lost decades) as a free-market oriented country, then it better be able to defend its legitimate interests against any "fury" (to use De Rosa's term) which the Chinese could feel against this new role of Japan.I don't think that China will be "infuriated" mainly by Japan's weapons. It will be FAR MORE "infuriated" by Japan escaping Asian tribalism, social-nationalism, protected capitalism. Dependence from foreign military protection of routes has been one of the reasons of the corruption of Japanese politics.If weapons (and the political background they need) are the corollary of a new found political accountability of Japan, that money will be well spent. It will not be deficit spending, it will be an investment financed by its own returns.How? That's next issue. But the answer is not in Nixon's handbook.2001 05 14 Political correctness is bad for your health ozy miani@consilia.com 05/14/01 5:48 PM Political correctness is bad for your health Anothere example of the paradoxes of politically correct dogmas.Let's take two (three) dogmas:1) not only homosexuality is not a problem, but transexuality is good for your health and gender-change surgery should be welfare-supported (especially in the military and police corps). An homosexcual or transgender person is by definition on the right side of the fence.2) smoke is bad. bad. bad bad bad bad. no way. bad. the smoker is by definition on the wrong side of the fence.3) theorizing that promiscuous behaviour of homosexual or transgender persons could be hazardous for health is plain nazi propaganda.Am I correct? Did I resume it correctly?Good.I just received a paper from Harris Interactive, saying that recent statistics show that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender; or is "b" for borderline?) people are "more likely to smoke than other adult people, DESPITE risks for their health". It says that the statistics clearly shows that LGBT people tend to "voluntarily take more risks for their health (by smoking)", and it "PRESCRIBES AGGRESSIVE COUNTER MARKETING" to STOP gays and lesbians from smoking.Brainwashing? therapy? loud radio advertising? leaflets in schools? door-to-door home visits at 10am on sundays? what's AGGRESSIVE marketing?And what would happen should somebody (anybody) suggest that "aggressive" marketing is used to persuade LGBT to take LESS risks in ANY other domain of their life? He would be labeled a nazi, to say the least.Paradoxes of PC.Speaking of paradoxes: the shares of Harris Interactive (HPOL) crashed 12% just after the release of the paper.Vengeance by nervous chain-smoking gay-traders?ozy miani@consilia.com 05/15/01 1:39 PM gay trading After posting my note yesterday, I was frowning upon myself because of the slighlty bigot reference to "gay traders", when I got ANOTHER paper from Harris Interactive. It was one month old: Heidi kindly found it for me. The thesis of this other research was that "lesbian,gay,bisexual and transgender people are far MORE INCLINED than the average person to day tradingand the use of online brokers".Reality extends beyond the farthest-fetched conjectures.As far as a PRESS RELEASE about a STATISTIC about TRANSEXUALISM and DAY-TRADING can be considered part of reality.2001 05 15 italian political elections. No, better: electors. ozy miani@consilia.com 05/15/01 3:19 PM italian political elections. No, better: electors. In a recent letter to clients I analyzed the politics and policy of next Italian government, with reference to the straitjackets of Eurocracy. Further analysis is in the making, and clients will receive it as usual.This is just a quick comment about the ELECTION process (which is something different from government's policy).First of all I must congratulate the usual "dog" who posts anonymous shit on this site, for his usual perfect timing in calling Italians "politically immature" last week. It's another example of his political acumen and timing.I would like to note just a couple of things. And I will not speak of politicians, I will speak of citizens and electors. This is not a praise of a future government (I am notoriously NOT in the business of praising governments). It is an assessment of the REASONS why it was voted into power.First of all, Italians voted with their wallet, and finally found the target. Even considering the huge mediatic support for Berlusconi, concentrated on the name of Berlusconi and on his party, the demise of Lega and Christian Democrats and the flat performance of Alleanza Nazionale are all indicators that this was no reactionary VOTE (again: different from populist government).I would say that after noting another aspect: the failure, on the left, of FORMER communists, and the good showing of COMMUNISTS and EUROSOCIALISTS (the Prodi niche-party, where Rutelli belongs).What does that mean?What happened, according to me, is the following: Forza Italia dared to PROMISE a rightist economic policy (repeat: "promise". Everything lies in the capability to face eurocratic straitjacket, which Berlusconi didn't dare to challenge. that's his democratic-christian flawed component).The rightist electorate voted him, and that's obvious.The leftist electorate was faced with a problem: either believing that taxing-and-spending works, and vote the communists (and part of the electorate did: hence the good showing of bertinotti's communists); OR believing in the maastritcheans gimmicks of past governments. These were the only two alternatives to the self-evident rationality of tax cuts (I have some doubts about bridges and highway-spending...). Some chose the good old tax-and-spend communist line. amen.The others, either checked their payroll and the conditions of their city hospital, or they didn't. Those who did not, didn't realize the huge amount of accounting tricks and investment spending which was used to reduce the red bottom line of italian budget. And they voted the Eurocrat group. They quit the former-communists (DS), and went straight for the blue-stars-banner-and-starry-eyes social-christian gang. Hence the votes quitting DS for "margherita".The others, the ones who realized that all the Eurocrat rhetoric amounts to huge spending cuts on investments and no spending cuts on parasitary payrolls, cuts on catgut and not on unneeded hospital nurses, etc... Well, most of these voted for Berlusconi.This means that:1) Berlusconi got votes from people who are from the left, but who are smart enough not to believe in euro-babble; many of them are employees, smarter than Confindustria eurocrats; this finally smells Thatcherian populism;2) bertinotti is right (from his point of view): the left lost because it didn't choose a clear line of opposition to a rightist policy whose appeal to electors was evident. Those who still believe that taxes are good for growth, couldn't vote for the maastrichtean gang, which taxes but doesn't deliver growth3) The former communist party (DS) was wrong because it didn't realize that the only chance, once a leftist policy forgotten, was to surrender to eurosocialism.4) The eurocrats got enough votes on the left, and will try to rein in Berlusconi regaining power on the right. This is the main political theme of next years.5) Berlusconi better realize WHO voted for him (payrolls ravaged by maastrichtean taxes and imbecile monetary policy and regulations). He succeeded where Bossi failed: in exploiting the revolt against the REAL reasons of Italian sclerosis. I am not sure he knows. If he leaves space to the euro-misery on the right too, the small people of producers will quit him. That's the biggest danger for him.Finally, one word about the pathetic show of people waiting hours to vote. This happened mainly because the abovementioned ill-conceived spending cuts [cut the essential, spend on the unnecessary... ghaaaa!!!] affected the organization of the polls. Well: this kind of cracks in the armor of apparent italian budget stabilization, are EXACTLY one of the thousand signals (trains crashing, obsolete hospitals, decaying schools) which italian moderate leftist voters noted, and which brought them to voted for the right together with the usual electoral base of business people.joe melli@consilia.com 05/15/01 5:55 PM Repeat: it's voters, not ministers Cuckoos? Here's Mr Marzano of Forza Italia: "tax reductions will happen WITHIN the Maastricht framework. Stability Pact is a reference point".Stability Pact is a bluff.Here starts the patient work by Berlusconi to lose next polls.joe melli@consilia.com 05/15/01 3:38 PM RE: italian voters. Speaking of the "maturity" of Italian voters:they fought against an awful electoral system, and they erased from the board at least 4 parties. Among these:1) the so-called "libertarians" of Emma Therese of Calcutta Bonino. Eurocrat and "liberal socialist" pretending to be a free-marketeer. It took years to Italian producers to understand, but they finally got rid of that boring lesbian. (Thanks for destroying nuclear energy in Italy and for benefiting Eni, Emma. Some pro-capitalist!). Dead for good.2)the party born from the right wing of CISL: worst italian tradition of corporatist state. Dead. 3) moralist-statist di pietro. dead.4) the greens. they will finally become a consumer-rights movement and fitness club. Not erased yet, but seriously damaged and ready for a fight for votes with the extreme left.etc.All of this, with a proportional-based electoral system? Italian voters are not "immature", they are political geniuses.CONSILIA library heidi@consilia.com 05/15/01 5:22 PM maturity Paul Samuelson. Italians will not get their promised tax cuts because Italy is not a "mature democracy". Ref. "mature" democracies, Germany, money, war and the European ideology: F. Nietzsche, "Der Wille zur Macht. Wersucht einer Umwerthung aller Werthe", 1906/1911. Contains also interesting comments about old cuckoos.CONSILIA library heidi@consilia.com 05/17/01 10:54 AM maturity Today, it's the Italian president Ciampi: "Italians voted with maturity".2001 05 15 the power of collective myths... does it exist? really? ozy miani@consilia.com 05/15/01 11:18 AM the power of collective myths... does it exist? really? Anybody who is ready to include a line about the economic and financial effect of Masako's pregnancy in his comments or strategies about Japan...... will please (if he is old enough) go back to 1993 and to the presumed "galvanizating" effect of Naruhito's marriage? What happened then? why? etc etc.This morning only I received 3 papers about the "moral" effect of the long-awaited child. On birth rates, on demography, retirement accounts, public debt and baby-supply producers, etc etc.Yesterday Beny suggested something about the geopolitical effect of Japan disengaging from tribalism and collectivistic nationalism. It could be more interesting than waiting for the grand-grandson of the Gods to stop deflation with his first *burp*.2001 05 16 forex tech + macro ozy + igor analyst@consilia.com 05/16/01 2:47 PM forex tech + macro gold recovering 270 after FED cut 2.5 points. 5 wasted months. now monitor 270/273 for confirmation of 1) usd/jpy stabilization [look at AUD/NZD/CAD + KRW] 2) yen and dollar reflation 3) eur/yen amd eur/usd floor.ozy + igor analyst@consilia.com 05/17/01 11:29 AM forex tech + macro gold struggling at 273 but on track. the confirmation by gold is part of the explanation for the "delayed" rally on US equities. mkts need real reflation of dollar and yen, and gold finally rallying is NOT a bad inflationary omen for FED intervention, but the first modest signal that, against its own will, FED is finally accomplishing something concrete. Is this enough to support a stock market rally? nope. stock markets didn't "bottom" yet. And: forex reaction is not yet on the right track. usd/jpy still unstable, yen/eur not yet on a downtrend (hence eur still flat/weak vs usd).On stock markets: flat positions, wait for exhaustion signals for new shorts.2001 05 17 Ode to a trader Thud McGuffin 05/17/01 3:41 AM Ode to a trader So there goes ShapsHe made his money and ranPerhaps Thud McGuffin 05/17/01 3:57 AM RE: Ode to a trader Shapo Shapowhere did you go?were you short were you long?take your employers for a song?this man asks for he is now boredwere your fingers on the Lehman keyboard?ozy miani@consilia.com 05/19/01 3:26 PM get a life thud: what about getting a life?let me be more specific: what about discussing the CONTENT of shapo's imbecile rants (god knows if there's stuff for fun in them), instead of just considering the possession of a bbg address like a sign of existence (or lack of)?these pages are not about character assasination. especially when assassination is not needed (buddhists are character suicides). 2001 05 19 Russia benny admiral@consilia.com 05/19/01 5:00 PM Russia 1) Russia trying to come back in the Middle East scenario;2) the first ones to give it credit: Eurolanders;3) Eastward expansion of European Union, linked to the Jewish question.4) First victim: rule of law and sound money IN Euroland and IN Russia.Again and again and again and again and again and again and again...CONSILIA library miani@consilia.com 05/20/01 10:56 AM Russia and Euro About "Euro and Russia" (both economically and geopolitically), I strongly recommend the beautiful book by John Laughland, "The Tainted Source" (Little, Brown & Co, 1997. Chapter VI includes also documents and fine analysis about Russia and its involvement Middle East and Central Asia. 2001 05 21 Gold inflation or stabilization of the monetary system? CONSILIA analyst@consilia.com 05/21/01 11:52 AM Gold: inflation or stabilization of the monetary system? For comments about gold's recent moves, contact analyst@consilia.com. Complimentary papers available.benny admin@consilia.com 05/29/01 7:27 PM what about conspiracy theories? got some funny conspiracy theories for you. among them, something about Bart shorting gold. I am checking the story. I want to know if Elvis is involved too.2001 05 25 Consilia Consirium and Lottomatica ozy miani@consilia.com 05/25/01 4:44 PM Consilia, Consirium and Lottomatica ha! caught with our hands in the cookie jar!Lottomatica won the license to manage the Italian "ejaculatio praecox" lotteries. The "Consirium" (plural "Consiria") group, which includes G-tech, failed to win the license.Coincidence? I think not.That would explain why we were so bitter about Lottomatica.2001 05 25 The europhile Wall Street Journal again...ozy miani@consilia.com 05/25/01 1:41 PM The europhile "Wall Street Journal", again... From: Ozy Miani / CONSILIA GroupTo: The Wall Street Journal editorial pageDear Sirs,your column today "Answer to Thatcher on Euro" misses the point. Unfortunately, I think that the whole position of WSJ on the Euro shares the same misunderstanding.You praise Margaret Thatcher for her accomplishments, and call her wrong just about the Euro. Like it was some kind of senile nostalgy for a juvenile lost battle. It's neither. Thatcher's position on the Euro has been one of the few examples of mature politic thought in Europe over the last decades. Exactly like were her ideas about Russia, Germany, defense, energy, rule of law, and the socialist bias of Europe.Thatcher's accomplishments have been UNIQUE in recent European history BECAUSE she went back to the basics of capitalism. She succeded for THIS reason. Among the basics of capitalism, there is sounf money. Among the basics of anticapitalism, there is money debasement. Euro was designed and created as a TOOL of money debasement by quarreling politicians whose priority are anticapitalist. The forced devaluation of the Euro, the massive gold sales, the messy procedure of appointments and decisions at the head of ECB, are ALL symptoms of BASIC anticapitalist flaws in Euro's design. And a anticapitalist government or multinational organization has NEVER defended freedom.I think THIS is what Margaret Thatcher is NOT capable of forgetting, and is not capable to keep mum about. And that's why she insists in her "error" of considering Euro a POLITICAL indicator. And a terrifying one.Thanks to her, once more, for what she did and for what she says NOW.Regards.DB savanamgt@bloomberg.net 05/29/01 11:38 AM RE: The europhile Correct as concerns euro, but the ironlady once defined Pik Botha (former ruler of South Africa)a nice person. Pik supported apartheid and opposed strongly any reform. Thatcher may be a good defender of capitalism, but if the capitalism she had in mind was the south-african type, i say "no thanks"OZYMIANI miani@consilia.com 05/30/01 12:18 AM Thatcher-bashing and european crimes 0) a little context, some facts, and some proportion. Thatcher didn't rule South Africa. She didn't rule Chile either. Last time I checked, she overtrew fascists in Argentina and started a domino changing political conditions in half of Latin America. Check the results produced in Africa, Latin America, Asia and eastern Europe by the people that Thatcher was busy fighting, and you will find that Botha, who lost his power without a war, is not the worst of evils the world had to endure in those years. "Nice man"? Uhm... send me the paper clip, please.Of course it is easier to be friends and to spend nice words in favour of Dalai Lama, Mandela, etc etc... But the leftist politician didn't support THESE people while Thatcher was premier. They supported Khomeini and Chernenko. NOW, years AFTER, they tell the tale they spent their Saturdays evenings at Olof Palme's mansion, talking peace and love. European history tells a different tale.1) there are not several kinds of capitalism. And all the "different kinds of capitalism" until now became eventually socialism. The most recent case is Euroland. Thatcher faced a still rampant Soviet Union, and had to share the burden of keeping Europe free with a bunch of Munich-style puppets and crooks (Mitterrand, Kohl, etc). She ended keeping the burden, the others kept Europe.I already heard too many times eurolanders saying "no, thanks" to "THAT kind [pronounce "thaaaat", almost barfing the "a"] of capitalism", "EXTREME kinds of capitalism", "a wild capitalism which allowed war and violence": they eventually resort to socialism.3) you cannot argue that capitalism as defended by Thatcher has been similar to what economy has been in South Africa for decades, and to what it is today (and tomorrow...).I would never trade England, even after the last dumb decade, for South Africa.So, smearing Thatcher with South Africa is a nice way to forget both Thatcher's successes and South Africa's failures.4) apartheid flourished over 30 years of british socialist or liberal-socialist governments, and ended while a tory government was in power. That's the old story of right-wing authoritarian regimes being outvoted sooner or later, and left-wing authoritarian regimes never losing power other than through a war. [Please note thta, as a former pupil of prof. Sternhell, I don't consider Nazism a right-wing regime, but a socialist+nationalist one).5) I will not discuss here the fact (which on the other hand is crucial) that europeans, who are still busy killing each other in the Balkans thanks to "communism-meeting-german-geopolitics", should shut their fucking mouths when racism, violence and dictatorship are involved.5) lack of careful thought on what Europe has been over the last 50 years (from the red decade through the 70s down to Maastricht) shows its effect dramatically whenever emotional propaganda about "European values" and presumed "European moral superiority" is challenged. Thatcher challenged (and still does) the right of european bleeding hearts to judge the West, capitalism, America, according to presumed "specif european values". That's why eurolanders still can't tolerate her.2) thatcher-phobia in Euroland (especially among well-fed state-, province- or church-controlled bankers) uses the old communist trick of character assassination through charges of racism, or of friendship with racists, or tolerance towards racists, or smokers, paedophiles, mafiosi or whatever.It is always assumed that bad people have always been on "that" side. Which is simply false.This kind of moralists never mention what the leaders of the left did in the meantime. The most serene and peaceful italian christian-democrats shaked hands with Qadafi, Khomeini, Pol Pot. Sold them weapons. Helped them to kill the thousands, the tens of thousand, the hundreds of thousands. Not to mention the extreme left. You maybe are too young to remember European comments about Tian An Men Square slaughters. And Thatcher's. You would not use cheap propaganda so easily.Easy forgetfulness of all of the above makes the litany of exorcisms of "racism, hate, unequality" by european bleeding hearts definitely pathetic.Meaning what? That politicians who slaughter and destroy law, democracy, representation and wealth and to be condoned if they are on the "right" side when "racism" is concerned. And that a politician who gave back money and power to workers and producers must be smeared because she didn't expell the South African ambassador? Did Italy expell him? Did France? Who FORCED abolitoon of apartheid? What forces? What events? The tears of the European bleeding hearts?Or the bankrupt of communism, which eased the geopolitical pressure on the strategic area of the Cape?You better follow my advice, drop the bromides, read AT LEAST the book by John Laughland about Europe, and discuss that (Europe vs Rule of law), and discuss the issues on their merit.One book. Just one. Take a weekend off internet, take a break from free-association and link-metonimia and read one book. Cover to cover. Learning politics and history by reading italian weekly magazines and watching TV will lead you nowhere.CONSILIA library ozy@consilia.com 05/30/01 1:24 PM RE: Thatcher-bashing and european crimes Documents and facts:read M. Thatcher, "The Downing Street Years", HarperCollins 1993, especially from p.512, ref: the reasons of Thatcher's decision to meet Pik Botha, her supporto for Mandela's release, and the issue of capitalism in South Africa.Will not comment it before you read it: you have got enough digests for this life.But if you find the "nice guy" part there, please underline the paragraph and post it here.db savanamgt@bloomberg.net 05/30/01 3:37 PM RE: RE: Thatcher-bashing and european crimes The Guardian (UK Daily) - 4th March 2001Although all the major exporting countries had a policy of not selling oil to South Africa, Britain under Margaret Thatcher took the lead in resisting any stronger action in the UN security council and in the Commonwealth, which included Brunei. Mrs Thatcher considered Nelson Mandela, then incarcerated on Robben Island, a terrorist and Young Conservatives campaigned for the future president of South Africa to be hanged. Daily Mail & Guardian (South African daily) - January 10, 2000Mr Mbeki's office was baffled yesterday when Margaret Thatcher insisted on paying him a "courtesy call". Mrs Thatcher is in South Africa to see her son, Mark. Mr Mandela once said "let bygones be bygones" when asked about the former prime minister's description of the ANC as terrorists. About the debate of UN on sanctions against South Africa for its apartheid ruleThe UK and US positions were one of "constructive engagement" i.e., they were premised on the basis that it would be easier to persuade South Africa to moderate its policies by persuasion rather than by sanction. Margaret Thatcher is famous for having declared that if anyone thought there would be black majority rule in South Africa, they were "living in cloud cuckoo land". Last time I checked Thatcher sent warships to the Falklands AFTER the argentinian generals invaded the isle. Far from "overthrowing the fascists" - that was a byproduct.Last time I checked Thatcher uttered her admiration for General Pinochet. When I attack Thatcher, I do it on the basis of what she said and did. I don't support my argument by using other people statements or actions. Therefore, defending Thatcher by saying that leftist politicians of Europe are even worse, doesn't increase her "standing". You know that I'm always complaining about the behavior of Europeans politicians, as concerns their views on Usa, defence, socialistic attitude. But the cold war is over. There is non need to support Thatcher at all costs in order to defend capitalism. We can defend capitalistic ideas and criticize Thatcher. Yeah yeah...I know....now you will bring out the matter of "realpolitik". Well, you know one thing? Maybe those blacks in the townships with their "passes" didn't give a damn of who was going to rule the world. When you are behind a fence, it doesn't make much difference.Regards OZYMIANI miani@consilia.com 05/30/01 5:02 PM Thatcher-phobia and wishful thinking more and more paper clips from the Guardian, mistaken for FACTS. Which they are not.Did you read the account about the relations between Thatcher and Botha, before answering? No, you had not the time. Reading and checking facts takes time.You are quoting a newspaper (Guardian!) that writes TODAY, and refers to PAST events without really investigating them.The quotes about "cuckoo land" are "famous" only to the journalist of the "Guardian". So, when you say you attack Thatcher "on the basis of what she said", you are attacking her on the basis of what "The Guardian" says.What happened in the past is read through the lenses of TODAYS opinion of the "Guardian".On the contrary, there is a lot of diplomatic material concerning the pressures Thatcher did on South Africa regarding STRUCTURAL change and HUMAN RIGHTS. She pressure Botha for the Mandela release years before he was released.You may perhaps read Thatcher writing of a "rigid and ossified South African government", incapable of seeing the future of its country. Did you read this? Of course she didn't follow the same path which was suggested by her oppositors. Who, on the other hand, didn't get such wonderful results with their strategies in the rest of Africa. Neither did they in South Africa in the 30 previous years.It is really disappointing that any reference to the opportunity of studying books instead of taking for granted any newspaper reports, upsets you.You were NEITHER in a township at that time, NOR involved in diplomacy. So you don't have the moral authority of speaking for people of the townships, NOR the authority of those who were active in diplomacy on the cold war front. THIS is why I suggest you at least EARN some credibility by studying, before gobbling more newspaper clips.Am I asking too much?Finally: Thatcher stopped the Argentinean Junta when the generals displayed their aggressivity invading the Falklands. WHEN was she supposed to intervene? Was England supposed to attack Argentina to oust its Junta on the basis on "human rights violations"? Would that have been correct? Democratic? I think not. As for your positions towards European politicians: it is gut feeling. Mixed feelings. Without a rational thinking, I don't see why I should consider it a "proof" of the rationality of your political position. Political thinking needs to think thoroughly causes and consequences. On the contrary, you abstract yourself from the constraints of causes and consequences, and propose "different" results for events. Wishful thinking. And your wishful thinking would have NEVER been able to force South Africa out of apartheid during the Cold War.In the end: of course it would be simpler for me to appease you. To tell you that the world is bad, and that all your desires could be satisfied, and that you can deal with people doing only things suitable to your refined palate. That way, I would avoid at least being called a "fascist". Which is absurd.2001 05 27 Forex and central bank intervention CONSILIA analyst@consilia.com 05/27/01 3:28 PM Forex and central bank intervention For a chat or papers on the current state of G3 central bank "coordination" and interventions, mail analyst@consilia.comThud McGuffin 05/29/01 5:16 AM RE: Forex and central bank intervention Ozy, why do you not post your thoughts here? It seems to me that the big problems you were scared about on b/berg chat are about to come home to roost. I have just got a new job...... looking forward to tucking my feet under a new table. Taking a pay cut.... but I think job security is about to come back into fashion.Thuddiekinsozy miani@consilia.com 05/29/01 9:46 AM My thoughts I post my thoughts here, pseudo-Thud. It seems to me that I posted a lot of them. But analyses and trading advice are for clients only, or available upon request by prospective clients. Consilia is not in the business of giving away ideas for free.On the other hand, I am happy to TRADE ideas, for example whem someone posts his comments here or in chat: I will openly discuss them. In that case it's not for free: it's an exchange. ref: discussions with raman and savana about monetary policy.But, for example, you never START a debate: you just wait for comments by somebody else, feeling free to comment them at leisure. And this is either 1) a platonian-socratic dialogic and psychoterapeutic approach to debate, or 2) lack of ideas.Am I in the business of psychoterapy or of feeding deplete minds? No, I am not.2001 06 02 Lottomatica 3ozy miani@consilia.com 06/02/01 3:38 PM Lottomatica / 3 You don't tell me!Failure to rise money through Lotto is one of the main concurrents in last italian budget's hole.Miss Hercenberg: next time Mr. "Context" visits us, please remember me to explain him what a metaphor is, and what's a metonymy. 2001 06 03 Tel Aviv bombing and Russia Benny admiral@consilia.com 06/03/01 1:53 PM Tel Aviv bombing and Russia Hint. jihad islamiya targets RUSSIAN clubs in Tel Aviv. Why? History + demography + external pressures. Discussion open.2001 06 09 British Pount, Irish Punt, Euro and politics igor + ozy analyst@consilia.com 06/09/01 1:10 PM British Pount, Irish Punt [?!?], Euro and politics A report on UK and Irish politics, Euro and EU will be included in the usual forex report available to clients in the restricted area of this website on sunday afternoon.Complimentary copies will be available to prospective clients: please mail sales@consilia.com.ofele fa l to meste reader analyst@consilia.com 12/31/00 12:09 AM ofele' fa' 'l to meste' schizophrenia and paranoia have two basically different logical structures. their approach to mathematics and to money is completely different. hence, a definition like "paranoid schizophrenic" suits only to journalism, not to research. Missing the difference btw the two means understanding almost nothing about "finite/infinite" in human cognition. bibliographic reference: p.87 of the 2000 mcgraw hill hardcover edition. chocolat lint no_frogalectuals_please@hotmail.com 02/15/01 7:36 PM RE: ofele' fa' 'l to meste' ok.wipe the chocolate of your face.how does your statement further the process of analysing a hedge fund or an investment manager (the context from which your statement was taken)?you will find that taken by it self and out of that context your "correction" does absolutely two things: diddle and squat. or to put it in football terms; knowledge 0: obscurantism 2.not that i don't mind critism, actually it is very welcome! but i do like it relevant,professional and to the point.as to the definition of mestie? could an activity that last year brought in many millions of US dollars ( the analysis of funds) not be considered as a mestie? what pray tell, o high wizard, is the appropiate definition of such and activity and how does one describe ignorance/stupidity/arrogance/folly/narrow-mindedness that generates such "scientific rationality"?enquiring minds look forward to an elucidation from the heights of your knowledge, o wise one!ozy miani@consilia.com Date / Time: 05/30/01 1:48 PM Subject: ofele' fa' 'l to meste' Hello Slavina.I didn't notice your posting until today. Sorry for the delay.I will respect your desire for anonymity. I understand it. If I wrote a book like yours, I would desire anonymity too.This is one of the reasons why I didn't wrote a full review of your book, and just underlined a couple of excerpts. I was not discussing hedge fund industry (you are NOT the hedge fund industry as a whole, thanks god, nor you represent it). I took a couple of excerpts that seemed to me relevant because we had just discussed, few days before my postings, your boasting of scientific knowledge.Your answer doesn't defuse my criticism.Your book is fuzzy.You want me NOT to take what you say at its literal meaning. You say that a function is not a function, a proxy is not a proxy, luck is randomness, black is white, plato is aristotle, schizophrenia is paranoia (they have OPPOSITE mental structures: it's Nietzsche versus Hegel). You say that words have no meaning except the one you want them to have. According to what? According to SOMETHING else you said ELSEWHERE. You never come to saying what you say, you always say "something else": welcome, mr Lacan, welcome, mr Derrida, welcome, mr "I read just one philosophy book, and it was french and chino-phile" (speaking of Ideograms here, not of dogs). Oh lala, a calembour! Did you like it, monsieur le structuraliste?This perpetual metonimia is wonderfully summarised when you say that I took your quotes "out of context". But I was not reviewing your book within a discussion about hedge funds: I was READING it for myself within a debate about logic.So, I chose phrases which were PERFECTLY in context.And your emphasis on "context" is the most frogallectual thesis I ever heard. It's perfectly France-late-seventies bullshit. You avoid rigour, and hope for the "whole text" to provide the meaning of each word. Boy, you are a Bartesian. Drop the "frog leg" thing, because your are shooting in your frog foot.Last but not least: as far as "meste", I quoted a Milanese proverb. It is an invitation to stick to your field of knowledge. "Meste" is not derogatory. If you think "business" is a derogatory term, you have got a problem man. But all you write shows you have got that problem. I think that, like most of "terroni" who studied in Bocconi hoping to become a business lawyer or a money manager (both way, a parasite of industry), you simply failed to grasp something essential.It is very sad the Bocconi University lost, years ago, the spirit of its founder. Who was a man of "meste".ofele fa l to meste part II the reader analyst@consilia.com 12/31/00 12:12 AM ofele' fa' 'l to meste', part II "luck" as a function of "randomness"? You must be kidding. (ibid., pp.88/89) bernoulli 2 gauss 0 , bayes 4 bernoulli 0, aristotle 1 bayes 002/09/01 7:22 PM RE: ofele' fa' 'l to meste', part II a cynic, i'm told is a person who knows the price of every thing and the value of nothing.case in point :1) your jeering quote is incorrect and out of context.luck is not a mathematical function of randomness,randomness of returns can be taken as a proxy for luckif you don't know or understand the differencebetween proxy and function in a mathematical/logicalstatement maybe you should try and point the loaded end of that trade ticket away from your wallet. may i suggest some basic reading OEd (any version)and look up Proxy, function, luck, idiot, variable, random, statistics,cretindistribution, probabiltly and moron. i think you might actually get an education no based on the cabbalistic mutterings of deadwhite frogs.life is too short to wallow in ignorance(10 dollars if you get the quote source)> > "luck" as a function of "randomness"? You must be kidding. (> ibid., pp.88/89) & so again NDX 1000 any comments Raman 04/03/01 1:52 PM & so again NDX 1000 any comments ozy [+ igor's tech references] analyst@consilia.com 04/03/01 3:03 PM RE: & so again NDX 1000 any comments yes: see my previous comment: mkt (not only ndx, but dow, nky, spxf etc) is testing the watershed levels btw a full fledged crash and a slow bear market. This allowed ndx to slide further. I still think you need dow crashing under 9700 and spxf in free fall to bring ndx 1000 soon. [to be clear: in the meantime, ndx is "just" falling. The question is: right down to 1000/500 OR a bear market including bounces, right? I say "slow bear"]specifically, nasdaq composite lost his last contact with 2000 last week, and this was a final confirmation of comp losing its residual link with the "slow bear market" 2200/2800 band. dow and spxf didn't confirm yet. So this allows ndx to fake bounces towards 2000 (in case of euphoria, look for 2200. stay short, square when your "system" or whatever says to square, sell 2000 first with tight stops and heavily short 2200). Use SPXF and Dow as oscillators (around 10000 and 145/150) in order to distinguish crashes from slow falls and bounces from rallys.Ie (now jow will hit me): spxf holding 148 is not a crash signal yet. when it bounced from 130 it was a no-crash signal (not a buy one); and so on. No direct correlation btw spxf MOVES and NDX direction. Use the former as an oscillator and the latter as a directional. I understand this is a bit difficult for the imbecile friend of jason shapiro who daily visits our chat (and who still clings to banks because they "outperform"), but the sad truth is that worked since 1999.All this, until fundamentals change. hehe.As for the macro scenario this involves: institutional interventions tried to halt nky slide, but the deflation case is running wild: forex scenario is not any better than it was when we last discussed it. In short: it's still slow and durable bear market, with forex and commodities adding pressure. BUT this added pressure doesn't help a "quick" crash solution.The paradox is: graver global conditions don't increase the likelyhood of a quick crash. They just warrant a deeper and longer bear.A death of thousand knives, then.ozy miani@consilia.com 04/03/01 8:46 PM now or later? uhm... well... spxf sub 145 after all... but above 142...[*thump!* that was joe hitting me]; dow still just a day off 9700...it's like 99 analysts jumping through the windows: a good startand I still hold to the slow bear story.in the meantime: forex trying to escape the worst (=usd/gold slowing: a vague hint by yen/eur: don't trust it yet; usd/dem above 2.15 is still bad). sit tight.come on...Berkeley Square risks to sink ozy miani@consilia.com 04/22/01 11:45 AM Berkeley Square risks to sink Red alert!Prince Alwaleed bought Berkeley Square.Considering he is the man who bought Amazon.com at 80+, prudence may suggest to carefully avoid the site, just in case the square decides to sink (... er... better: "to correct its previous excesses").Cluelessness Consilia library heidi@consilia.com 05/12/01 1:29 PM Cluelessness There are no stupid questions.But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.Lottomatica, amoebas and fractals ozy miani@consilia.com 05/11/01 1:48 PM Lottomatica, amoebas and fractals Read the prospectus.Basically, we are talking about the floating of a tax collector [ask heidi@consilia.com for a copy of my researchpapers about "lotto" and fractals, in the early 90s].So, Lottomatica shares are presumed to be as strong and sure as a BTP, and have all the technological content of a porn-website self-referential search engine.In this regard, this IPO seems to have both the magic appeal of an econophysics pet, and the sound-money strenght of a government agency.How could I not recommend it?It will give some volatility to a conservative bond portofolio, and will ballast a speculative one.Strong buy, hold forever, hold tight.webmaster heidi@consilia.com 05/11/01 9:57 PM Note for readers As happens every three or four months, Dogshit Anonymous saw a posting by Ozy. He didn't read it, he fired without aiming. And he got it wrong. Then, when exposed. He tried to get away by answering in private. And finally, when cornered, went ballistic. Enjoy the reading.randy waterhouse dogandfools@hotmail.com 05/11/01 7:57 PM RE: Lottomatica, amoebas and fractals boy that sounds impressive!but what is the transaltion, in intelligible english, please?does it mean sould i not buy buy what olivetti is selling? aka if its such a good deal why is the hopa gang selling to the hoipolloi? or are we just supposed to admire the desity of obfuscation and words per line?btw compare financial proforma's and valuations btween gtech and lottomatica. btw2 lottomaticais not a tax collector per se its an AGENT for the taxing entity (as is gtech) one of those minorniggeling details that seperate brilliance from bs.still, we agree, a dog is a dog is a dog and a dog by any other name will never smell that sweet (willingly misquoted with no shame)Arf, arfozy miani@consilia.com 05/11/01 8:34 PM mad dogs, englishmen and amoebae If you can't understand what "buy and hold FOREVER" means, and if you need a translation for "hold tight", I definitely can't help you, Lassie.Next: a tax collector is an agent for the taxing authority, he is not the taxing authority itself. Ever heard of one St Mathew? [This is for Jude and Wayne: see? recent theological discussions almost convinced me. I would make one hell of a Christian if I tried. Hold on, sit tight near the phone. I'll tell you when the time is ripe].Next: is it so obvious that state lottery is a form of taxation? It is for me. It certainly is for you, genius. It is not in Lottomatica's prospect nor was emphasized in their roadshow. Not that you must feel obliged to read those papers (even if THIS was the object of my comment). They included car tax collection as one of brightest business prospects for Lottomatica. Is this the same business as GTK is running?Next. Does your portfolio needs "ballast"? Your choice. If you need some weight to keep your portfolio (and your head) nailed to this earth, may I strongly suggest you two copies of latest edition of Webster's Dictionary? You could use one, next time, before - indeed - "confusing brilliance and dogshit" (or godshit, with reference to Jude, Wayne and Mathew).randy waterhouse dogandfools@hotmail.com 05/11/01 9:28 PM RE: mad dogs, englishmen and amoebae for gravitas,in non portfolio matters, use oed not webster. still it's instructive to look up sovreign, collector and agent in any dictionary.it helps to keeps the parts straight, if you reallycan restrain that deconstruct instinct in favour of clear thinking.with the central premise of the rebutal disposed, and the consensus that lottomaticais a goodbye in monetary terms. there is really not more more to say.slavina the dog-shitter dongandfools@hotmail.com 05/11/01 9:27 PM The reply I didn't dare to post publicly (dog or chicken?) old habits never die i see; if you can dazzle then baffle. the sovreign is the taxing authority, the collector is the lottery, lottomatica is the agent for the collector. simple logic: warm fuzzy thinking. as for the rest. buy gtech (or of that ilk) short lottomatica, a beautiful pairs trade.you will note i did not request you paper on fractals and lotteries . i know better.as for the amoeba and english men, well none here!btw only neweconomy ignoramuses use webster's dictionary, if you need gvavitas in non portfolio matters keep it in mind.ozy miani@consilia.com 05/11/01 9:29 PM Bocconi and Cagnoni, 'na massa de cojoni well, I began my day suggesting sarcastically not to buy lottomatica. I end my day listening to you suggesting the same thing, but insulting me for doing it.true: the old habits don't die. You are an imbecile.ozy miani@consilia.com 05/11/01 9:32 PM oh, between the sovereign is the taxing authority,the lottery is the tax lottomatica is the tax collector having been delegated the whole tax-collecting apparatus.Again: imbecile.randywaterhouse 05/11/01 9:34 PM RE: oh, between you file your tax forms on a lottomatica machine? ozy miani@consilia.com 05/11/01 9:37 PM let's explain the guy how lotteries work let me explain to you:1 million people pay 1 dollar for the lotterythe state takes half of it, gives a percentage to lottomaticathe other half is the prizes.the withdrawn half is a TAX.I don't pay taxes at a lottomatica machine because I don't play lotteries.Imbecile.randy 05/11/01 9:46 PM RE: let's explain the guy how lotteries work to err is human to persist is diabolical.sovreign says i need money===> taxesthe may i sovreign collect taxes are things like: vat, consumption tax, wage tax profit tax and yes lottery those things and those people and entitiesthat are responsible for enforcing are the collectorsthe people who act on wehalf of the collectors : ie ins, irs, and lotto matica re agents.proof try calling an ins or irs agent collecors and seewhat happens in you audittsk tskgo to bed mon p'tit pauvre.ozy miani@consilia.com 05/11/01 9:52 PM again: let's try to explain the guy how taxes work Lottery is a hidden tax (just like inflation induced by public debt is one).Lottery is a tax on misery and ignorance. It is the best exemple of the ESSENCE of arbitrary taxes.Lottomatica is then a tax collector, WITHOUT the (modest) accountability which belong to the IRS man. who, at least, declares is is collecting a tax.Reduce intoxicating doses, forget your Bocchini studies and start reading something serious about economics. Imbecileozy miani@consilia.com 05/12/01 1:22 PM amoebae, lotteries and thought The reference to amoebae concerned A.K. Dewdney's FLIBs. For studies about lottery results, FLIBs and financial market forecasting, see Dewdney's bibliography. And mine.On the other hand, all a dog needs to know about amoebae is: "no problem, go on drinking from the toilet bowl: you will find plenty of places around to drop your shit".But not here, thanks.love is a many splendored thing ozy miani@consilia.com 04/04/01 10:45 AM love is a many splendored thing What about this: Mr Bong Bong's column this morning is dedicated to his love: "Lower Lows".Bong Bong, Low Low, Chow Chow... Michelin / Concorde veronica hushhush@consilia.com 04/27/01 12:34 PM Michelin / Concorde Ozy will separately entertain you on the Euro/USA new-concorde new-jumbo controversy.Me, I'd just like to stress some interesting details:1) Concorde burnt and fell because a Michelin tyre blew off. Fact.2) Concorde test flights were stopped until Michelin won its first Formula 1 Grand Prix. 3) The Concorde fly tests with Michelin tyres resumed the day after Ralph Schumacher won in Imola the first F1 Grand Priz with Michelin tyres. Coincidence? I think not.4) The tests in Imola unfortunately proved only that Michelin tyres can RUN. Now, a new problem is seriously harming the resumption of the Concorde program.6) the Alboreto test with Michelin tyres in Lausitzring in fact proved that Michelin tyres CAN effectively assist the TAKE-OFF. The takeoff was perfect.But the tyres performed poorly in the LANDING phase.I think that this could be anothere important variable in the debate about Concorde, and the "high-speed, light load" vs "low speed - heavy load" civil aviation debate.Mike the Bike would love this consilia library heidi@consilia.com 04/04/01 8:23 PM Mike the Bike would love this Quote from Fox News, april 4th, 2001Authors: Cherie Grzech and Steve BrownWOODBURY, Minn. - A Minnesota teen-ager told he couldn't wear a sweatshirt with the words "Straight Pride" on it because it was offensive to some students at a public high school has sued the school district in federal court claiming his free speech rights were violated.Elliott Chambers, a 16-year-old student at Woodbury High School outside St. Paul, says he was called into the school principal's office in January and told the shirt was not allowed in school because it was offensive to gay, lesbian and bisexual students.The sweatshirt carried the trademarked logo "Straight Pride" on the front, and the stick-figure symbols of a man and woman holding hands on the back."A student actually approached me and she said she was offended by my shirt and some of her friends were offended by the shirt and she didn't want me to wear it anymore," Chambers told Fox News. "She said if I continued to wear it, she would go to the principal and he would deal with me."The principal told Chambers he couldn't wear the shirt "because of the recent racial violence at our school, and that it might incite straight-versus-homosexual violence," he recalled.Officials at the school district have declined to comment on the case other than to say principal Dana Babbitt, a co-defendant in the case, was trying to keep his school safe.In wearing the shirt, Chambers said he did not intend to insult anyone. "It's not meant to bash gays or anything like that at all," he said. "It's just a simple shirt that says 'Hey...I have pride in being straight.'"But others at the school interpreted it differently.Paula Borochoff, a special education teacher, told Fox News that the shirt is a form of harassment that should be banned. The language makes gay or lesbian students, or those with gay or lesbian family members, uncomfortable, she said."It's just like kids can't wear racially unethical things or they can't come to school with sweatshirts that advertise beer," Borochoff said. "I think that in order to make the school comfortable for everybody, school principals have an obligation to ban things like that that are hurtful to other people."The school attempts to foster an atmosphere of tolerance by displaying inverted pink triangles around designated "safe" areas of the school. The "safe" areas are set aside for student/teacher discussion and counseling regarding homosexuality and other non-traditional relationships.joe melli@consilia.com 04/04/01 8:30 PM Babbit? The name of the principal is "Babbit"? "Babbit" as in "Babbit"? Are you sure it is not a typo? Babbit.Dana Babbit.Sounds fine.Shorter than - say - "Lorena Babbit".Mikey B and Slick Willie Veronica-Lynn hushhush@consilia.com 04/02/01 11:24 PM Mikey B. and Slick Willie They ask to one man to define what sex is. He answers: "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is".Another man is faced with people talking about sex, and says "I don't know why they use such dirty words. One word is worth another".Apart from some evident influence by the worst XX century linguistic theories, what else may these two men have in common?No, silly man: it's not a "political future in NYC". Try again...ozy miani@consilia.com 04/02/01 11:46 PM Mikey B. and Slick Willie are you trying to suggest that they both could be in the business of finding new ways to use the words "sex" and "office" in the same sentence? I told you: we faced the best two french semioticians after Derrida and Jerry Lewis. The yahoooo oooing '90s were tailor-made for people like that.thud mcguffin 04/05/01 4:23 AM RE: Mikey B. and Slick Willie EH??????????????hush hush hushhush@consilia.com 04/05/01 3:42 PM Truth, sex, words You don't pay attention to the serious news, Thud. You let Nasquack to distract you too much.That Sanctimonious Man, who was so shocked by the sexual references used in chatlines that he chose to introduce a censorship software, settled a sexual harassment lawsuit (of course, aknowledging NOTHING. But paying for it). This happened some months ago. But what happened in the past few days is that somebody reminded him the problem, and - in order to defuse a time-bomb in his political career - he VOLUNTARILY underwent a lie detector test, administered by a friend who is a former FBI officer. ("Former" as in "former police officer turned thug". More or less the lowest level in moral hyerarchy).The issue at stake is once again the immense hypocrisy of the liberal politically correct establishment. And the funny mix of moralism, perversion and morbid interest for police procedures (especially federal police: ATF, FBI etc), which generated both Janet Reno's monsters and Patricia Caldwell's novels (one hymn to the politically correct police state).Uhm...What kind of truth does this man follow: one which escapes decency (--> harassment)... but seeks refuge in a "lie detector"?[Funny: machines, lies, truth and sexuality. The same ingredients of Turing's saga].ozy miani@consilia.com 04/05/01 3:52 PM Truth, sex, words In other terms ["one word is worth another", after all, isn't it?]: "I NEVER HAD CYBERSEX ON ABBG TERMINAL WITH THAT WOMAN".And "I cyber-swear it".Monetary system ozy miani@consilia.com 04/27/01 12:46 PM Monetary system Hayami gone. Good.Greenspan next, pls.Shell nigeria davide bendinelli dbend@bloomberg.net 04/02/01 5:44 PM shell/nigeria As concerns the Shell/Delta people issue (Delta is one among several states of Nigeria, which is a federation; oil is extraced in the Delta region)I'm collecting:1) The Delta people argument2) The Shell argumentThis will take me a bit of time, so as soon as I've finished the work I will be back with some words about it.For the moment, let me say only one thing: the issue is being debated in USA because there is a law there stating that international issues having to do with human rights may be put on trial there, disregarding the nationality of the parties on trial. A trial against Shell already occurred in 97 in europe, shell won it. Hence a new action against the company in "neutral" territory.One thing should be clear I think. In order to understand the issue, we mustn't confuse Shell role with the nigerian government role. A trial against Shell must be attempted as regards: * Shell aid in providing weapons to the nigerian army* Shell role in polluting the delta regionThe trail mustn't be put on the basis of Shell not providing infrastructures like schools, roads, electrification of the villages. Those infrastructures must be provided by NIgeria, not by Shell. Except if the agreement of oil exploitation includes also the building of roads...etc. In short, let's not confuse nigerian army brutal methods with Shell. davide bendinelli dbend@bloomberg.net 04/05/01 12:22 PM nigerian history To understand better what is at stake in the oil issue, here is a brief summary of nigerian history. It emphasizes the struggle between ethnic groups and the federation concerning the sharing of oil wealth.A brief overview of recent nigerian history: the link between the creation of states and the distribution of oil wealthThe boundaries of the territory now known as Nigeria were first defined in 1907. Nigeria itself was brought for the first time under one government in 1914 by the amalgamation of two British colonial protectorates. Although the country was in theory ruled as a single unit, in practice the northern and southern parts of the country were administered by the British as distinct entities .Only in 1954 did Nigeria became a true federation with a central government, including a Federal House ofRepresentatives (responsible for foreign relations, defense, the police, overall aspects of trade and finance policy, and major transport and communications issues), and three constituent components with a large degree of autonomy in all other matters: the Northern, Western, and Eastern RegionsAt independence, the Western Region was the richest, as a result of the presence of the capital and port of Lagos, cocoa production, and much of the industrial development in Nigeria, as well as early access to education. The Eastern Region, economically dependent on palm oil production, already suffered substantial population pressure on the available land and depended on food imports. The Northern Region was larger in population and area than the other regions combined, but was also the poorest and least educated. In each of these three regions, a majority ethnic group constituted about two-thirds of the population, the Hausa-Fulani in the north, the Yoruba in the west, and the Igbo in the east; the remaining third being made up of various minority groups. In the absence of an indigenous or even colonial tradition of political unity, ethnic loyalties became the dominant force in political organization; as a consequence, the minority groups, of which there may be 250 or more in Nigeria, were in practice politically subordinated to their larger neighbors. The tripartite structure of colonial rule was thus inherited by the new government at independence in 1960, reflecting and reinforcing the political dominance of Nigeria's three major ethnic groups.Minority groups remained convinced that the creation of new states in which they would be majorities would improve their political and economic status. As early as 1963 a new constitution was adopted and the Western Region was divided into two, with the creation of the Mid-West Region, giving autonomous status to the two administrative districts whereYorubas were not in a majority. The first military coup of January 1966, in which northern Prime Minister Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa was killed and which brought Maj.-Gen. Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, an Igbo, to power saw a brief and disastrous attempt to create a unified state, with the abolition of the federal system. The immediate reaction fromthe north, threatened by the southern dominance that would result from centralized government on a unified basis, resulted in a July counter-coup staged by junior northern army officers, which brought Lt.-Col. (later Gen.) Yakubu Gowon to power at federal level. In May 1967, Gowon announced that the four regions would be abolished and replaced by a new federal system based on twelve states, which sought to address the concerns of minority groups and thus increase their support for the federation, while at the same time breaking down the powers of the regions. The Igbos' loss of central political power was thus exacerbated by the creation in the Niger Delta of Rivers State, which cut off the Igbo heartland from direct access to the sea and gave control of Port Harcourt, an important port at the beginning of its oil boom where there were substantial Igbo commercial interests, to a new state government. Shortly after the announcement of the new state system, in May 1967, the secession of Biafra was declared by the military governor of the former Eastern Region, Lt.-Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu. The civil war of 1967 to 1970, lost by the secessionists, increased the strength of federal government and the centralization of power. The creation of the twelve state system, which came into effect in April 1968, began an (as yet) endless process of alteration to the system of revenue allocation in the federation between central and state governments and among the states. Increasingly, states contributed their revenues to a Distributable Pool Account (DPA) at federal level, shared out on the basis of population, need and other criteria, while the "derivation principle," by which revenues were spent in the geographical area from which they were derived, was downgraded. Federal expenditure came to dominate state expenditure:In 1967, when the new states were created, mining rents and royalties were split 15 percent to the federal government, 35 percent to the DPA, and 50 percent on a derivation basis. From 1971, the federal government introduced a distinction between onshore and offshore rents and royalties, taking 100 percent ofoffshore revenue itselfIn 1975, with the arrival of massively increased oil revenues following the OPEC price rise of 1973, the share of onshore revenue paid to the state of origin was reduced to 20 percent, while the federal government was to pay its entire share of on and offshore revenue into the DPA. In 1979, the derivation principle was dropped altogether in favor of a Special Account for mineral producing areas.The influx of cash placed strong pressures on the government to increase public expenditure in line with increased revenue: total federal expenditure increased by a massive 100 percent in 1974, and doubled again the next year. In contrast to expenditure from taxation receipts, this bonanza from "rental" income brought no political pressures for accountability in the use of public funds; rather, it brought greater demands for money to be spent on patronage without thought as to its best allocation. Following a pattern common to many states dependent on extractive industries for their revenue, the non-oil sector of the economy in Nigeria, including agriculture, was neglected and steadily declined: Nigeria shifted from being an exporter of agricultural products to being a major importer of food. States became increasingly dependent on federal allocations, financial discipline and accounting deteriorated rapidly, and levels of imports and expenditure reached unsustainable levels. In the context of the weak political institutions of a newly independent and deeply divided state, there was little chance that any economiccontrol could be exercised. Politics instead revolved around the "distributive" concerns generated by expenditure of the oil wealth. In July 1975, Gowon was overthrown by a fresh and bloodless coup, which installed the six-month administration of Gen. Murtala Mohammed, before he was killed in an abortive coup attempt and succeeded by his deputy, Lt.-Gen. Olusegun ObasanjoIn February 1976, the Murtala Mohammed government increased the number of states to nineteen, adding four in the north, two in the south west, and one in the south east. In 1979, the Obasanjo regime handed over power to the civilian government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari.The 1979 constitution provided for an executive president, on the U.S. model (by comparison with the parliamentary system of the First Republic), and introduced, for the first time in an explicit way, the concept of the "federal character" of the government, by which was meant the requirement that "there shall be no predominance of persons from a few States or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in [the federal] government or in any of its agencies." The president was required to appoint at least one minister from each state, and this effectively ethnically-based principle of office-sharing was duplicated at other levels of government. The period of civilian rule saw a loss of power from the federal government to the statesAfter much political debate and conflict, a new formula finally came into effect in 1982, giving the federal government 55 percent, states 30.5 percent, local governments 10 percent, and-in a concession to the demands of the oil rich states since the derivation principle had been abolished in 1979-4.5 percent to be split three ways for the benefit of the oil producing communities (1 percent to respond to the ecological problems caused by oil production, 2 percent to go into the accounts of the mineral-producing states on a derivation principle, and 1.5 percent directly for the development of mineral-producing areas). All revenue from offshore production went to the federal government. The debate around revenue allocation from the center itself generated campaigns for the creation of new states (and new local government areas), as local politicians sought to benefit from the patronage that resulted from distributing revenue at state level. At the same time, financial controls on government spending declined yet further. The government took no steps to guard against future revenue falls by investing abroad or creating an oil stabilization fund. Currency appreciation and domestic inflation made local industries uncompetitive internationally and boosted imports, leading to balance of payments difficulties during oil-induced recessions in 1978-79 and from 1981 until the early 1990s. Expenditure rapidly outpaced income, and, with oil price slumps in the early 1980s, external debt more than doubled from 1980 to 1985. The oil price fell from around U.S.$32 per barrel in 1981 to approximately U.S.$13 per barrel in 1986, and Nigeria's gross national product (GNP) fell from a high of U.S.$99,539 million in 1980 to a low of U.S.$24,341 million in 1987. In the same year, the ratio of debt to GNP reached 112.8 percent. This boom and bust cycle contributed to political instability: in January 1984, military officers again put an end to civilian rule, and installed a fresh military regime under Maj.-Gen. Mohammadu BuhariBuhari in turn was overthrown by Gen. Ibrahim Babangida in August 1985, who early on promised a return to civilian rule. As the transition program was repeatedly extended, and with it the competition for future revenue share and agitation for more states, Babangida raised the number of states by two,to twenty-one, in 1989 and by another nine, to thirty, in 1991In June 1993, the presidential elections which were to be the culmination of the transition program were annulled, when it became clear that Moshood. K.O. Abiola, a Yoruba from the southwest, was going to win. An interim government was put in place, itself overthrown by yet another coup in November 1993, which installed General Sani Abacha in power. In October 1996, General Abacha increased the number of states yet again, to thirty-six, at the same time increasing the number of local government areas by 183 to 776 In July 1998, following the death of Abacha, the new head of state Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar announced that the Abacha transition program would be scrapped. In determining the new ditribution formula, the National Assembly took into account allocation principles especially those of Population, Equality of States, Internal Revenue Generation, Land Mass, Terrain, as well as Population Density, provided that the principle of derivation shall be constantly reflected in any approved formula as being not less than 13 percent of the revenue accruing to the Federation . Although the allocation of 13 percent of oil revenue to the states from which it is derived represent a marked return to earlier patterns of revenue allocation,it is not clear that the allocation would directly benefit the communities in which the oil is produced, rather than the state governments in the oil producing areas, where the money would likely be used for patronage rather than development.The Nigerian political economy has come to depend on a spectacular system of corruption, involving systematic kickbacks for the award of contracts, special bank accounts in the control of the presidency, allocation of oil or refined products to the politically loyal to sell for personal profit, and sweeteners for a whole range of political favors. Decisions relating to oil contracts were hyper-centralized in the president's office to ensure that the benefits involved went only to political supporters. Nigeria's politics revolve about the distribution of the oil money, whether officially (in the form of debates over revenue allocation) or unofficially (as military and civilian politicians seek favor with those in a position to reward them with opportunities to "chop" money from contracts), and as long as the oil flows it will be difficult to overcome this legacy.Since 1999 Obasanjo is back in power, elected in the first democratic election since almost indipendence. Obasanjo is above ethnicity, he's a Yoruba, but he fought against Igbo during Biafra wars. He's not a northenerbut he's well accepted by the North because he's perceived as a president not favouring the South. He's really a federal president, not an ethnic or state president. For teh moment he's still trying to mend the disasters provoked during the Abacha's years. Nigeria is really more democratic compared to a few years ago. Police and the army aren't arrogant and above law as before. Still some problems loom. Igbos are already claiming that next president should be chosen among them, showing that the concept of federation is not penetrating well, and the oil wealth distribution system is under siege. In February 2001 at Lagos University protests by students ended bloodily, with 13 students shot dead by police. These are just a few examples showing that in Nigeria the situation is better but still "hot".ozy miani@consilia.com 04/02/01 5:51 PM shell/nigeria I had your comment reposted here as the start for a new discussion, because the quarrel about ranin55@yahoo.fall was frankly pathetic. I'd have something to say about the "neutral territory" issue, and the separation between the "school-infrastructure" issue and the "military" issue. But I will keep my foul mouth shut for now. We'll leave this space open, waiting for Davide's research and hopefully for some comments by Beny, who's our Empire-fighter in chief (ex Russia and Germany, which are my territory).Singles Petition Dipuc 04/30/01 10:31 PM Singles Petition We would like your help in making Dipuc Day, August 14, a day to celebrate independence not co-dependence, an honorary holiday. Dipuc Day (Cupid spelled backward) is 6 months from Valentine's Day.For years the single population of the United States has looked upon February 14 with dread. It is a day that symbolizes companionship and love, which for many single people is a cruel reminder of what they have yet to find.August 14 is a day for single people to rejoice in their independence and enjoy the company of friends in celebration of who they are instead of to whom they are attached.Dipuc Day is also a day for employees with families to show appreciation for their single co-workers who perhaps covered for them so they could take maternity leave, pick up a sick child or spend the holidays with their family.So please, I beg you, go onto my site (www.dipuc.com) and sign the petition for Dipuc Day. We deserve to have our own special day to celebrate independence not co-dependence, just as much as those who celebrate Valentine's Day.http://www.dipuc.comRaman 05/01/01 10:44 AM RE: Singles Petition P^ss off webmaster heidi@consilia.com 05/02/01 10:36 AM RE: RE: Singles Petition Hello Mr Raman. The boss told be to erase Dipuc'c posting because it is a spam. But I left it here expressly for you.I am sorry it pissed you off.Do you want me to erase it?I'd do it for You.Thud McGuffin 05/03/01 3:12 AM RE: RE: RE: Singles Petition Heidi,I love you.:) Heidi heidi@consilia.com 05/03/01 10:11 AM Singles Why Sir... blush!!! Thud McGuffin 05/04/01 3:45 AM RE: Singles Any lady who can cope with Mr. Miani's outbursts deserves my outmost respect.Yours,"Thuddie" ozy miani@consilia.com 05/04/01 10:06 AM Singles Do you "respect" women, Thuddie?Hu-ho. Thud McGuffin 05/04/01 3:47 AM RE: RE: Singles er.......... that's utmost but the sentiment's the same. THE GREASING OF AMERICA Ranin ranin55@yahoo.com 04/01/01 12:30 PM THE GREASING OF AMERICA Most people agree that under the new administration the gap between rich and poor will widen. The already schrinking middle class may eventually disappear altogether. There are thousands of families that are below poverty level even though both parents work full time jobs for minimum wages. This is particularly a problem in the immigrant community where minimum wage service positions in retail, fast food and restaurants have replaced seasonal agriculture work. Most Midwestern urban areas have experienced a large increase in the immigrant population with sometimes up to 15 people sharing an apartmrnt. Sometimes they will work a 100 hours a week at several of these low paying jobs and send most fthe money back to their respective countries. Their economies benefit, ours doesn't. Wage Slavery does exist in America and it is a little known, but serious problem. There are a couple of excellent books on the subject: 'Fast Food Nation' by Eric Schlosser, an award winning investigative journalist, and 'Out To Lunch' by Walt Crocker, a dark, sometimes funny book that examines the issue from a unique, personal perspective. ozy miani@consilia.com 04/03/01 8:48 AM White trash "most people know"? Most who? But let me keep it brief. That's the intellectual equivalent of white trash. I seriously object to the idea that we should leave postings like that on this forum just because they contain references to books or to issues that in different terms could be of interest. Spamming bromides under the "most people know" banner is no debate. That's a spam posting which appeared on several boards. Ranin wasn't here to reply to comments to his posting. So that's just graffiti. And it is especially irritating because this arrogant use of other people's space comes within weeks from the Horowitz case, where ranin55-like militants couldn't just stand the heat of having their ideas discussed. THAT happens to ...er... "most" people.Ranin narrowly escapes deletion because he signed the message. Not because he is WARRANTED free access anywhere, as he might think ("free" as in "free lunch" I mean, nit "free" as in "freedom").So, will Ranin and anybody interested in the issue under such terms please go elsewhere and debate it?This is true also for the Anonymous who replied to Ranin. Please choose some PC campus and have your dogfight there.All this is just to avoid simply erasing ranin's posting. The truth behind April fool preppmaster 04/04/01 1:50 PM The truth behind April fool Subject: The Truth behind April fool> > Assalam-o-Alaikum,Read this , its about us (the muslims).Most of us> >celebrate April fool day every year and fool each other.Isn't it?But how >many>of us know the bitter facts hidden behind it. It was around a thousand>years>ago that Spain was ruled by Muslims. The Muslim power in Spain was so>strong>that it couldn't be>destroyed. The Christians of the west wished to wipe out Islam from all>parts>of the world and they did succeed to quite an extent. But when they>tried to>eliminate Islam in Spain and conquer it they failed. They tried several>times>but never succeeded.>>The unbelievers then sent their spies in Spain to study the Muslims>there and>find out what was the power they possessed and they found that they were>not>just Muslims but they were practicing Muslims. They not only read the>Quran but>also acted upon it.e.g. the quran said "Alghina o shiddu minaz zina" i.e>Music>is worse than zina. They>also practiced it they said no to Music, they said no to beer wine and>all the>other things forbidden in Islam. If they read about Hijab in the Holy>Quran>they practiced it too unlike most of us today. (Faith without Practice>is disastrous-Hadith), so let us join handsand promise to become true>practicing>Muslims.>>When the Christians found the power of the Muslims they started thinking>of>strategies to break this power. So they started sending alcohols and>cigarettes>to Spain free of cost. This technique of the west worked out and it>started>weakening the faith of the Muslims in particular the young generation of>Spain.>>The result was that the Catholics of the west wiped out Islam and>conquered the>entire Spain bringing an end to the EIGHT HUNDRED LONG RULE OF THE>MUSLIMS in>Spain. The last fall of the Muslims was the Grenada(Ghornata) fall>which was on>the 1st of April. And from that year onwards every year they celebrate>fools>day on the 1st ofApril, that they made the Muslims fool on this day and>we the>Muslims were fooled by the unbelievers on this day which they now>celebrate as>April fool day. Dear brothers and sisters why are we celebrating our own>foolishness,our own downfall, why? The answer is due to ignorance,>right?>None of us knew about it or else we would have never celebrate this day>we would>never have celebrated our own downfall. So now we be aware of it and>now lets>promise that we shall never celebrate this day andshall try to become>practicing>Muslims but never lose our faith like the people of Spain did.ozy miani@consilia.com 04/04/01 3:09 PM The truth behind April fool For the sake of memory of the great years when the Jews and the Moors made Spain great, before Isabela the Bitch slaughtered them both, I'd have something to say:the problem is you muslims are really a bunch of fools.lehitraot, Prepozy miani@consilia.com 04/04/01 3:17 PM more fools [and I will share a secret with you too: swiss gay muslisms are the foolest fools around] UK House prices Raman 04/03/01 6:31 PM UK House prices Any thoughts as to the knock on effects of mkt and potential recession to house prices?Does anyone see a late 1980's heidi heidi@consilia.com 04/03/01 6:54 PM RE: UK House prices I just hope in a Japan-like house price crash. The rent is killing me.ozy miani@consilia.com 04/04/01 1:27 PM love nest the rent? This girls' paycheck is killing ME. US GDP and macro ozy miani@consilia.com 04/27/01 3:14 PM US GDP and macro 1) the paradox is: economy didn't "bottom" in Q1, after all. As somebody said about SOX: "it hit 190 during 1998 slump. It hit a 480 low during april 2001: some bottom!".2) monetary side of GDP+mkt reaction. usd/jpy was finally beginning to get support from gold. The more gold supports yen fall and metal bounce, the better chances are for a reflation of yen and dollar, without severe inflationary risks ("stagflation" said somebody here recently). The difference between reflation and inflation lies in the money/commodities relation. That's where the mindset of FED and BOJ (and of BCE) is crucial.Inverse proof: AUD and NZD hit hard by the long yen rally then paralysis in 1999/2000. then HIT again by usd/jpy bounce LACKING support by gold. Now gold tries to catch up with usd/jpy, and AUD tries to stabilize. Baby steps. Pls try harder: that's the right path.3) news from Japan are interesting. The need to gather public support for "new policies" will make management of yen still more of an issue. May I suggest: aim for real stabilization (i.e.: reflation) instead of bergsten/rubin/sakakibara nominal exchange rate targeting. May I?4) if all of the above is forgotten, Q1 GDP is just another wind-up of the tick-bomb for stock markets and forex alike.ozy miani@consilia.com 04/27/01 3:26 PM RE: US GDP and macro oh, I forgot:is IMF singing the right tune, for once? Nope, it's not. Unfortunately.What's even more unfortunate, is the fact that Dubya's team seems in no hurry to get rid of the devaluation gangsters.USA and global bounce V W S L etc etc ozy miani@consilia.com 04/20/01 1:08 PM USA and global bounce: V, W, S, L etc etc Now it's the time for a interesting test of some ideas I floated in the past few months.1) first test: feedback effect on FED and real rates of a "V" bounce of stock market and of earnings expectations (uhm...);2) attempt at dollar and yen reflation, gold bounce. And its effect on point 1).3) attempt at stopping the fall in CRB and base metals, and its effect on point 1). And how point 2) makes all the difference btw a structural turning point and a bloody mess.4) theories about what Thuud called "stagflation" will be tested at point 1) and 3).Money/gold makes the difference, once again. And money/energy is the passport for trouble.Anibody interested in discussing details and reading comments, please mail me or heidi@consilia.com.what indicator is that fucking Bart following Raman 03/30/01 3:30 PM what indicator is that fucking Bart following any ideasI'm trying to figure the makings of a formula ozy miani@consilia.com 03/31/01 10:33 AM FED's indicators Ok.Let's try to find "the formula".First question is:Why should such a formula exist?I try a better formulation:Why should such a secretive formula exist, which is not available to traders, research, analysts, politicians, households?Why?Is the money Greenspan's?Is this a game? A quiz show?Why an unelected officer should use an unverifiable calculation to convert banknotes's face value into real value?And viceversa, you cannot calculate how FED will respond to real events.The gap between events and response is called "accountability" (or, using the latin derivation of "response", "responsibility).Until you answer to this question, the issue of the relation between FED policy, markets, and economic data cannot be tackled.So, SUBSTANTIAL credibility is directly proportional to the availability of the "formulae" you are dreaming about. And I think that SUBSTANTIAL credibility (which means: NO NEED for credibility, NO NEED to believe, because the Central Bank exposes facts, and you don't have to TRUST the bank beyond reason) is the real issue.This is again the difference between traders and the central bank, and between indicators used by traders and the central bank's "targets":* a trader will be jealous of its "secret" indicators; because they are his way to keep ahead of everybody else, and to outsmart the world; he can be rational, mystic, odd, overquantized, QED-oriented or base his trades on poetry; or the contrary of all this; who cares? he pays the price of his errors. he doesn't unload his shit on the taxpayer or on the economy; he is not even a crook if he lies about his performances, until he lies to a client [those who lie all the time usually lie to clients too, and they lose money, but this is another issue];but:* an accountant who uses "secret" formulas to keep accounts, is a crook: you expect him to use clearly defined accounting criteria; you expect his bottom line to match reality; red or black doesn't matter, it must be the same color as reality;* a central banker who cooks the books and uses secret formulas, refusing to state clearly his targets, is a crook. Stop. No matter what his performance his. He can be a good trader. But he cannot be trusted with signing 100$ bills.The history of central banks is the history of crooks caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and of their excuses: these excuses go from a patronizing tone, to a "future will tell" stories, to obfuscation, to "look at the results" (but you can't verify the books), to "what would you do at my place?", to "we did better than the indonesians (spanish, italians, koreans)", etc etc etc.In short: history of central banks, Greenspan's FED included, is a strong argument for a reform of monetary system A*S*A*P.All this will be more easily understandable when the current crisis is over. But may I discuss it since now, and regulate my trades on this idea?ozy miani@consilia.com 03/31/01 10:54 AM traders and FED's indicators all of the above is the reason why for a trader it makes no sense at all to try "outsmarting" the FED by trying to guess what "Greenspan's indicators" are. It seems to make sense only if you consider yourself to be a peripheral sub-sub-sub-branch of the FED (as many "traders" in fact are). If you are a Venezuelan bank whose business is 99% buying and holding govt bonds until they mature, you are right in thinking like the central banker.But if you are, for exemple, an industrial CEO, facing consumers and suppliers and processes and competitors every day, will you move your money according to data or according to somebody else's secret formulas, which you are forbidden to know and verify? Finding from time to time that the central banker slaps you on the wrist for not marching at the correct pace? "Correct"?Will you keep your dollars, or swap them for yens, or lower dollar sale prices in Korea expecting a won fall, not to lose clients to the local competitors, FOLLOWING a "secret formula" which doesn't take these competitors into account? And should you tolerate your central banker NOT taking them into account?Or will you directly target the reality you face, considering your central banker as ONE RISK FACTOR, just like you would consider a competitor who sells at a heavy discount because he cooks his books?Would you use the formulas of that cheater in YOUR forecasting model? Think not. No way. You don't use his book-cooking formulas to outsmart him. You dodn't shadow him. You use credit reports, you check his cooked data with real data according to YOUR formulas.There is no way to outlie a liar. And the final question is:YOU, as a trader, are more similar to a venezuelan banker or to a corporate CEO?Are you in the business of shadowing the FED, or of guessing events (among them: financial market events, and FED book-cooking) and seize opportunities? FED research is sometimes interesting. And even Bart Greesnpan says interesting things from time to time (he is more in the business of asking smart question than in the business of answering them... whatever), when speaking about current trends in the economy.But when he reverts to his specific job, following his logic is suicidal.ozy miani@consilia.com 03/31/01 12:16 PM now: FED and reality now: what's the real effect of all Bart's indicators? Deflation. Good. GLOBAL deflation. Even better.Do I need some secret formula to see deflation? Or do I just need to look at gold, commodities, semis, rate curve, dollar exchange rates, etc etc? Then: in this deflationary environment, did he avoid inflationary risks should his "V" bounce materialise? No (I don't buy the "stagflation" story, but you and Thud brought it on these pages. This means inflationary expectations are not fundamentally excluded from the scenario).Did he avoid bad money on Nasdaq to damage good money? No. (he fed winter 1999/2000 bubble, just to starve it two 3 months after. Speaking of boom-bust central bankers! And he was so aware of the reality of technology, that he bought the Y2K story like any other dumb "y2k-fix-your-clock" package purchaser).Can you explain, in Greenspan's own words, on the basis of some published paper, to CLEARLY state what he meant to do? No (please correct me if you can state it).Nice job. Nice track record. I am in hurry to learn the recipe, and use it for my portofolio too, hehe. My only problem would be: I have not a government mandate which enables me to force my numbers down the throat of traders.Now: what's next for trades? Waiting for next FED's directive, or trying to figure out HOW the real world will react to deflation?Your choice.ozy miani@consilia.com 03/30/01 4:35 PM the formula of happiness somebody please tell him the truth. He is old enough to face it.BUt me, I am too tired today.Yawn ? messages for Thud and Raman ozy 04/18/01 7:09 PM yawn? messages for Thud and Raman 1) message for Thuddie: next time you feel bored, let me know: it means a flamboyant [...] day is in the cards;2) message for Raman. You eanted to know what indicator is Bart following? he is playing the trend-follower. He will hike rates during next downmove. hehe.ozy miani@consilia.com 04/18/01 7:40 PM uhm... let me see. another rate cut, and gold still 12 bucks under the jan 3rd level, CRB 15 points down. Am I missing something?I must be missing some huge "stagflation" risk. We go on like this, inflation will flood us, won't it?YAWN thuddie 04/18/01 3:48 AM YAWN eom ozy miani@consilia.com 04/18/01 10:24 AM RE: YAWN NOWAY Academy awards Ozy miani@consilia.com 03/26/01 8:10 AM Academy awards The best I can say, is that Academy Awards are a lagging indicator. Definitely. From "Erin Brockovich" to the suffering wife of Pollock.Veronica-Lynn veronica@consilia.com 03/26/01 10:49 PM Academy awards "Lagging" indicators? What about "nielsen historical lows"? -8% from the "American beauty" night which marked the turning point for NDX. [And it already was a good 8% under the "Titanic" levels]. Erin Brockovich was the last hooray for class action tree hugging lawyers. And it scored its highest nielsens in Brownout-Land.Magical mirror? Or rearview mirror?frx tech + macro 03/28/01igor + ozy analyst@consilia.com 03/28/01 11:29 AM frx tech + macro Ex-sellent. "Capitulation" hopes failed ---> T-Bonds down --> help usd/jpy retracing. This helps yen/eur bouncing, pressuring eur and finally following usd/eur. Meaning that: yen/eur enters alert zone too. Keep long term shorts on yen, but hedge or follow carefully s/t. In macro terms: awful for emerging/peripherals; good example of how a "W"-shaped agony works. Look at the effect that consumer "elation" had on gold.joe melli@consilia.com 03/28/01 2:16 PM oversold when will the stock market be "oversold" both for FED and traders? If it goes on like that, never. joe melli@consilia.com 03/28/01 7:49 PM oversold If ozy writes "after all, s&Pfin didn't break 145/142 on the way down", I swear I will kill him. ozy miani@consilia.com 03/29/01 10:22 PM oversold spxf didn't break 145... uhm... hehe ;)M3 DB Comments Raman 03/29/01 3:03 PM M3 DB Comments I've been compiling data re your comments on the above a couple of weeks agowhile I can see what you say by the numbers. The key figure being .30 (when you look at the numbers on a monthly basis.the question is what was the policy from mid 98 backwards when the ratios were completely different Raman 03/29/01 3:51 PM RE: M3 DB Comments OK to expandDB's comments are below pls see my next posting for commentsIs the level of mkt capitalization relative to M3 important? If yes, where are we now? Here are some numbers to think.The ratio M3/US Mkt Capitalization was1997 = 47%1998 = 44%1999 = 37%2000 = 44%numbers I calculated for the end of the year consideredIn other terms, M3 ratio to the sum of M3 itself + Mkt Cap was1997 = 32%1998 = 31%1999 = 27%2000 = 31%See that it was always 31-32%, with 99 the exception. Is the FED targeting a level of mkt capitalization relative to M3? Raman 03/29/01 3:57 PM RE: RE: M3 DB Comments At the time I noted it would be more useful to see the calculations on a montly basis. So I calculated these the results are below. If you want a history further back, ask me and I might help.Point is DB mentioned the crucial number being around .32, which is correct vis a vis the fed moves.But in 1998 and backwards (I have gone back 10 years) this is definitely not the case.Therefore to ratify what seems to be a good idea I would like to have ideas on if theory is good why were the ratios different in 1998, and what do you think influences the change. Could it be a RPI or GDP or currency factor that should be used to change the market cap, or is that incorrect as we are looking at ratios.Or why would fed change policy / what was it before.Date Px Last mkt cap M3/mkt cap m3/mkt cap=m3 Fed rate30-Jan-98 980.28 7,314.62 0.65 0.39 5.527-Feb-98 1,049.34 7,868.99 0.60 0.38 5.531-Mar-98 1,101.75 8,282.67 0.57 0.36 5.530-Apr-98 1,111.75 8,358.54 0.57 0.36 5.529-May-98 1,090.82 8,204.09 0.58 0.37 5.530-Jun-98 1,133.84 8,540.92 0.56 0.36 5.531-Jul-98 1,120.67 8,442.86 0.56 0.36 5.531-Aug-98 957.28 7,368.55 0.65 0.39 5.530-Sep-98 1,017.01 7,858.91 0.61 0.38 5.2530-Oct-98 1,098.67 8,545.02 0.56 0.36 530-Nov-98 1,163.63 9,082.01 0.52 0.34 4.7531-Dec-98 1,229.23 9,624.60 0.49 0.33 4.7529-Jan-99 1,279.64 10,036.17 0.47 0.32 4.7526-Feb-99 1,238.33 9,722.31 0.49 0.33 4.7531-Mar-99 1,286.37 10,114.70 0.47 0.32 4.7530-Apr-99 1,335.18 10,513.63 0.45 0.31 4.7531-May-99 1,301.84 10,257.50 0.46 0.32 4.7530-Jun-99 1,372.71 10,848.05 0.44 0.30 530-Jul-99 1,328.72 10,511.21 0.45 0.31 531-Aug-99 1,320.41 10,445.88 0.46 0.31 5.2530-Sep-99 1,282.71 10,155.91 0.47 0.32 5.2529-Oct-99 1,362.93 10,833.42 0.44 0.31 5.2530-Nov-99 1,388.91 11,043.94 0.43 0.30 5.531-Dec-99 1,469.25 11,721.99 0.41 0.29 5.531-Jan-00 1,394.46 11,154.20 0.43 0.30 5.529-Feb-00 1,366.42 10,934.33 0.44 0.30 5.7531-Mar-00 1,498.58 12,105.14 0.39 0.28 628-Apr-00 1,452.43 11,743.49 0.41 0.29 631-May-00 1,420.60 11,491.65 0.41 0.29 6.530-Jun-00 1,454.60 11,773.43 0.40 0.29 6.531-Jul-00 1,430.83 11,584.13 0.41 0.29 6.531-Aug-00 1,517.68 12,332.71 0.39 0.28 6.529-Sep-00 1,436.51 11,706.61 0.41 0.29 6.531-Oct-00 1,429.40 11,648.95 0.41 0.29 6.530-Nov-00 1,314.95 10,785.38 0.44 0.31 6.529-Dec-00 1,320.28 10,829.28 0.44 0.31 6.531-Jan-01 1,366.01 11,217.83 0.43 0.30 5.528-Feb-01 1,239.94 10,270.00 0.47 0.32 5.5Raman 03/29/01 3:10 PM RE: M3 DB Comments possibley the numbers can be refined using a currency weighted value rather than a dollar value ie vis a vis the dollar index worthReporting DB's comment 03/29/01 10:17 PM M3 DB Comments [This is becoming rather funny. But worth considering nevertheless, because it seems to deal with a substantial issue. I'll discuss it later. Anyway. I asked to DB to remind me what the ISSUE was, because I couldn't understand it, and what follows is the answer. I received it in italian: translation errors are mine, genial intuitions are DB's. Oz].Text by DB follows:"the issue was:sum M3+MktCap (Amex+Nasdaq+Nyse), the result is a value.Compare this value MktCap  MktCap/(MktCap+M3).I noticed that this value remained more or less constant and I guessed: is it casual, is it the fruit of a pure numeric manipulation, or does the FED aims to keep this value constant?That's what I asked.Raman read it, he checked the numbers for a period of time not tested by DB, and found that the ratio is not .32 but something more".ozy miani@consilia.com 03/29/01 10:18 PM M3 DB Comments Thanks for the algebra lesson, but... No. Nein. Lo. Nix. That's not the ISSUE. That's the CALCULATION, not the ISSUE.I still can't understand what the ISSUE is.The difference between the calculation and the issue is: you can perform an immense number of calculations, but not all of them generate or symbolize economic events. Indeed, very few of them deal with economic events.Let's assume that Greenspan's life expectation is 90 years, and let's call it GT. Fact: since Bart became FED's chairman, until now, the sum between the years he had already lived (GA) and the years he could expect to live (GH) remained constant.So, GT-GA varied in a linear fashion, and GT-GA diminished in inverse proportion to GT-GH increasing. The sum GA+GH remained unchanged. The same happened for GG, which I will call "Greenspan's Vital Identity Constant", whose algorithm is:GG = (GA+GH)/GT[any relation of this "life/death" constant to both the "undertaker" look and the slight "identity/existence" problem noted in Greenspan by Rand, will be object of further investigation in a coming paper].Nice formulae. But what the heck do they mean?A monetary target is not ANYTHING.Or do you really believe (now I begin to understand how amazon could rise above 110) that a currency, once it is no more the depository receipt of a defined quantity of gold, can become 1/Nth of NO MATTER WHAT, no matter what quantity, real or defined by an algorithm? THAT'S the step where I stopped, and asked what you were talking about. At the start it was just a hint by DB, but when I saw Raman going on number-crunching around the idea, I just asked what the *h*e*c*k* this was meant to mean.And since you are two talented traders and two meticulous market watchers, your choiceA monetary target is not like any other indicator. It includes in its idea the arbitrary choice of values on which a currency's value is founded. Choosing a variable then is a political and economic choice. Choosing M3 or M2 as a target is, after all, reminiscent (albeit in a perverse way) of the fact that printing money and counting it is not the most neutral of acts.Careful, then.What would it mean, for an economy, the fact that a central bank chooses as its target to keep constant the ratio btw m3 and MktCap? [My secondary question: what does it mean the fact that traders even think about it?].Does it mean that, if less firms are listed, a central bank should print more money? Why? Because the economy is more reliant on bank-mediated credit? Uhm...Or: if more companies are listed (then the economy is less reliant on bank credit), should FED restrict money supply? Uhm. May be. Why?Why? Because credit is not necessary to the mechanics of the stock market?Oh, oops.Fool me. I believed that stock traders had no other reason to think about the FED, than the fact that credit is what keeps the stock market running.It was, last time I checked.Is considering M3 and MktCap two quantities which can be ADDED, a sensible way to describe the role of credit in the stock market?Uhm...I think that maybe the belief that the FED's institutional role is to support the stock market, and above all the consequent disappointment, is generating some funny ideas.That's the most interesting part.ozy miani@consilia.com 03/29/01 4:36 PM .M3 DB Comments Why?You boys are losing me.Why crossing m3 (or m2) with stock market capitalization? And why, Raman, should this be "corrected" through an EXTERNAL reference to a basket of foreign currencies? I just can't follow your path of reasoning. Anything can be statistically correlated with anything else. But does it make any sense? What is M3? what is market capitalization? What's a central bank to do with them? Why could or should a central bank target m3 or m2? What does this mean in economical terms? First step.Next step: what's m2 or m3 to do with stock market CAPITALIZATION? Third step: suppose you want to target them. Do you cross the data? or do you SUM them? Why? Why not?Dunno. I think it usually starts with a problem to analyze ("is there too much money out there"? "or does economy lack cash?"), then you find indicators to measure what's happening, and FINALLY you choose some among them as TARGETS (a target is something different from an indicator: you presume that by changing it you will change in predictable fashion a whole array of indicators).I am slightly amazed seeing how many "momentum" or "fade-the-goons" or "technical" traders turned macro-economists in the past 4 months.Are you people sure you are not just clutching at straws, trying to find ANYTHING which could seem to makes sense?Worse: trying to figure out, BY REVERSING THE PROCESS, what's happening in Greensapn's mind? Who cares? Even if you found out that Bart "seems to target" some unreasonable algorithm, is this a vehicle of analysis?Pls explain. ThxThud McGuffin 03/30/01 4:17 AM RE: .M3 DB Comments Er... guys, M3 is expanding but that is not much help to borrowers in the commercial paper market. Add them together and a different picture appears.ozy miani@consilia.com 03/30/01 8:21 AM M3 DB Comments Again, apples and oranges.Thud's observation is correct. But does nothing to answer to my question (except he seems to say "who cares what FED is trying to keep constant?". If this is the case, I agree heartily).Watching the CP market is of course correct, and it shows something interesting about credit and the presumed potential bailouts by "monetary authorities". But "connecting the dots" between two economic variables is NOT defining a monetary target. It can be useful in order to analyze market conditions, but it not a compass for printing money."We will expand credit until so to keep tyre pressure uniform in the country (adjusted for the car's colour" is NOT monetary targeting. It's discretionary economic planning.So is to pretending keeping one stock market index afloat or sinking it.I don't know if this is the first case in history when the caste of Royal Astronomers (who pretended to make the stars move by their observations) is matched by a "popular caste" of Royal Astronomer Watchers (who watch the stars and analyse their movement only in order to guess the Royal Astronomer's observations. Think not. Will check.ozy miani@consilia.com 03/30/01 8:56 AM Royal Watchers in the meantime, message for FED watchers and Royal Astromer Watchers alike, guessing why stars move like that: the Earth spins and turns around the sun. Raman 03/30/01 9:06 AM RE: Royal Watchers I guess that's all cleared up now then.I still think the original thought was a valid one - not necessarlly the equations.A more instructive formula would prove very useful to improve market timing techniques ozy miani@consilia.com 03/30/01 9:30 AM OH SHIT !!!!!!!!!!!! OH, SHIT!!!!!*W*H*A*T W*A*S T*H*E O*R*I*G*I*N*A*L T*H*O*U*G*H*T*?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!IT'S NOT HOW YOU COMPUTE IT! IT IS : WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TRYING TO COMPUTE!But your final comment was revealing, Raman: you are looking for an INDICATOR to follow, NOT for a monetray target. why do you need to include the FED in it? Just say "I think that MktCap+M3 should stay constant, this is my oscillator". Good. Fine. ...er... not.Raman 03/30/01 9:40 AM RE: OH SHIT !!!!!!!!!!!! I thought that was what the discussion was about. DB suggested an answer I checked it out a bit further, and it didn't seem to fit anything, prior to the period he looked at, so I asked for clarification on the period preceding...ie did anyone - if they agredd with his original idea - have any ideas why it might be different in the earlier periodsmy conclusion is that is no statistical evidence to suggest the linkozy miani@consilia.com 03/30/01 10:48 AM lies, damn lies and statistics interesting. And what if you found a perfect correlation? I gave you one: the GG invariable. That's a perfect constant, in statistical terms. Does it means anything? Not. But it works perfectly! Please check: it's the most stable target tou can find! I checked, and if an index autocorrelates perfectly, THEN it autocorrelates EVEN IF you divide the value of that index by the Greenspan Life Expectation Constant! That's amazing. That's SCIENCE, dude!I repeat my question: is this a method? Choosing two variables randomnly, then testing them? You could go on forever like that.Or you could find a fake correlation, and just follow it no matter what it means, because it stands the check of 10 years of data.But I said a SECOND thing: when people THINKS this way about the basics of money, something really wrong happened in schools. was this the way statistics was used in the roaring months of auto-correlation?This is important, because if this kind of thinking is common, then traders lost any idea of what money is. Can't you really grasp that: choosing variables randomly is THE CONTRARY of what MONEY is? Money is what allows you to buy no matter what, so it cannot be no-matter-what? Now I understand why somebody asked me: "i feel strange, comparing stock market moves with what happens to oil or gold prices. I can't see correlation there: what data are you using?". Anyway. I am busy now. I am studying the correlation between apples and oranges (Silicon Valley vs Orange County). From a rigorous statistical point of view.My little dumb brother failed first year at primary school six times in a row because he added apples and oranges. Maybe he should have crossed and charted them. He could have earned a living selling hi-tech funds to goons.ouch!Repeat: now I understand how amazon could shoot to 110.db 03/30/01 11:18 AM About fruits, oranges and M3 Hello my dear ephistemological and number crunching friends.Is it true we can't add oranges and apples? It depends on what we are counting I believe. If we want to count apples or oranges, the add up is wrong, but if the question is: how many fruits do we get from adding 5 apples and 5 oranges? In this case we can add up and answer 10.Now let's go back to M3 and MktCap. Of course they are apples and oranges, but if I think they have a common factor, namely moneyness, I can add them up. The idea, developed during several emails with oz during 2000, is basically this one: maybe Silicon Valley was making a new experiment---> the role of a central bank---> stocks used to buy other companies. Add to this the wealth effect and we could conclude that a new type of money was created in the economy---> stocks. Created by companies, not by the Fed. At this point, if the previous sentences are correct, what could the Fed do? Fed can control partially M2, but not MktCap. Therefore if Fed wants to control the money supply, one way could be targetting a ratio MktCap/M3. Maybe the fact that the ratio is valid expecially after 98 can be a sign of structural change in the role of stocks, ie, not simply a share representing company but a quasi-money role. We can discuss about this assumption of course, but my question was: let's suppose stock is money, at this point what would do the Fed? ozy miani@consilia.com 03/30/01 11:45 AM About fruits, oranges and M3 No, DB. No. Nein. Lo. Nix.I NEVER spoke, and will NEVER speak of anything like a "central bank" involved in creation of money in silicon valley.This is absolutely out of question.This is absolutely the CONTRARY of all I said.I said that some kind of (tentative) money creation was happening AGAINST the FED.People, please focus on what money is and what FED is. Well:1) BECAUSE of what FED is, FED deflated the dollar. Stop.2) I asked: is it possible that SOME of market moves in the last years have been a rough and ill-conceived, but perfectly justified in terms of self-defense, attempt at "money creation" by one lively sector of the economy, in order to fight deflation? And in order to tell to the central bank, to its idiot chairman, and to his hypnotized followers and executors (YOU), to feck off?This was the question I debated last year. It starts from real economy (hi tech) and the dollar.Then it goes to dollar and FED.Then to dollar, FED and stock market.Since the FIRST passage, the idea that a central bank is NEEDED to manage money, is LOST.Hello?!?! You there? Trade is necessary to create money. A central bank is not necessary. Value is necessary, gurus are not. Real indicators are necessary, SECRETIVE number crunching is not.I am not speaking of some sci-fi or liBARTarian hype about "cybercash", etc.I am speaking of a sector of economy who had its life at stake. It didn't FIGHT against FED because it has not a coherent political THOUGHT (and this was evident in California energy crisis and in the MSFT trial). But it certainly sensed that something was wrong with MONEY and the FED.What's CERTAIN is that THERE'S NO WAY OUT IF THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ROLE OF THE FED IS UNQUESTIONED. The recovery of hi-tech shares and industry needs THEM to get themselves logically FREE from the deflationary obsessions of mr Greenspan.And this cannot happen through FED watching.And extracting "moneity" from apples and oranges in order to lurk in Greenspan's mind is exactly a way to FORGET that there's a real hi-tech world out there, and to focus on last-century logical-pragmatist-keynesism.Now, DB, you may restart from scratch.And remember: as Hofstadter (or Comte) would say: in order to know how Greenspan's brain works, you have to stop it. But at that point you will not see it working. Greenspan's brain stopped working long time ago.One of the founding fathers of psychiatry (Kraepelin) had discovered a sure way to diagnose schiozophrenia. But he complained he needed a post-mortem to perform his test. That left his patients with a little problem of short life expectation.Does the Nasdaq have a choice other than schizofrenia or death by monetary asphyxia?db 03/30/01 12:57 AM RE: About fruits, oranges and M3 Well Oz, either I write a bad english or you understand it badly. I said "silicon valley" creating money. I didn't say Fed using Silicon to create money. Re-read what I wrote. I understood your notes last year, and the explanation you gave just confirmed me that (that I understood your thought) - the other step is: Fed understood this as well(not only oz)and therefore it started taking into account - as a measure of money - also the MktCap. We can argue and say that Fed didn't spot this process, but if it did, what is fed supposed to do? Raman 03/30/01 11:13 AM RE: lies, damn lies and statistics osy'slearnin ozy miani@consilia.com 03/30/01 11:58 AM lies, damn lies and statistics one of this days you will explain me what that means.frankly, Raman: the trick of spitting half-ideas pretending you have the whole idea in mind but you just don't want to make things too easy, is old like the world [it's a primary symptom of Peters' Pyramidal Syndrome: faking competence].Greenspan is the master. But I find it alarming thast it seems to be so well entrenched.Raman 03/30/01 1:35 PM RE: lies, damn lies and statistics well slap my wrist and call me nelly.now1st.what you and db continue now is something different to what i askif you are going on the offensive please reread the textin terms of the simple questions i asked concerning the data and DB's initial comment.2ndnow look at the concept of date stamping and subject titles and use that new found technology to predict in which order and to which of your responses i was responding to.3rdhave you got high blood pressure?ozy miani@consilia.com 03/30/01 2:08 PM blood and blood pressure 1) I am dumb, and even looking at all the food stamps I cannot detect what you were referring to when saying "osy's [new line] learnin".I never learn anything, anyway.2) I would never slap your wrist, for fear of breaking it, you limpwristed faggot. Hehe. Friendly enough now? ;)3) Raman: THERE'S NEVER BEEN TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS (calculus vs concept). When you discuss money and central banks, either you stick to what's at matter or you don't. If your physicist told you that he found a new way to count your GREEN blood cells, you would just RUN AWAY, without waiting for him to start the process.I didn't run (DB's idea was not HORRIBLE, it just contained a problem, and not a little one). But I will not accept generic phantasies when such an issue is involved.Raman 03/30/01 2:19 PM RE: back to the dicussion so,in which other figures would rises / decreases in market cap show directly.also am i right in saying fed can't control M3, i say this because how could relationship remain by changes in int rates that supossedly take months to hithence my question for another indicatorbecause i think the theme is right ozy miani@consilia.com 03/30/01 2:26 PM back to the discussion in this case let's start from scratch. start a new headline (this is becoming funny: it looks like the trajectory of yhoo), stating WHAT IS THE THEME: is it "what indicator is that fucking Bart following"? Or: ...? "Capitulation" ozy miani@consilia.com 03/16/01 11:06 AM "Capitulation" I have one question (a completely open one: more of a hint than really a question). Most followers of traditional technical analysis or "contrarian" trading are discussing "capitulation" (and lack of) on US stock markets. Whether it's there, or not, and why, and when, etc etc. Let's forget for a second that a "capitulation" was called one year ago by the same commentators.I don't buy the "capitulation" concept, but let's exercise on what traders call with that name."DB yesterday noticed that the whole debate about a "V" or "U" recovery should distinguish among a recovery by the markets and by the economy. nothing warrants they would have the same shape. I agree: especially because a "W" recovery looks terribly like a "V" in its first stages, and often looks terribly like a "L" in its final consequences.The best candidate for a mistake shaping US crisis in a "W" nightmare is FED; better: FED (with its current misunderstanding of the crisis) and Bush failing to sidestep FED and to call the shots.Now, my "open question" is:since A) the idea of a "healthy capitulation" is implicit in a "V" shaped scenario, and since B) the "V"-shaped scenario relies entirely [according to traders and commentators, and idiots who are both or neither] on the FED, is it possibile that EXACTLY the FED mistakes are distorting the "capitulation" mechanics during current market fall?Meaning: what remains of the classical "capitulation" idea, since market participants still rely on the idea of a monetary stimulus making the market moves PERFECTLY asymmetrical?Is that "distortion" just another symptom of the fact that FED was wrong in targeting [targeting, not targeting, targeting again, then soothing, then menacing, then bailing out, bla bla bla] stock markets, completely missing the signals by commodities and global monetary system?Finally: since "capitulation" is a strongly ideological, behaviourist notion, is it possibile that FED can't manage the current crisis because it shares, on its side, the same logical error which created the "capitulation" notion?Is "capitulation" ("ok, we surrender, oh Great Power take our bodies, kill us fast and let us enter Heaven once our sinful body will be purified") another name for "bailout"?And are they both an illusion, this time, since this is a global real crisis and not a stock market technical accident?The question is not clear and well-defined because i worked on a ill-conceived idea (capitulation) trying to make sense of it. And this is usually a futile excercise. Anyway. db 03/16/01 12:37 AM REI will write more later, for now just a few words and a new question. Is the level of mkt capitalization relative to M3 important? If yes, where are we now? Here are some numbers to think.The ratio M3/US Mkt Capitalization was1997 = 47%1998 = 44%1999 = 37%2000 = 44%numbers I calculated for the end of the year consideredIn other terms, M3 ratio to the sum of M3 itself + Mkt Cap was1997 = 32%1998 = 31%1999 = 27%2000 = 31%See that it was always 31-32%, with 99 the exception. Is the FED targeting a level of mkt capitalization relative to M3? Have anice lunch, laterRaman 03/16/01 2:14 PM RE: RE: What do the numbers look like on a rolling monthly basis.Do you really think there is a direct causal relationship between int rates and M3 Raman 03/16/01 12:15 AM RE: I'm not really sure if this is answering your question os.But, if for a few moments, one considers the market in the context of reflexology then the bull was clearly an excess so are we not now just going to excess in the other dirctionThis too would tie into the old adage, that the stock mkt has predicted 12 out of the last 9 recessions or something like that.To kickstart/ to falter a stock market one requires a stimulus and catalyst. Is the fed not just one of many catalysts.Take 87, there was nothing concrete to crash the market. Same for 98 - ie there was no evidence of a slowdown (there was an increased chance), but the fed eased anyway. the chance of slowdown was eliminated and off soared the market with a vengeance. 1998 that was capitulation. Where a bailout worked, and yes I agree ultimately caused the current problems (too much too soon).Today, I wouldn't agree, it's not the same. Then in 98 the end of the world was nigh we were going to blow up, everything could go bust.Now we are plain and simple slowing down. I think it is different, as the market is merely pricing in continued bad news as it priced continued good news on the way up.Ok, the fed helps by easing, but that in itself wont stop what's happenning now (japan is the proof of that).Until the news starts to show recovery I think the bear will reign, but that in no way is that capitulation. How could it be when people are still predicting where the market will bottom. We need a shock event for that.Raman 03/16/01 12:49 AM RE: RE: So my question would be:where is fair value, given what we rationally expect.& where is bear value, ie price in the worst of the worstQ is that the 1997 oct low and 1998 oct low.ozy miani@consilia.com 03/16/01 1:01 PM target to Raman:"Where's the target? The final point?". In short: I say it's not in the stock market, and that currencies/commodities will have to be considered to call the end of the move.Just like the rally was NOT a self-sustaining rally, a so-called "speculative bubble" (even if the participants thought it was) - it was instead propelled by monetary events -, so the crash is NOT a "psychology" problem, nor a "technical" correction of an overbought market.It's always the same old story of mine about FED, gold an dollar, yen,eur: but in this case I am trying to translate it into the technical frame of mind of people focused only on the stock market.db 03/16/01 1:35 PM RE: target by the way, what do ppl mean by capitulation? it's not a math definition. Capitulation means nothing. For every seller there's a buyer, so to say capitulation occurs when nobody is willing to buy---> no senseCapitualation = when most investors believe that a rebound won't occur anytime soon, or that the bear mkt underway will go on and won't reverse soonIn this acception, yes, FED is preventing a real capitulation, because it gives the illusion that the bear mkt is close to the end. As concerns my M3 ratio, I believe FED is satisfied with the mkt capitalization level, hence its intervention to support mkts, before things get harsh.My opinion is that when corporations are trapped in an overbuilding of fixed capital, there isnt much that FED can do. What FED can do is to avoid a consumer confidence crash, it cant buy the servers or microchips in excess. This will require time. No V-shaped rebound of the economy. A devaluation of fixed capital will do the job; but for this we will need at least 2 years. And so I think we won't see easily a rebound of equities for the remainder of 2001. > Raman 03/16/01 1:20 PM RE: target OK let's put in another wayWhat is your worst economic scenario (the worst worst)Can you translate to a stock market impact.Did you read Prechters, Elliot and his predictions in "Crest of the Wave" or something. 03/16/01 1:41 PM RE: RE: target Do u believe in Elliott theory? Why should the waves be 3 or 5 instead of 6, or 11? What's the correlation between wave ocean and nasdaq? Let me say something: if we calculate foot-and-mouth cases correlation with the hourly closes of nasdaq100, im sure we will see a 80% correlation. Does that mean anything?03/16/01 2:10 PM RE: RE: RE: target It works for the same way as people believe in technical analysis webmaster heidi@consilia.com 03/16/01 2:03 PM who are you? who are you? who are you asking to? who posted that? Messages without author AND subject make an unpleasant reading. Thanks db 03/16/01 3:44 PM RE: who are you? it was me, db - maybe i forgot to put the author, apologizeozy miani@consilia.com 03/16/01 2:04 PM elliott If the question about Prechter+Elliott was for me, the answer is: not.Elliott was not such a genius as a poet, go figure as a analyst. ozy miani@consilia.com 03/16/01 2:12 PM back to target "what's the worst case scenario"? The current one, if not corrected YESTERDAY (ASAP is not enough).Three idiot central banks, a completely debased monetary system, years of creeping deflation, a blind herd of market participants completely fascinated by one central banker who was smart and perverse enough to pose as a free-marketeer. The worst case scenario is Greenspan just throwing some flabby bone to the market, without any political hint at reflation. That would spread the Japanese disease (aka "putting your foot in your mouth and lie passively while waiting for better times".Less-than-worst-case scenario is: gold rally, dollar and yen reflation, lot of politics (less taxes: far less than what Bush plan currently seems to be able to obtain), etc.ozy miani@consilia.com 03/16/01 2:30 PM a clarification Between, let this be clear: 1) the "worst case scenario" is not the same as "the most immediately bearish scenario". A "W" risking to turn into a "L" is far worse than a "V", no matter how deep the "V"2) [for DB] for the same reason, a slow series of useless interventions prolonging the agony is not even the way to "give the economy time to purge its excesses" [whatever this "purge" idea means]. Stable currencies and money are needed, for "fixed capital devaluation to do the job". Try to "manage" overcapacity while Argentina or China sink.So: a quick [and overdue] fix to money is the best way to get a "natural" recovery.db 03/16/01 3:42 PM RE: a clarification and what's a quick fix to money exactly?ozy miani@consilia.com 03/16/01 4:04 PM quick fix there's no such thing. he he.I meant: "quickly" tackling the issue from a different angle than cionsidering it an internal problem of the Wall Street-FED circuit.Which means: to reconsider and reverse the mistakes made in 1995 (the whole gang), 1997 (the euros) 1998 (euros and FED), all along (the Nips) etc.Staring, for exemple, by TELLING the market participants that FED was wrong.Why should it be impossible? Bush "disappointed" the ecologists, why shouln't he be able to tell Bart to feck off (a different way of dis-appointing s.o.)?"Capitulation" ozy miani@consilia.com 03/16/01 11:06 AM "Capitulation" I have one question (a completely open one: more of a hint than really a question). Most followers of traditional technical analysis or "contrarian" trading are discussing "capitulation" (and lack of) on US stock markets. Whether it's there, or not, and why, and when, etc etc. Let's forget for a second that a "capitulation" was called one year ago by the same commentators.I don't buy the "capitulation" concept, but let's exercise on what traders call with that name."DB yesterday noticed that the whole debate about a "V" or "U" recovery should distinguish among a recovery by the markets and by the economy. nothing warrants they would have the same shape. I agree: especially because a "W" recovery looks terribly like a "V" in its first stages, and often looks terribly like a "L" in its final consequences.The best candidate for a mistake shaping US crisis in a "W" nightmare is FED; better: FED (with its current misunderstanding of the crisis) and Bush failing to sidestep FED and to call the shots.Now, my "open question" is:since A) the idea of a "healthy capitulation" is implicit in a "V" shaped scenario, and since B) the "V"-shaped scenario relies entirely [according to traders and commentators, and idiots who are both or neither] on the FED, is it possibile that EXACTLY the FED mistakes are distorting the "capitulation" mechanics during current market fall?Meaning: what remains of the classical "capitulation" idea, since market participants still rely on the idea of a monetary stimulus making the market moves PERFECTLY asymmetrical?Is that "distortion" just another symptom of the fact that FED was wrong in targeting [targeting, not targeting, targeting again, then soothing, then menacing, then bailing out, bla bla bla] stock markets, completely missing the signals by commodities and global monetary system?Finally: since "capitulation" is a strongly ideological, behaviourist notion, is it possibile that FED can't manage the current crisis because it shares, on its side, the same logical error which created the "capitulation" notion?Is "capitulation" ("ok, we surrender, oh Great Power take our bodies, kill us fast and let us enter Heaven once our sinful body will be purified") another name for "bailout"?And are they both an illusion, this time, since this is a global real crisis and not a stock market technical accident?The question is not clear and well-defined because i worked on a ill-conceived idea (capitulation) trying to make sense of it. And this is usually a futile excercise. Anyway. db 03/16/01 12:37 AM REI will write more later, for now just a few words and a new question. Is the level of mkt capitalization relative to M3 important? If yes, where are we now? Here are some numbers to think.The ratio M3/US Mkt Capitalization was1997 = 47%1998 = 44%1999 = 37%2000 = 44%numbers I calculated for the end of the year consideredIn other terms, M3 ratio to the sum of M3 itself + Mkt Cap was1997 = 32%1998 = 31%1999 = 27%2000 = 31%See that it was always 31-32%, with 99 the exception. Is the FED targeting a level of mkt capitalization relative to M3? Have anice lunch, laterRaman 03/16/01 2:14 PM RE: RE: What do the numbers look like on a rolling monthly basis.Do you really think there is a direct causal relationship between int rates and M3 Raman 03/16/01 12:15 AM RE: I'm not really sure if this is answering your question os.But, if for a few moments, one considers the market in the context of reflexology then the bull was clearly an excess so are we not now just going to excess in the other dirctionThis too would tie into the old adage, that the stock mkt has predicted 12 out of the last 9 recessions or something like that.To kickstart/ to falter a stock market one requires a stimulus and catalyst. Is the fed not just one of many catalysts.Take 87, there was nothing concrete to crash the market. Same for 98 - ie there was no evidence of a slowdown (there was an increased chance), but the fed eased anyway. the chance of slowdown was eliminated and off soared the market with a vengeance. 1998 that was capitulation. Where a bailout worked, and yes I agree ultimately caused the current problems (too much too soon).Today, I wouldn't agree, it's not the same. Then in 98 the end of the world was nigh we were going to blow up, everything could go bust.Now we are plain and simple slowing down. I think it is different, as the market is merely pricing in continued bad news as it priced continued good news on the way up.Ok, the fed helps by easing, but that in itself wont stop what's happenning now (japan is the proof of that).Until the news starts to show recovery I think the bear will reign, but that in no way is that capitulation. How could it be when people are still predicting where the market will bottom. We need a shock event for that.Raman 03/16/01 12:49 AM RE: RE: So my question would be:where is fair value, given what we rationally expect.& where is bear value, ie price in the worst of the worstQ is that the 1997 oct low and 1998 oct low.ozy miani@consilia.com 03/16/01 1:01 PM target to Raman:"Where's the target? The final point?". In short: I say it's not in the stock market, and that currencies/commodities will have to be considered to call the end of the move.Just like the rally was NOT a self-sustaining rally, a so-called "speculative bubble" (even if the participants thought it was) - it was instead propelled by monetary events -, so the crash is NOT a "psychology" problem, nor a "technical" correction of an overbought market.It's always the same old story of mine about FED, gold an dollar, yen,eur: but in this case I am trying to translate it into the technical frame of mind of people focused only on the stock market.db 03/16/01 1:35 PM RE: target by the way, what do ppl mean by capitulation? it's not a math definition. Capitulation means nothing. For every seller there's a buyer, so to say capitulation occurs when nobody is willing to buy---> no senseCapitualation = when most investors believe that a rebound won't occur anytime soon, or that the bear mkt underway will go on and won't reverse soonIn this acception, yes, FED is preventing a real capitulation, because it gives the illusion that the bear mkt is close to the end. As concerns my M3 ratio, I believe FED is satisfied with the mkt capitalization level, hence its intervention to support mkts, before things get harsh.My opinion is that when corporations are trapped in an overbuilding of fixed capital, there isnt much that FED can do. What FED can do is to avoid a consumer confidence crash, it cant buy the servers or microchips in excess. This will require time. No V-shaped rebound of the economy. A devaluation of fixed capital will do the job; but for this we will need at least 2 years. And so I think we won't see ea