Doug:
> That's pretty strange - you accuse me of being wrong,
> and then can't cite how. I think I'll pass on this.
First of all Doug, mine was not an accusation. I just think that you were
wrong. Secondly, you usually get by with one-liners so I was trying to make
sure that it does not happen th
Sabri Oncu wrote:
Doug:
Sabri Oncu wrote:
You were wrong on the strength of the US economy and
that productivity thing
Huh? How was I wrong on these?
This may be an interesting topic to discuss, Doug.
I suggest the following:
Give me the reasons why you think were right and I will
I don't see any need for nastyness on the list. Please, this must cease
immediately. I
have been getting a number of complaints about this tone. We don't need that
kind of
exchange here.
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:52:10AM -0400, C Ruiz wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/13/2006 10:53:58 P.M. Ea
Sabri wrote:
Dear all except CS,
What is this? If you don't want everybody in the list (plus others
browsing the archives) to read your messages, why don't you try
private off-list e-mails?
Julio
In a message dated 5/13/2006 10:53:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Give me
the reasons why you think were right and I will tell you where Idiffer
from you.Best,Sabri
The power of deep reasoning! Show me yours first then I'll show you
mine.
What a cop out!
Dear all except CS,
Michael P. told me that the article I mentioned earlier is not at the
address I said it was. If you have any interest, try this link:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=900940
It is there now.
According to my model, for a flat term structure, where the slope
Doug:
> Sabri Oncu wrote:
>
>> You were wrong on the strength of the US economy and
>> that productivity thing
>
> Huh? How was I wrong on these?
This may be an interesting topic to discuss, Doug.
I suggest the following:
Give me the reasons why you think were right and I will tell you where I
In a message dated 5/13/2006 11:06:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sabri Oncu wrote:
>You were wrong on the strength of the US economy and that productivity
>thing
Huh? How was I wrong on these?
Doug
Yeah, I'd like to know about it too. But as usual no data support
On 5/13/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jerry Lembke had an article in SCIENCE & SOCIETY about 15 years ago in
which he linked generations to long waves. He was talking specificallyabout working-class generations, but it could be generalized.One problem with the theory is that in-migragi
On 5/13/06, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My hypothesis is that it takes about a "generation" for the new rules of the new
game to become so thoroughly internalized that gaming the system comes as second nature.
This is because people who grew up under the old rules persist in translat
On 5/13/06, Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No country on earth, be that China, Japan and the others, who are heavilyinvested in dollar denominated US financial assets can let the US economycollapse, for if they do that their economies will collapse too and we all
collectively will suffer fro
Sabri Oncu wrote:
You were wrong on the strength of the US economy and that productivity
thing
Huh? How was I wrong on these?
Doug
Doug:
> Well, I've been right and he's been wrong, no?
No! You both have been both wrong and right at the same time.
It has been Henry C.K. Liu who has been right all along.
You were wrong on the strength of the US economy and that productivity
thing but right in that the US economy was not col
raghu wrote:
Confusing indeed. What facts exactly have changed? In his opinion, the
statements from the G8 and the IMF were highly significant. I don't
buy it. Maybe someone at Morgan Stanley told him to tone it down a
notch?
In the early 1990s, Roach was similarly bearish for way too long. I'
Eugene Coyle wrote:
I heard a Stephen Roach while driving tonight. I think it was a BBC show.
He's had a change of view about prospects for the world's economy. For
several years he has been a contrarian on Wall Street -- contrary to
Doug Henwood, one might say.
Well, I've been right and he
Dear everyone on PEN-L but CS,
Here is a recent paper of mine I submitted to SSRN a short while ago:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=901924
I just updated the paper so it is not currently available from there until
it is approved. But I expect that it will be avialiable someti
On 5/11/06, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Confusing indeed. What facts exactly have changed? In his opinion, thestatements from the G8 and the IMF were highly significant. I don'tbuy it. Maybe someone at Morgan Stanley told him to tone it down anotch?
Roach has been crying wolf so long that the
On 5/11/06, Eugene Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A very confused and confusing analysis. I took it to be a sign of a
sharp recession soon ahead for the world -- when the last prominent bearfinally switches and becomes bullish, look out.
Gene,
I hope this isn't a sign that you're succumbin
Now he's changed, though he emphasized that it is not a total
reversal -- just that now he sees how things can be managed. He
enumerated five things that will keep a world recession at bay.
A very confused and confusing analysis.
I took it to be a sign of a
sharp recession soon ahead for the worl
I heard a Stephen Roach while driving tonight. I think it was a BBC show.
He's had a change of view about prospects for the world's economy. For
several years he has been a contrarian on Wall Street -- contrary to
Doug Henwood, one might say. What I mean is that Roach has been
pointing out the
Roach is very, very confused. First he bemoans the lingering presence of
administered pricing by PRC economic ministries. Then he applauds CPC
policy moves toward de-emphasizing investment for export and stoking
internal household demand. Then he commends CPC top brass for recognizing
the imp
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/latest-digest.html#anchor0
>When I pointed this out to Senators Graham, Coburn, and Schumer in Beijing,
Senator Schumer said, "I understand the structural point, but China still
has to give." The editorialist in me says, if Washington -- or for that
ma
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/latest-digest.html#anchor0
My travel schedule is planned months in advance. It was only by
happenstance that I found myself in both Beijing and Dubai this past week
-- two of the more recent flashpoints in a US-led pushback against
globalization. Wha
maybe he's reversing the twin deficits "logic." The usual says that
the US saving deficit (gov't deficit + private dissaving) causes the
US trade deficit. If you reverse this, then lowering the trade deficit
would reduce the saving deficit. Of course, there's no logic either
way, since it's an acco
raghu wrote:
I see your point but it still doesn't seem to me to be as crystal
clear as Roach seems to think. It must be Roach's neo-classical econ
education that made him choke on his bite of watermelon :).
(For instance I can easily see the sales of HDTV slowing with a
price increase.)
They
In a message dated 3/22/2006 7:09:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not
sure I understand his criticism. Why is it impossible that"tariffs can
boost savings". One possible chain of events is tariffs-> increase in
prices -> lower consumption -> higher savings
One mechanism could be that real income would fall and thus lower both
consumption and savings.
xxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor
Comparative International Development
Abe Fellow (2005-06)
University of Washington
1900 C
> >I am not sure I understand his criticism. Why is it impossible that
> >"tariffs can boost savings". One possible chain of events is tariffs
> >-> increase in prices -> lower consumption -> higher savings. What am
> >I missing?
>
> Americans already consume to the max, so higher prices would make
raghu wrote:
> I am not sure I understand his criticism. Why is it impossible
> that "tariffs can boost savings". One possible chain of events
> is tariffs -> increase in prices -> lower consumption ->
> higher savings. What am I missing?
With that mechanism, I can see two things. (1) Roach may
raghu wrote:
Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley has some notes on the China
revaluation debate:
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20060322-wed.html#anchor0
Roach quotes his conversation with Senator Schumer
(Schumer)"I care deeply about the loss of US manufacturing jobs to
China. If
Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley has some notes on the China revaluation debate:
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20060322-wed.html#anchor0
Roach quotes his conversation with Senator Schumer
(Schumer)"I care deeply about the loss of US manufacturing jobs to
China. If I am successful
31 matches
Mail list logo
