Diminishing Marginal Utility

This radical proposal is a reflection of a changing economic world

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Last autumn's global financial crisis set off an economic earthquake. And we are still feeling the tremors. The latest sign of the ground shifting beneath our feet is our report today of plans by Gulf states, China, Russia, France and Japan to end their practice of conducting oil deals in US dollars, switching instead to a diverse basket of currencies.

It is not hard to see the motivation for oil exporters to move away from the dollar. The value of the US currency has fallen sharply since last year's meltdown. And fears are growing, in the light of a spiralling US government deficit, that a further depreciation is likely. They do not want to sell their wares in return for a currency with an uncertain future.

It is also easy to see why China would like a world trading system that is underpinned by other currencies as well as the dollar. For the past decade Beijing has been recycling the proceeds of its giant national trade surplus into purchases of US government bonds and other dollar-denominated assets. China too stands to make a significant loss if the value of the dollar falls. For China, however, the timing is much more sensitive. Beijing needs to reduce its dollar holdings, but if it does so too quickly it will bring about the very devaluation it fears. This explains why Chinese officials appear to want this transition to take place gradually over the next decade.

But the significance of this development goes much further. Since the end of the Second World War the dollar has been the bedrock of world trade. The pre-eminence of the American currency flowed naturally from the economic dominance of the US. Virtually everyone traded with America so it made sense to use their currency.

But the US is not the dominant power that it once was. The financial crisis has left it hobbled with significant government and household debts and sharply reduced prospects for growth. Developing nations such as China, Brazil and India, on the other hand, have weathered the economic storm significantly better. So while this latest proposal is born of financial calculation, it is also a reflection of a new economic world order.

We should not be sentimental for the dollar. It makes economic sense for world trade to be conducted in a variety of currencies. Relying on one only has the advantage of clarity, but it also creates instability if the economy that underpins it faces uncertain prospects.

Yet we need to understand that exchange rate volatility is a symptom, rather than a cause, of what truly ails the world economy. The biggest driver of global economic instability in recent years has been the determination of China to boost its export sector at all costs. Beijing's persistently large trade surpluses and manipulation to prevent its own currency from appreciating have effectively forced Western nations into running persistently large trade deficits. It was this pressure that blew up various asset bubbles that burst with such disastrous effect last year.

A gradual move away from the dollar makes sense. But without a commitment from world governments – both in the rich and developing world – to reduce these destabilising global trade imbalances we will enter an uncertain new era; and one that could yet make us pine for the days of the dominant greenback.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 02:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Newsweek

The plunging greenback threatens to cripple U.S. power. Why are the candidates ignoring this critical issue?
Nov 23, 2007 | Updated: 3:50 p.m. ET Nov 23, 2007

Great powers die slowly. It took years before the world realized that Great Britain was an imperial corpse, sapped of its strength by two world wars. The funeral finally occurred on Feb. 21, 1947, a freezing winter day in bomb-torn, bedraggled London, when the British wrote their own epitaph. That was the day that London cabled Washington: "His Majesty's Government, in view of their own situation, find it impossible to grant further financial assistance to Greece," amounting to a half billion dollars a year and a garrison of 40,000 troops. The British also announced the same day that they were withdrawing from Turkey. "The British are finished," remarked a stunned Dean Acheson, who was soon to be Harry Truman's secretary of State. And so they were. It was the early cold war. With the Soviet Union threatening to extend its influence over Greece and Turkey, there was no time for elegies. Instead, a quick passing of the baton took place: the United States would now fill Britain's role and become the central, stabilizing power in the West. This was the moment of "creation" of the U.S.-led world order, Acheson later realized.

One has to wonder now whether the American superpower is also experiencing a terminal illness, with its decline marked by the dollar's downward drift. The one difference being that there is no successor on the horizon (the Chinese have a long, long way to go), and the currency that is replacing the dollar, the euro, is backed not by an emerging superpower but by the feeble cacophony of voices that is the European Union. Yet the signs of imperial decadence are unmistakable. The world is losing confidence in the dollar, in no small part because it has lost confidence in America's strategic judgment and in its sustainability as a great power in the face of record budget and trade deficits, which are forcing the United States to borrow ever more money from future rivals like China and Russia.

Even as the Bush administration savors the calming news out of Iraq, and prepares for a major Mideast peace conference in Annapolis on Tuesday that will look and feel like grand American gestures of the past, finance ministries and central banks around the world--especially in places like Beijing and the wealthy Persian Gulf states--are making decisions that will further undermine U.S. power, perhaps permanently. The irony for George W. Bush, of course, is that more than anything else he began as a president who wanted to build up American power, which he presumed to have been frittered away by Bill Clinton. Bush believed that enemies such as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein perceived America as soft. "It was clear," he said after 9/11, "that bin Laden felt emboldened and didn't feel threatened by the United States." Bush vowed to reverse that image.

Instead, the world monetary system now is making unfavorable comparisons to America at the height of the Clinton years. And bin Laden seems to be achieving his publicly avowed goal of provoking the United States into overextending itself and draining its economy. In a blistering essay in the current Vanity Fair, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, a former World Bank economist, notes that Bush took a nation with a budget surplus upon assuming office and turned it into a global debtor, and he has underinvested in education and alternative energy. "In breathtaking disregard for the most basic rules of fiscal propriety, the administration continued to cut taxes even as it undertook expensive new spending programs and embarked on a financially ruinous 'war of choice' in Iraq. A budget surplus of 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which greeted Bush as he took office, turned into a deficit of 3.6 percent in the space of four years. The United States had not experienced a turnaround of this magnitude since the global crisis of World War II," Stiglitz writes. "Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle 'worst president' when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. The economic effects of Bush's presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America's being displaced from its position as the world's richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush."

If the passing of American hegemony happens, it will occur very slowly--death by a thousand cuts of credit. One reason why it's so hard for Americans to contemplate their loss of prestige, symbolized by the fall of the once-almighty dollar, is that politicians and pundits tend to cast the issue as all-or-nothing. What would happen, they say, if China suddenly decided to dump the trillion dollars of U.S. debt it holds in reserves? This, however, will almost certainly never occur. While China and other big dollar-holding countries such as Singapore, Russia and the Persian Gulf states are very worried about the erosion in value of their dollar-denominated holdings and inflationary pressure, they also know that an abrupt move to cut their pegs to the dollar or to sell off in large amounts would force a run on the currency. That would leave them even poorer. Instead these countries are pursuing careful reallocations of their investment holdings, shifting slowly to the euro or a "basket" of currencies that will allow them to hedge against the dollar's decline. Credit will become more expensive, the U.S. economy will find itself increasingly crimped, and America's ability and willingness to act as the defense umbrella to the world will gradually peter out. The effect will be more like a slow-acting poison: drip, drip, drip.

But the financial world order is such a precarious house of cards today that the markets are getting increasingly jittery. Markets operate on confidence. And today's markets seem to have little confidence that the Bush administration can emerge from its economic never-never land, one in which as Dick Cheney's first-term pronouncement that "deficits don't matter" was allowed to stand unchallenged, in which zero-saving Americans continue their profligate spending habits and descent into deeper indebtedness by simply assuming the rest of the world will continue to fund those habits. "The American consumer is dramatically overleveraged," says Bob Hormats a vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. That "means we have to borrow roughly $3 billion a day from rest of world. That inflow is now slowing down. Foreigners will say 'we're concerned about lending in dollars, so we're going to be more cautious about lending money to you.' At some point, if we get a lot less money, the dollar will plunge and interest rates will go up." Even wealthy Americans, Hormats notes, are beginning to ship their money abroad, to Europe and Asia, to hedge the dollar.

We should be careful, of course, not too pronounce the death of Pax Americana too quickly. That has been done before. The illness need not be terminal: deficits can be cured, and foreigners still crowd cargo containers and the backs of trucks to sneak into the land of opportunity. (China, by contrast, is not undergoing an immigration debate.) But the country is in such a fiscal hole right now that, as David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, told my colleague Jeff Bartholet last week, "You could decide not to renew the Bush tax cuts, you could eliminate all foreign aid, eliminate all earmarks, eliminate NASA, eliminate the National Endowment for Humanities and eliminate the entire Defense Department tomorrow, and you still wouldn't solve the problem." This most critical of issues has barely made it into the presidential debates. The drooping dollar is driving it to the public's attention, particularly as gas, oil and other essentials continue to go up in price. Perhaps the next president, whoever he or she is, ought to pay more attention, too.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 09:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/econ/inflation_calculator.htm

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The New York Times

Op-Ed Columnist
Gone Baby Gone

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 22, 2007

It pains me to say this, but this time Alan Greenspan is right about housing.

Mr. Greenspan was wrong in 2004, when he sang the praises of adjustable-rate mortgages. He was wrong in 2005, when he dismissed the idea that there was a national housing bubble, suggesting that at most there was some “froth” in the market. He was wrong last fall, when he suggested that the worst of the housing slump was behind us. (Housing starts have fallen 30 percent since then.)

But his latest pronouncement — that the market rescue plan being pushed by Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, is likely to make things worse rather than better — looks all too accurate.

To understand why, we need to talk about the nature of the mess.

First of all, as I could have told you — actually, I did — there was indeed a huge national housing bubble.

What even those of us who realized that there was a bubble didn’t appreciate, however, was how much of a threat the bursting of that bubble would pose to financial markets.

Today, when a bank makes a home loan, it doesn’t hold on to it. Instead, it quickly sells the mortgage off to financial engineers, who chop up, repackage and resell home loans pretty much the way supermarkets chop up, repackage and resell meat.

It’s a business model that depends on trust. You don’t know anything about the cows that contributed body parts to your package of ground beef, so you have to trust the supermarket when it assures you that the beef is U.S.D.A. prime. You don’t know anything about the subprime mortgage loans that were sliced, diced and pureed to produce that mortgage-backed security, so you have to trust the seller — and the rating agency — when they assure you that it’s a AAA investment.

But in the case of housing-related investments, investors’ trust was betrayed. Supposedly safe investments suddenly turned into junk bonds when the housing bubble burst. High profits reported by hedge funds — profits that were reflected in huge payments to the fund managers — turn out to have been based on wishful thinking.

Thus, when two hedge funds run by Ralph Cioffi of Bear Stearns imploded last summer, it came as a huge shock to many investors, and helped trigger a market panic. But a recent BusinessWeek report shows that the funds were a disaster waiting to happen. The funds borrowed huge amounts, and invested the proceeds in questionable mortgage-backed securities.

Even worse, “more than 60 percent of their net worth was tied up in exotic securities whose reported value was estimated by Cioffi’s own team.” We’re profitable because we say we are — just trust us. That hasn’t ever caused problems, has it?

Stories like this have led to a crisis of confidence. The current yield on one-month U.S. government bills is only 3.41 percent, an amazingly low number, and a sign that people are parking their money in government debt because they don’t trust private borrowers. And the result is a shortage of liquidity — the ability to raise cash — that is greatly damaging the economy.

Which brings us to the rescue plan proposed by a group of large banks, with Mr. Paulson’s backing.

Right now the bleeding edge of the crisis in confidence involves worries that there may be large losses hidden inside so-called “structured investment vehicles” — basically hedge funds that borrow from the public and invest the proceeds in mortgage-backed securities. The new plan would create a “super-fund,” the Master Liquidity Enhancement Conduit, which would seek to restore confidence by, um, borrowing from the public and investing the proceeds in mortgage-backed securities.

The plan, in other words, looks like an attempt to solve the problem with smoke and mirrors.

That might work if there were no good reason for investors to be worried. But in this case, investors have very good reasons to worry: the bursting of the housing bubble means that someone, somewhere, has to accept several trillion dollars in losses. A significant part of these losses will fall on mortgage-backed securities. And given this reality, the “conduit” looks like a really bad idea.

I’d put it like this: Investors aren’t putting their money to work because they don’t know where the bad debts are. And when investors need clarity, the last thing you want to be doing is pumping out more smoke.

Mr. Greenspan’s take, expressed in an interview with the magazine Emerging Markets, seems broadly similar. “If you believe some form of artificial non-market force is propping up the market,” he said, “you don’t believe the market price has exhausted itself.”

Translated: this rescue scheme could be seen as an attempt to hide the bad debts everyone knows are out there, and as a result could delay any return of trust to the markets.

Alan Greenspan is making sense.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Prudent Investor

The Federal Reserve Dollar may be in for another big punch. Gulfnews banking editor Babu Das Augustine has raised the possibility that OPEC may switch from dollars to another currency, furthermore reducing the demand for the Dollar which gets shunned by more and more oil producing countries. Iran only accepts Euros or Yen and Venezuela dumped the greenback while countries in the gulf region move their funds away from it too.
According to Das Augustine,

"Asset diversification by the Gulf sovereign wealth funds and the possibility that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will change the pricing of oil from the dollar to another currency could mean more trouble for the dollar."

Quatar and Vietnam announced only a few days ago that they were shifting away from the ailing currency that was never worth less than nowadays.

Analysts see the admission by Qatar as a signal that regional state-owned funds are moving away from the dollar.

Qatar has admitted that its investment fund has been diversifying their portfolios to compensate for the decline of the dollar. It would be naive to think that other Gulf funds are loyal to the dollar at the cost of heavy portfolio losses," said a Dubai-based investment banker.

During the past 12 months, companies, mainly state-owned investment arms and private equity firms from the GCC, have quietly acquired more than $50 billion in assets worldwide with Asia's and Europe's shares together accounting for more than 55 per cent.

The state-owned Kuwait Investment Authority, with assets of more than $150 billion, last year increased the Asian share of its portfolio to 20 per cent from 10 per cent.

Although gulf central banks have been discussing asset diversification in the past two years, there hasn't been any evidence of a major shift. The size of assets held by Gulf central banks are relatively small compared to the funds managed by the state-owned investment funds.

According to IMF estimates, global investment funds managed by governments control an estimated $2.5 trillion, outstripping hedge funds. Morgan Stanley estimates these assets could rise to $12 trillion by 2015, roughly the size of the US economy. Gulf countries account for a major share of these funds.

Currency market analysts believe that the gulf sovereign funds' gradual move away from the dollar is a precursor to OPEC opting for a different currency in which to price oil.

"If the dollar were to lose its lustre as a reserve currency this could prove disruptive to the global financial system," Merrill Lynch said in a research note.

"Pricing oil in dollars might have made sense when there was a paucity of other relatively stable currencies and when the Middle East imported more from the US - but not any-more," said an analyst.

I guess it is safe to say that the exodus from the first completely unbacked reserve currency in the world's history has begun - and will not stop. A strong reason for this is the fact that the USA has very little to offer in terms of sought-after export goods besides weapons, aircraft and gas guzzling oversize cars whose low MPG ratios can only be afforded by oil producing countries anymore.

Anybody counter my bet that another fiat currency experiment will be coming to an end in the next decade?
Before you lose your money; remember that ALL fiat currencies of the past 350 years have returned to their intrinsic value. Gold has NEVER lost its value in the past 3,500 years!

For some background about the role of the Federal Reserve Dollar in commodities markets click here.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 04:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: LifeAfterTheOilCrash.net

By Richard Heinberg for Museletter

September is an equinoctial mont, a time of momentary balance, instability, and change. Day and night are of equal length; however, the rate of change in the relative lengths of day and night is at its peak.

It’s been an unusually busy and stressful month for me personally. Leonardo Dicaprio’s enviro-doc “11th Hour” hit the theaters, featuring yours truly on screen for a few seconds (though the producer and director decided against including a mention of Peak Oil). Early in September I gave a presentation at the UN at the behest of two organic agriculture organizations (the Soil Association of Britain and the Shumei Foundation of Japan). On Thursday the 13th, a CNN Money reporter called wanting information about Peak Oil; his story appeared the next day. The very first copies of my new book, Peak Everything, shipped during the last week of the month. A few days ago a Korean TV crew stopped by and filmed me at home for a three-part documentary to air in November. And a family emergency (aging parent) sent me off to the Midwest for a week. As the saying goes, there’s no rest for the wicked.

The month was no less eventful for the rest of the world—though of course the scale of significance of the following items is approximately 6.7 billion times greater than for the preceding ones.

Maybe the best place to start is with a general comment. It’s getting pretty damn obvious that the world is sliding head-first into the abyss at an accelerating rate, with most Americans as oblivious as ever. The latest indication of impending doom is a festering credit crunch brought on by the inevitable puncturing of a bubble puffed up over the past few years through the issuance of thousands of patently idiotic subprime, adjustable-rate, and interest-only mortgage loans.

The deeper story is that this is just the last of a series of bubbles that the US Federal Reserve has inflated in order to sustain for as long as was humanly possible a fundamentally unsound national financial condition.

As I explained in Chapter 2 of The Party’s Over, the US got rich exploiting its own resources and labor. Its most valuable resource—oil—went into decline forty years ago; since then, we Americans have tried to stay rich by exploiting other nations’ labor and resources, using leveraged trade rules, dollar hegemony, and military threats. All this time, we congratulated ourselves: we were living in a post-industrial information economy; they were doing the dreary, obsolete work of actually making things. They sweated and saved; it was up to us to spend and borrow. We served an indispensable function in the global economy as the consumer of last resort, as the engine of new debt creation (more debt equals more money in circulation—i.e., more GDP growth), and as the global cop keeping order in an unruly world (while also sneaking donuts and taking bribes). The Chinese burned their coal and poisoned their workers and environment to make our stuff, enabling us to enjoy a cleaner environment by keeping our coal in the ground, while they loaned us the money to buy cheap Chinese stuff with. Such a deal!

Life in bubble world was grand while it lasted. First there was the Third World debt bubble of the ’80s; then came the tech bubbles of the ’90s; and finally the real estate bubble of the ’00s. Along the way, Wall Street hoped for a little extra hot air from the privatization of Social Security, but even Americans weren’t stupid enough to sign onto that particular leveraged buyout. All during this time, suburbanites got used to having more gadgets and bigger cars and houses, even if they couldn’t actually afford them.

But now we’re at the end of the line. At last the rest of the world is coming to realize that it doesn’t really need Americans: the Chinese can consume, too, after all. And the Asians can’t really justify loaning us more money; we’re not going to pay it back—or if we do, it will be in devalued dollars. But those loans can also be looked at as investments: other nations have in effect bought US assets, which means that the wealth created from those assets will flow to the new overseas owners, not to Americans. What’s left to buy—other than a lot of soon-to-be-foreclosed real estate? And how much wealth will those assets produce once the bubble deflates?

It’s also clear now that there are alternatives to the dollar, including the euro, the yen, and the yuan. Not that the dollar won’t be missed; when it tanks, there will be as many financial casualties in Mumbai as Manhattan. But currency traders are clearly heading for the exits, and the last one out gets the booby prize—a bag of wooden nickels.

Yes, the rest of the world still must fear America’s awesome weapons of mass destruction: this mighty nation can certainly create an unholy mess when it means to, as it is demonstrating in Mesopotamia. But that doesn’t mean that other nations actually have to obey it any more. The US can bomb to smithereens any country it chooses, but it can’t always count on forcing that country to hand over its resources at gunpoint.

The dollar is hitting record lows. Gold and silver are hot commodities—always a bad sign for the reigning paper currency. There are rumors of possible bank failures (following a run on one British bank). If the Federal Reserve tries to solve the liquidity crisis by lowering interest rates, that just worsens inflation and exacerbates the dollar’s problems. If the Fed raises rates to prop up the dollar, that forces the banks and hedge funds to confront their mountains of worthless paper and leads ultimately to defaults, bank runs, and bank failures. Clearly the Fed fears the latter scenario more than the former, so by lowering interest rates this month it effectively pulled the plug on the dollar. The Saudis are now preparing to de-link their economy from the US currency, while China is quietly selling off dollar-denominated assets. One way or another, Americans are going to soon see a rapid decline in their real standard of living.

Of course, another big event this month was oil’s nose-bleed ascent to record-high prices, over $82US per barrel. Part of the price hike resulted from the dollar’s weakness, but—as Goldman Sachs has pointed out—the main reason was simply that demand is up while supply is down. The May 2005 peak for the rate of production of regular crude and the July 2006 peak for all liquids are still holding. It may be that the technical maximum global rate of flow for liquid fuels is still a couple of years away, but in effect the peak is here now.

As for Iran, “all options” are still on the table, and the pretext for a broad-scale air attack is apparently being patiently laid. Bush has vowed that he will not leave office with the Iran question unresolved, and France’s new neocon leaders are running defense for Bush/Cheney, calling for “the most severe sanctions possible” and for war if those “don’t work.” Meanwhile, when Tehran actually complies with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s requests, this is viewed as a provocation. This month, Newsweek revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney at one point considered asking Israel to launch air strikes on an Iranian nuclear site, so as to provoke Iran to lash out, thus giving Washington a pretext for more extensive attacks (a scenario I discussed in MuseLetter for April 2007, “Iran: We Will Know Soon”). Iranian President Ahmedinejad’s appearances in New York (at the UN and Columbia University) seemed only to give the US media an opportunity to whip up further anti-Iranian public sentiment, while the Senate’s passage of the Lieberman-Kyl amendment (which Hilary Clinton supported) provided a stamp of approval for any future military actions by the current administration.

But surely the single most important event of the month was the revelation that arctic sea ice is melting faster than even the most dire forecasts had predicted. This is significant because it shows the power of reinforcing feedback loops: as sunlight-reflecting ice melts, it leaves dark water in its place—which absorbs more heat, causing more ice to melt, and so on. This year’s minimum extent of ice was about one million square miles (as of September 16); the previous record low was 1.5 million in 2005. The rate of melting this year was 10 times the recent annual average. This month the Northwest Passage was ice-free for the first time in untold millennia. At this rate, the north polar region could be ice-free in summer by 2015.

Altogether, it was an extraordinary 30 days. Yet so far there’s been no instantaneous economic implosion, and there’s not much blood in the streets (except perhaps in Myanmar), and so the mainstream media can safely focus on the truly vital issues like O.J. Simpson’s current legal scrapes and Britney Spears’s performance at the MTV awards.

Many writers who discuss the sort of stuff that interests me (“reality” I think it’s called) wrap the unutterable sadness of it all in a crisp cellophane of cynicism. I’m guilty of that, too, from time to time—certainly in this little monthly summary. How else to make it somehow bearable?

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AP via Yahoo

Thursday September 20, 8:51 am ET
By Matt Moore, AP Business Writer

Euro Hits Another High, Breaking Through $1.40 for First Time Since Its 1999 Debut

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) -- The dollar fell its lowest-ever level against the euro on Thursday as the european currency traded above $1.40 for the first time since it was introduced in 1999. The U.S. currency also moved closer to parity with the Canadian dollar.

Breaking the $1.40 barrier for the euro has long been seen as a key turning point in solidifying the euro's position in global currency markets, providing more impetus for it to be the reserve currency of choice -- a position long held by the now-weakening dollar, which has been battered by a recent half-percent cut in U.S. interest rates.

The 13-nation euro bought as much as $1.4064 in morning trading in Europe before falling back slightly to $1.4040, above its previous high Wednesday night of $1.3987, and more than the $1.3964 it bought in late New York trading.

Meanwhile the Canadian dollar moved decisively above 99 U.S. cents, flirting with one-to-one parity with the American dollar for the first time since November 1976. The currency opened North American trading at 99.42 U.S. cents Thursday and soon rose to 99.96 U.S. cents.

David Jones, chief market analyst at CMC Markets in London, said the euro's rise is not likely to abate in the coming days, particularly later Thursday when traders wait to hear what U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson say about the U.S. mortgage market in testimony before the U.S. Congress.

Bernanke could use the forum as a way to fine-tune the U.S. central bank's economic outlook, after a larger-than-expected half-point cut in the benchmark interest rate earlier this week.

"I am sure we're going to see buyers moving in for the next target," Jones said, adding that he believes the euro will rise to $1.42 very soon.

"If not this week, it could be next week," he said. "People are using any weakness as a buying opportunity for euros."

Howard Archer, chief U.K. and European economist at Global Insight, said that seeing the $1.45 level is a "serious possibility before the end of the year" because of the specter of more U.S. interest rate cuts.

"The Fed seems highly likely to cut U.S rates further, it now looks probable that the next move in U.K. interest rates will be down, while the ECB currently still retains a tightening bias," Archer said.

The euro's latest surge has come after the Fed lowered its key interest rate to 4.75 percent from 5.25 percent as it tries to keep the U.S. economy on track despite market turbulence from the subprime lending crisis. Most analysts had expected a quarter-point cut.

Lower interest rates, while used to jump-start the economy, can also weaken a currency by giving investors less return on investments denominated in the currency.

The European Central Bank kept its key rate unchanged at 4 percent earlier this month, backing off a planned increase in light of the subprime crisis and market volatility. Analysts are mixed on whether the bank will lift the rate in October.

The Bank of England meets next month, too, and is expected to keep its rate unchanged at 5.75 percent.

The rising euro has yet to cause great consternation among most of the 13 nations that use the common currency, save for France, which has criticized its increase. As the euro rises it could dampen exports, particularly to the United States, making European-made products such as cars and consumer appliances more expensive for American buyers.

On Thursday, Germany's finance ministry said the euro's strength meant that export growth in Europe's biggest economy had lost some of its vigor.

"The dynamism of exports is noticeably weaker than last year," the German ministry said in its September monthly bulletin, citing the euro's appreciation against the dollar as a reason.

The dollar also fell against other currencies, dipping against the British pound to $2.0072 compared with $2.0025 late Wednesday, after U.K. retail sales in August rose by 0.6 percent from July.

The dollar slipped against the Japanese currency to 115.05 yen from 116.09 late Wednesday.

Associated Press writer Melissa Eddy in Berlin contributed to this report.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 08:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AP via Yahoo

By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
Wednesday September 19
10:25 am ET

Paulson Tells Congress the Current Debt Ceiling Will Be Hit on Oct. 1

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Wednesday that the federal government will hit the current debt ceiling on Oct. 1.

He urged quick action to increase the limit, saying it was essential to protect the "full faith and credit" of the country, especially at a time of financial market turmoil.

The current debt limit is $8.965 trillion. Unless Congress votes to raise that ceiling, the country would be unable to borrow more money to keep the government operating and to pay debt obligations coming due. The United States has never defaulted on a debt payment but the decision on whether to raise the debt ceiling often sparks a prolonged political battle in Congress.

In his letter to congressional leaders, Paulson said that according to data now available, the Treasury expects to hit the current debt ceiling on Oct. 1 -- the first day of the new federal budget year. However, that projection does not take into account maneuvers the government often has to employ of withdrawing investments from certain trust funds to create room for extra borrowing until Congress finally approves a debt increase.

"The full faith and credit of the United States, to which we all remain committed, is a national asset and a cornerstone of the global financial system," Paulson said in his letter. "In light of current developments in financial markets, which would be exacerbated by uncertainty in the Treasuries market, I urge the Senate to pass the legislation reported by the Finance Committee to increase the debt limit as soon as possible."

The Senate Finance Committee earlier this month approved increasing the limit on the national debt to $9.82 trillion. That boost of $850 billion would be the fifth increase in the government's borrowing limit since President Bush took office in 2001.

The national debt is the total accumulation of annual budget deficits, which must be financed with borrowed money.

Democrats blame Bush's tax cuts and the war in Iraq for pushing the debt to record levels. Republicans defend the tax cuts, saying the deficit is now on a downward trajectory in part because of the economic stimulus provided by the tax cuts.

The House approved an increase in the debt limit in May when it adopted the annual congressional budget resolution, but the full Senate has yet to act to raise the limit.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AlterNet

How Canada Went from 21st to 2nd in World's Oil Reserves

By Dan Woynillowicz
World Watch. Posted September 17, 2007.

The United States has its hopes pinned on Canada's "tar sands" for North American security in the oil market. But their "black gold" is an environmental nightmare.

It's well-known that the United States consumes more oil per capita than any other country in the world, absorbing two-thirds of global oil production. This heavy dependence has often, and aptly, been described as an addiction; even U.S. President George W. Bush trotted out the metaphor in his 2006 State of the Union address ("America is addicted to oil").

Most of us regard addictions (to anything) as inherently unhealthy and admission of the problem as the first step toward getting clean. In this case, however, U.S. policy has simply been to seek increased oil imports from more reliable sources closer to home, in effect, to replace distant and unstable dealers with one from the neighborhood -- specifically, Canada, already the kingpin dealer of oil to the United States. In 2005 Canada exported almost 1.5 million barrels per day to the United States, about 7 percent of U.S. daily consumption. Canada exports 66 percent of its domestic crude oil production, and since 1995 the United States has received 99 percent of these exports. At first glance, it would seem that Canada wouldn't be able to boost oil production to fill the gap; production of conventional light and heavy oil in Canada was predicted to peak in 2006 and then rapidly decline. But that's where Canada's "unconventional" tar sands come in.

Production

The vast bulk of Canada's tar sands is found in the province of Alberta, the country's most prolific producer of fossil fuels. The tar sands deposits underlie more than 140,000 square kilometers of relatively pristine boreal forest, an area larger than the state of Florida. It's estimated that the tar sands hold approximately 1.7 trillion barrels of crude bitumen (the technical term for the fossil fuel extracted from the tar sands). But most of this bitumen will never be recovered and only a fraction, 174 billion barrels, is estimated to be recoverable with today's technology and under current and anticipated economic conditions.

When the U.S. Department of Energy formally acknowledged these reserves in 2003, it vaulted Canada's oil reserves from 21st to 2nd in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. It's little wonder then that the U.S. Energy Policy Development Group has described the tar sands as "a pillar of sustained North American energy and economic security." Canada's so-called "black gold" has come to be regarded as an abundant, secure, and affordable source of crude oil. But development of this unconventional fossil fuel comes with unconventional risks and consequences. Everything about the tar sands is big, most significantly its global warming and environmental implications -- leading some to now describe the tar sands as "Canada's dirty secret."

Producing oil from the tar sands is scraping the bottom of the oil barrel. Tar sands consist of a mixture of 85 percent sand, clay, and silt; 5 percent water; and 10 percent crude bitumen, the tarlike substance that can be converted to oil. Bitumen doesn't flow like crude oil, and getting it out of the tar sands is a messy job. The current technology, which has evolved relatively little since it was first developed in the early 20th century, is a hot water-based separation process that requires huge quantities of water and energy (see diagram). Imagine mixing a bucket of roofing tar into a child's sandbox. Then boil some water, pour it into the sandbox, and try to wash the tar out of the sand.

Most tar sands production takes place in vast open-pit mines, some as large as 150 square kilometers and as deep as 90 meters. Before strip-mining can begin, the boreal forest must be clear-cut, rivers and streams diverted, and wetlands drained. The overburden (the soil, rocks, and clay overlying the tar sands deposit) must be stripped away and stockpiled to reach the bitumen. Four tons of material are moved to produce every barrel of bitumen.

At current production rates, with just three mines operating, enough material is moved every two days to fill a 60,000-seat stadium. But only a small fraction of the bitumen deposits is close enough to the surface to be strip-mined. Over 80 percent of the established tar sands reserves are deeper and must be extracted in situ (in place) by injecting high-pressure steam into the ground to soften the bitumen so it can be pumped to the surface.

Once separated from the sand, the bitumen is still a low-grade, heavy fossil fuel that must undergo an energy-intensive process to upgrade it into a synthetic crude oil more like conventional crude, either by adding hydrogen or removing carbon. Upgrading the bitumen usually occurs before it is shipped to refineries, but sometimes raw bitumen is diluted (e.g., with naphtha) and pipelined to a refinery where it is both upgraded and refined. In the United States about three-quarters of the oil is refined into transportation fuels.

But even then not just any refinery will do. A certain amount of reconfiguring must occur at refineries more accustomed to handling conventional crude oil. Some American refineries, primarily in the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain region, already accept some synthetic crude oil from the tar sands. But with growing reliance on this source of oil, numerous American refineries are converting or expanding in order to handle tar sands-derived synthetic crude oil or raw bitumen.

Impacts

The environmental consequences of oil production from tar sands are major, beginning with its effect on climate change. North America's transition to oil from the tar sands not only perpetuates, but actually worsens, emissions of greenhouse gas pollution from oil consumption.

While the end products from conventional oil and tar sands are the same (mostly transportation fuels), producing a barrel of synthetic crude oil from the tar sands releases up to three times more greenhouse gas pollution than conventional oil. This is a result of the huge amount of energy (primarily from burning natural gas) required to generate the heat needed to extract bitumen from the tar sands and upgrade it into synthetic crude. The energy equivalent of one barrel of oil is required to produce just three barrels of oil from the tar sands.

In 2002 the Canadian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, legally committing to a target of reducing the country's greenhouse gas pollution by 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But the rapid growth of tar sands development and oil industry lobbying have undermined efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution for over a decade.

Since 1990, Canada's total emissions have risen 25.3 percent, a pace far exceeding the 16.3 percent increase in the United States, the second-fastest-rising nation, according to United Nations data. Regulations introduced in early 2007 are so fraught with loopholes and gaps that greenhouse gas pollution from tar sands is predicted to triple by 2020. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 are projected to be 2 percent above 1990 levels. The environmental consequences of tar sands development hardly stop with climate change. Nowhere in the world is there a form of oil extraction and processing with more intense impacts on forests and wildlife, freshwater resources and air quality.

Forests. The tar sands are found beneath boreal forest, a complex ecosystem that comprises a unique mosaic of forest, wetlands and lakes. Canada's boreal forest is globally significant, representing one-quarter of the world's remaining intact forests. Beyond the ecosystem services it provides (cleansing water, producing oxygen and storing carbon), it is home to a wide variety of wildlife, including bears, wolves, lynx and some of the largest populations of woodland caribou left in the world. Its wetlands and lakes provide critical habitat for 30 percent of North America's songbirds and 40 percent of its waterfowl.

If currently planned tar sands development projects unfold as expected, approximately 3,000 square kilometers of boreal forest could be cleared, drained and strip-mined to access tar sands deposits close to the surface, while the remaining 137,000 square kilometers could be fragmented into a spider's web of seismic lines, roads, pipelines and well pads from in situ drilling projects. Studies suggest that this scale of industrial development could push the boreal ecosystem over its ecological tipping point, leading to irreversible ecological damage and loss of biodiversity.

Satellite images readily illustrate the magnitude of boreal forest impacts from tar sands mining operations. The United Nations Environment Program has identified Alberta's tar sands mines as one of 100 key global "hotspots" of environmental degradation. According to Environment Canada (the Canadian equivalent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), development of the tar sands presents "staggering challenges for forest conservation and reclamation."

Very little of the area directly affected by mining operations has been reclaimed, and after 40 years of mining, not a single operation has received a reclamation certificate from the government of Alberta. Suncor Energy's operation, the longest-operating tar sands mine, says it has reclaimed 858 hectares of land since starting operations in 1967, less than 9 percent of the land its operations have disturbed to date. Syncrude Canada, the largest daily producer of tar sands, says its operations have disturbed 18,653 hectares since 1978, with just 4,055 hectares of land reclaimed. None of this reclaimed land has been certified as such. At best, reclamation of the tar sands region will be a large-scale experiment that is unlikely to restore a self-sustaining boreal forest ecosystem within the next century.

Waters. The Athabasca River winds nearly 1,500 kilometers from its source at the Athabasca Glacier in Jasper National Park to Lake Athabasca in Wood Buffalo National Park. It is Alberta's longest river and one of North America's longest undammed rivers. It enters Lake Athabasca at the Peace-Athabasca Delta, the largest boreal delta in the world, a World Heritage Site, and one of the most important waterfowl nesting and staging areas in North America.

It also passes directly through the boreal forest being cleared and strip-mined, and serves as the primary source of water used to separate the bitumen from the mined tar sands. Water withdrawals for tar sands surface mining operations pose threats to both the sustainability of fish populations in the Athabasca River and to the sustainability of the Peace-Athabasca Delta, jeopardizing the subsistence and commercial fisheries of local aboriginals.

Tar sands mining operations withdraw 2-4.5 barrels of fresh water from the river for every barrel of oil they produce. Current operations are permitted to withdraw more than 349 million cubic meters of water per year, a volume equivalent to the amount required by a city of 2 million people. But unlike city effluent waters, which are treated and released back into the river, tar sands mining effluent becomes so contaminated that it must be impounded.

Historically it was believed that the Athabasca River had sufficient water flows to meet the needs of tar sands operations. But it is becoming clearer that this might not be the case, particularly during the winter months, when river flows are naturally lower and growing demand for water withdrawals could lead to long-term ecological impacts. The sustainability of fish populations in the Athabasca River is threatened by continuous tar sands water withdrawals during the winter months in years when low precipitation rates in the Athabasca River basin lead to low flow conditions. Nonetheless, the government has failed to implement regulations that would require tar sands withdrawals to stop when the health of the river is at risk. In fact, the government explicitly allows the tar sands industry to continue withdrawing water no matter how low the river flows become.

For certain in situ drilling operations, significant amounts of water are required to create steam to be injected underground. Because the steam condenses into water and is pumped up with the bitumen, the water can be recycled. However, because some water remains underground, a continuous source of additional water (about half a barrel of water per barrel of bitumen) is required.

These operations are located much farther from the river and, as a result, rely mainly upon groundwater. Where shallower freshwater aquifers are used, the continuous pumping of water can lower the water table in the region. Because these groundwater aquifers are connected to lakes, rivers and wetlands, reducing their levels can cause lakes to shrink and wetlands to dry out. As a result, some operators have switched to deeper sources of salty groundwater. But because they require fresh water, the salty water must be treated, which produces large amounts of waste sludge that must be disposed of.

Both tar sands mining and in situ operations produce large volumes of waste as a result of their water use. For in situ operations, the primary waste stream, a result of treating salt water and the water that is pumped up with the bitumen, is disposed of in landfills or injected underground. Tar sands mining operations present a much more significant risk, because they produce large volumes of waste in the form of mine tailings (six barrels of tailings per barrel of bitumen extracted). These tailings, a slurry of water, sand, fine clay and residual bitumen, are stored in vast wastewater reservoirs.

The industry misleadingly refers to them as "tailings ponds," but collectively these pools of waste cover more than 50 square kilometers and are so extensive that they can be seen from space. One tailings pond at Syncrude's mining operation is held in check by the third-largest dam in the world. These tailings dumps pose an environmental threat resulting from the migration of pollutants through the groundwater system and the risk of leaks to the surrounding soil and surface water.

The high concentrations of pollutants such as naphthenic acids, which are found at concentrations 100 times greater than in the natural environment, are acutely toxic to aquatic life, yet the government has no water-quality regulations for these substances. Migratory birds fare slightly better: To prevent them from landing, propane cannon go off at random intervals and scarecrows stand guard on floating barrels. How this tailings waste, and its grave risks, might be dealt with in the long term remains unknown.

Air. Tar sands air pollution, both provincial and transboundary, is rapidly increasing. Since 2003 Alberta has been the industrial air pollution capital of Canada. Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs) are the most common air pollutants released by heavy industry burning fossil fuels. CACs are defined as "air pollutants that affect our health and contribute to air pollution problems" and include such things as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds and particulate matter, all of which are emitted in large volumes by tar sands operations.

Modeling of the impacts of approved tar sands development, which includes three operating mines and three operations at various stages of planning and construction, shows that maximum predicted ambient air concentrations of NOX and SO2 would exceed provincial, national and international guidelines. Emissions of volatile organic compounds such as benzene are also on the rise because of both emissions from burning fossil fuels (e.g., natural gas, diesel, coke) and the growing number of tailings ponds. The costs of such air pollution have not been considered.

The coming tar sands rush

Major global powers are positioning themselves to ensure access to oil from tar sands. To date, four of the five largest publicly traded oil companies in the world (Royal Dutch/Shell, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and TotalFina) have invested or committed themselves to invest billions of dollars in tar sands development. National oil companies have also staked their claim, ranging from Norway's Statoil to China's Sinopec.

Tar sands speculation, investment and development has grown dramatically. The oil industry's production target of 1 million barrels per day was achieved in 2004, 16 years ahead of the ambitious schedule for growth it laid out in 1995. That year the industry invested almost US$9 billion in Alberta's tar sands. More than US$100 billion of investment has been announced for development between 2006 and 2015.

The tar sands industry is now focused on quintupling production as quickly as possible. It is projected that tar sands production will reach 3-4 million barrels per day by 2015 and could grow to 5 million barrels per day by 2030, if not sooner. It is the prospect of this growth that has led Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to label Canada an "emerging energy superpower."

The magnitude of the environmental risks and liabilities arising from Canada's tar sands rush is unprecedented in the history of North American energy production. Growing awareness about the global warming and environmental consequences of relying upon growth in tar sands production throws into sharp relief the perils of our addiction to oil in the 21st century. All North Americans, including future generations, have a stake in the outcome.

To address the impacts of tar sands production, a novel suite of government policies and innovative technologies must be deployed that drastically reduce the environmental impacts by achieving "carbon neutral" (no net greenhouse gas pollution) production, ensuring that development doesn't proceed any faster than reclamation of the boreal forest and reducing dependence on scarce freshwater resources.

The most immediate opportunity to begin our rehabilitation lies in the more efficient use of transportation fuels. To do so requires tackling another sacred cow: the flagging North American auto industry, which is in trouble partly because it is producing the wrong vehicles for the times. The abysmal fuel-efficiency of North America's SUVs, trucks and cars has actually declined since 1986.

The governments of the United States and Canada must collectively commit to implementing regulations that will make North America a global leader in fuel efficiency. By deploying more efficient technologies today, we can begin to ease the demand for transportation fuels and slow the headlong rush into extracting oil from the tar sands. This will afford policymakers and the private sector the time needed to drive investment toward low-carbon and no-carbon fuels, and to evolve our transportation systems and urban design into a state that is compatible with a carbon-free future. North America stands at a critical juncture in its transportation fuel future.

As conventional oil sources disappear, we face a stark choice: We can develop new, even dirtier sources of transportation fuels derived from fossil fuels like the tar sands, or we can set a course for a more sustainable energy future by improving the efficiency of our oil consumption while aggressively transitioning to clean and renewable transportation fuels and sustainable transportation systems.

The environmental and global warming consequences of even 1 million barrels per day of tar sands production must serve as a wake-up call, and we must acknowledge that increased reliance upon this unconventional, high-impact fossil fuel is not a viable path forward.

Dan Woynillowicz is a senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, based in Calgary, Alberta.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:10 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AP Writer via Yahoo

Wednesday September 12, 3:09 pm ET
By John Wilen, AP Business Writer

Oil Prices Reach $80 a Barrel for First Time After Government Reports Decline in Inventories

NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil futures prices rose sharply Wednesday, briefly climbing above a record $80 a barrel after the government reported a surprisingly large drop in crude inventories and declines in gasoline supplies and refinery activity.

The report from the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration suggested oil supplies are tightening as demand remains strong. That's why oil prices are rising despite OPEC's decision on Tuesday to boost crude production by 500,000 barrels per day this fall, analysts said.

Despite Wednesday's jump, oil is still well below inflation-adjusted highs hit in early 1980. Depending on the adjustment, a $38 barrel of oil in 1980 would be worth $96 to $101 or more today.

Oil's recent advance has been largely due to speculative buying by big investment funds, who are responding to a price structure in which oil contracts for delivery in future months are cheaper than the current front-month contract, said Jim Ritterbusch, president of Ritterbusch & Associates in Galena, Ill.

That kind of structure signifies tight demand in the immediate future, and is a buying incentive. Investors who buy now will end up with more oil contracts later, when October futures roll over to cheaper contracts for delivery in later months, Ritterbusch said.

"This is a market that wants to run up on the slightest bit of information," Ritterbusch said.

Prices were also being supported by worries a tropical depression that formed in the western Atlantic on Wednesday will become a hurricane and hit critical Gulf of Mexico oil and gas infrastructure.

"The National Hurricane Center says there's a good chance that could get into the Gulf," Ritterbusch said.

Light, sweet crude for October delivery rose $1.68 to settle at a record $79.91 on the New York Mercantile Exchange after rising as high as $80.18 earlier. October gasoline rose 3.49 cents to settle at $2.016 a gallon.

Nymex heating oil futures rose 3.64 cents to settle at $2.2191 a gallon, while natural gas futures jumped 50.4 cents to settle at $6.438 per 1,000 cubic feet. Natural gas prices typically react strongly to news of tropical weather due to the concentration of gas infrastructure in the Gulf.

At the pump, meanwhile, the average national price of a gallon of gas inched higher by 0.1 cent overnight to $2.815, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Retail prices, which typically lag the futures market, peaked at $3.227 a gallon in late May.

In its weekly report on petroleum inventories, the EIA said crude oil supplies fell by 7.1 million barrels in the week ended Sept. 7, more than twice the 2.7 million-barrel decline analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires, on average, had expected.

Gasoline inventories fell by 700,000 barrels, slightly more than the expected 500,000 barrel decline.

Refinery utilization fell by 1.6 percentage points to 90.5 percent of capacity. Analysts had expected a 0.1 percentage point decline. And inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, grew by 1.8 million barrels, more than the 1.4 million-barrel increase analysts had expected.

Crude imports fell by 674,000 barrels a day on average last week to 9.56 million barrels, while gasoline imports fell an average of 298,000 barrels a day to 1.02 million barrels a day.

Demand for gasoline averaged about 9.6 million barrels a day over the last four weeks, about 0.9 percent above last year, EIA said.

Oil's run-up has perplexed some analysts, who expect demand for oil and petroleum products to cool this fall.

"We're at records, but it doesn't appear to be sustainable," said Chip Hodge, energy portfolio manager at John Hancock Financial Securities in Boston.

Indeed, the Paris-based International Energy Agency on Wednesday slightly lowered oil demand forecasts for this year and next.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 03:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Reuters

Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:20PM EDT
By Lucia Mutikani

NEW YORK, July 20 (Reuters) - Iran's decision to switch some dollar-based oil revenues to the Japanese yen was negative for U.S. government bond market sentiment, but would not make a dent on the flow of petrodollars into Treasuries.

Analysts said although Iran held a small fraction of government bonds, its initiative to ditch the falling dollar was further confirmation of diversification away from the currency and related assets.

"It's negative for Treasuries overall because it does fit with the idea that there is a diversification away from the use of the dollar by various means," said Tony Crescenzi, chief bond market strategist at Miller, Tabak & Co. in New York.

Iran, the world's fourth biggest oil producer, confirmed this week it had asked Japanese customers to pay for crude oil in yen instead of dollars, a move it said was aimed at maximizing oil export revenue. It is locked in a row with the United States over its nuclear program.

Foreign purchases of Treasuries by institutions such as central banks and oil producing countries have helped keep government bonds yields lower in recent years even as the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark overnight lending rate to 5.25 percent.

But the dollar's poor performance has resulted in a gradual diversification in the composition of foreign central bank currency reserves.

"The proportion of money held by central banks in dollars is shrinking. It was once 70 percent and now it's in the mid-60s. Diversification is a key theme that is negative for the dollar and Treasuries, and that has been the case this year," said Crescenzi.

IDEAglobal currency strategist David Powell estimates Iran supplies about 15 percent of Japan's oil imports, roughly translating into $10 billion annually and suggesting little or no impact on petrodollar flows.

"It does not have a huge implication. They probably weren't keeping this $10 billion in Treasuries, more likely in short-term instruments. Iran is not a country that is flush with cash as other oil producing countries are," said Powell.

U.S. government data on Tuesday showed oil exporting nations raised their Treasury holdings by $9.1 billion to $121.3 billion in May.

When British holdings, viewed as including Middle Eastern accounts using London-based accounts, are factored in, about $42.2 billion worth of petrodollars were pumped into Treasuries in May.

"That is more than four times the annual sales in oil from Iran to Japan. Iran is not leading the trend for oil producing or Middle Eastern countries as far as the data shows us," said Powell.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 08:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 9:23am BST 08/08/2007

The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US Treasury bonds if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.

US Treasury secretary Henry Paulson and Chinese president Hu Jintao: China threatens to trigger US dollar crash
Henry Paulson, the US Treasury secretary, met with Chinese president Hu Jintao in Beijing last week

Two Chinese officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning, for the first time, that Beijing may use its $1,330bn (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.

Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is breaking down through historic support levels.

It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession.

It is estimated that China holds more than $900bn in a mix of US bonds.

Xia Bin, finance chief at China's Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what appears to be government policy, with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US.

"Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he said.

He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went further yesterday, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse, if it chose to do so.

"China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US Treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency," he told China Daily. "Russia, Switzerland and several other countries have reduced their dollar holdings. China is unlikely to follow suit as long as the yuan's exchange rate is stable against the dollar.

"The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars once the yuan appreciated dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar."

The threats play into the presidential electoral campaign of Hillary Clinton, who has called for restrictive legislation to prevent America being "held hostage to economic decisions being made in Beijing, Shanghai or Tokyo". She said foreign control over 44pc of the US national debt had left America acutely vulnerable.

Simon Derrick, currency strategist at the Bank of New York Mellon, said the comments were a message to the US Senate as Capitol Hill prepares legislation for the autumn session.

"The words are alarming and unambiguous. This carries a clear political threat and could have very serious consequences at a time when the credit markets are already afraid of contagion from the sub-prime troubles," he said.

A bill drafted by a group of US senators, and backed by the Senate Finance Committee, calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods as retaliation for alleged currency manipulation.

The yuan has appreciated 9pc against the dollar over the last two years under a crawling peg but it has failed to halt the rise of China's trade surplus, which reached $26.9bn in June.

Henry Paulson, the US Treasury secretary, said any such sanctions would undermine US authority and "could trigger a global cycle of protectionist legislation".

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Wall Street Journal Online

By DAN MOLINSKI
July 13, 2007 11:38 a.m.

The euro surged to a fresh all-time high against the dollar early Friday in New York, after U.S. retail sales data came in even lower than expected.

The euro was at $1.3808 from $1.3781 at Thursday's close, while the dollar was at 121.94 yen compared with 122.50 yen. Sterling was at $2.0357 from $2.0297. The dollar was at 1.1994 Swiss francs from 1.2038 francs.

The euro climbed as high as $1.3813 after the data, marking the fourth consecutive day of record-setting highs against the greenback. That surpasses the previous high of $1.3799 set Thursday.

U.S. retail sales in June plunged 0.9% versus a revised 1.5% rise in May, and economists' expectations for a 0.1% decline.

The dollar has been under pressure all week amid concerns about the U.S. subprime mortgage mess and how this may affect the overall economy.

"Investors originally sold the dollar off after the data came in slightly lower than expected, because obviously the consumer is the main driver of the economy," said Grant Wilson, senior foreign exchange trader at Mellon Bank. "But while the euro did force its way through $1.38, (the dollar) is still not running away on the downside."

The retail sales data followed a rather quiet overnight session in which the dollar traded in tight ranges against its rivals. The greenback was unable to benefit from Thursday's surge in U.S. stock prices or the subsequent rise in global equities overnight.

Sterling, however, found some support overnight from comments on inflation by Bank of England Chief Economist Charlie Bean that helped cement expectations of more rate increases by England's central bank.

Mr. Bean said that it might be more prudent to respond to temporary pickups in inflation, rather that assume that the public will treat such an acceleration in price gains as transient.

"If there is a chance that private agents will treat the increase in inflation as a harbinger of raised inflation in the future too, then it probably makes sense for the central bank to be wary about accommodating even the first-round effects," Mr. Bean said.

Elsewhere, the New Zealand dollar was higher Friday after retail sales in New Zealand rose in May, rebounding from a decline in the previous month. Statistics New Zealand said seasonally-adjusted retail sales rose 1.2% in May from April, which was well above the median 0.5% rise forecast by economists. The New Zealand dollar was recently at $0.7870 from $0.7846.

The yen was rather steady in overnight trading, though the euro did briefly climb to a new all-time high of 168.95 yen. Against the dollar, the yen is trading a bit higher following the U.S. retail sales data, but it remains in rather tight ranges as investors try to gauge risk aversion levels.

"The market appears unsure of the direction in which to head as it attempts to reconcile broader dollar weakness with signs that the Bank of Japan is in no major hurry to raise rates and the latest decline in risk metrics," said Stephen Malyon, currency strategist at Scotia Capital.

--Jeff Bater in Washington contributed to this report.

Write to Dan Molinski at Dan.Molinski [a] dowjones.com

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:41 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Financial Times via Yahoo

By Simeon Kerr in Dubai
Sun May 20, 1:45 PM ET

Kuwait on Sunday removed its currency peg to the US dollar, throwing plans for a Gulf currency union by 2010 into doubt and raising the prospect that other oil-producing states might abandon long-held dollar pegs.

Sheikh Salem Abdelaziz Al Sabah, governor of the Central Bank of Kuwait, told the official Kuwait news agency that the decision had been made owing to the "detrimental effects of the pegging system to the national economy".

Since late last year, Kuwaiti officials have hinted that the country would revert to a basket of currencies to prevent the sliding dollar increasing the cost of imports, which has stoked inflation to more than 4 per cent, double the historic average. This has encouraged speculators to plough billions of dollars into the dinar over the past few months, betting that the central bank would allow the dinar to appreciate.

On Sunday, the dinar traded up 0.4 per cent as the central bank replaced the peg with a basket of undisclosed currencies. The central bank had allowed the currency to vary up to 3.5 per cent from the peg, but the dinar had been at the top end of the approved trading band for a year owing to the continuing weakness of the dollar and the strength of Kuwait's oil-driven economy.

The dollar is expected to make up about 75-80 per cent of the new basket, reducing the third largest Arab oil exporter's exposure to the weakening dollar.

Kuwait dropped its currency basket in 2003, adopting a dollar peg as part of the Gulf Co-operation Council countries' drive to create a unified economic block with a single currency by 2010. But doubts over the ability of the GCC economies to harmonise have arisen, with one member of the six-nation council, Oman, saying it would not meet the convergence criteria.

"There have already been a lot of question marks over currency union taking place; this raises an additional one," said Simon Williams, an economist with HSBC in Dubai.

Kuwait's move may come as a surprise to other GCC states, such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have been repeating their commitment to the peg in recent weeks, saying that any revaluation should be agreed collectively by the GCC.

Mr Williams did not believe other GCC states would follow suit on revaluation quickly, as these countries have clung to dollar pegs since the early 1980s.

But other GCC states - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman - are studying the move as an option to mitigate dollar weakness.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:03 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Axis of Logic

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
By Krassimir Petrov
Dec 29, 2006, 05:48

I. Economics of Empires

A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms—usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods—the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960’s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax—the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of “severing the link between the dollar and gold”, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond— the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren’t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields—he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have went into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished—he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.

The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.

The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro – the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.

The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.
Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter—those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs—will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation’s exchange:

Sabotaging the Exchange—this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.

Coup d’état—this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.

Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations—this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d’etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.

Joint U.N. War Resolution—this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.

Unilateral Nuclear Strike—this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.

Unilateral Total War—this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.
Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis—between deflation and hyperinflation—it will be forced fast either to take its “classical medicine” by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard’s America’s Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem—to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world—that barbarous relic called gold.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommended Reading
William Clark “The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War in Iraq”
William Clark “The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target”

About the Author
Krassimir Petrov (Krassimir_Petrov@hotmail.com) has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.

Also by this author
“China’s Great Depression”
“Masters of Austrian Investment Analysis”
“Austrian Analysis of U.S. Inflation”
“Oil Performance in a Worldwide Depression”
See: www.financialsense.com/editorials/petrov/main.html

~~~~~ Notes from the Editor of Energy Bulletin~~~~~

An excellent and thought provoking article by Krassimir Petrov!

However, I think perhaps it's not entirely correct to state that "critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields." The Bush regime are probably aiming to set themselves up as policeman of the Middle East oil fields, 'protecting' oil supply to Asia and Europe in return for various advantages at any future negotiation tables. Meanwhile billions of dollars of unaccountable no-bid contracts have been handed to corporations with ties to Bush administration, and the Iraqi oil industry is set to be privatised. So the reasons for the war are rich and varied. However Petrov has given us one of the clearest explanations yet of one of the most important, and certainly least understood, motivations for the war.

-AF

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Associated Press

By MATT MOORE, AP Business Writer
December 29, 2006

FRANKFURT, Germany - The surging euro is confounding critics who once doubted it could rival the dollar, pound and yen — but Europe's shared currency still annoys some consumers five years after its introduction in cash form.

In 2006, it has surged in value, rising nearly 14 percent to 20-month highs and is about three or four cents off its all-time high of $1.36 in December 2004. It's a strong turnaround from an initial plunge to as low as 82 cents in 2000.

"When it first started — and even before it hit markets properly, everyone was very skeptical and negative on the whole thing, and that's exactly the performance we saw," said David Jones, chief currency analyst for CMC Markets.

"That initial negative view is history now," Jones said. "The euro is seen as a strong global currency now."

However, some consumers still grumble about using the euro, with 41 percent of people in the 12-nation euro zone saying they still have difficulties using it, according to a recent Gallup poll for the EU. Many still calculate large purchases in the old currencies.

And having a single currency hasn't closed the growth gap between Europe — where one or two percent annual growth constitutes an upswing — and more dynamic economies in the United States and Asia.

But companies and governments can now raise money across borders with their investors no longer facing the risk that stock or bond holdings will be eroded by exchange rate fluctuations. And travelers no longer have to waste time and money at airport exchange booths, or return home with a pocketful of foreign currency.

The euro — which was initially introduced on financial markets in 1999 — has also increasingly gained acceptance as a foreign currency reserve in the coffers of companies and governments from China to the Middle East.

"Indeed, there is the very real possibility that several countries could switch a proportion of their foreign currency reserves out of dollars over time to the euro," said Howard Archer, chief European economist for Global Insight in London.

According to the International Monetary Fund, global foreign currency reserves during the first quarter of 2006 stood at approximately $4.34 trillion. Of that, the dollar accounted for 66.3 percent with the euro, the British pound and the yen accounting for 24.8 percent, 4 percent and 3.4 percent respectively.

In November, China's central bank said it was mulling whether to reduce the weighting of dollars in its reserves. Central Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan said his country was "considering lots of instruments to diversify its foreign exchange reserves."

Archer said other countries have expressed similar sentiment.

"Also potentially significant were indications from the central banks of Qatar, Sweden, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates in recent months that they are either diversifying away from the dollar in their foreign-exchange reserves, or considering doing so in the longer term," he said.

On Thursday, the Emirates' central bank governor said the dollar's weakness is prodding his country to convert 8 percent of its foreign exchange reserves into euros.

About 98 percent of the Emirates' nearly $25 billion currency reserves are in dollars. That may decline to 90 percent in six to nine months if the bank's directors approve the switch as is expected, Central Bank governor Sultan Bin Nasser al-Suwaidi said.

Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business, said the dollar's supremacy, while vibrant, could suffer because of larger U.S. trade deficits and the urge to diversify.

"The euro is the prime candidate for diversification," he said, but added that Europe's struggles to maintain single-digit growth and high unemployment rates would keep the euro from supplanting the dollar as the primary reserve currency.

"Moreover, Europe's trade problems with China, and trade deficits, will grow in the years ahead, casting some doubt on the euro's long-term strength relative to the dollar," Morici said. "Picking the euro over the dollar or vice versa comes down to picking which currency will be stronger two and five years from now. That is a difficult choice to make."

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 09:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Times Online UK

December 22, 2006
Carl Mortished, International Business Editor

Iran is selling more of its oil for payment in euros than dollars as it seeks to shift its foreign currency reserves away from the depreciating currency of its political enemy, the United States.

The world’s fourth-biggest oil exporter has inserted a clause in its oil contracts allowing it to request payment in alternative currencies.

Gholanhossein Nozari, the managing director of National Iranian Oil Company, said that 57 per cent of Iran’s income from oil exports was now received in euros.

The move reflects a political desire for less reliance on the dollar, as well as a need to avoid further depreciation in currency reserves. Iran’s dollar holdings are thought to have fallen from 40 per cent of currency reserves to just a third.

Iran announced plans in 2004 to develop an Iranian oil bourse, a commodity exchange that would become a Middle Eastern rival to the major exchanges in New York, London and Singapore, which set benchmark oil prices.

The Iranian bourse would also challenge the petrodollar by setting oil prices in euros. However, there has been little progress in establishing the bourse, which failed to launch as planned last March.

A spokesman for National Iranian Oil Company said that the switch to euros for oil payments would not affect the pricing of Iranian oil. “Our oil contracts are still based on the dollar because the international market assessments are in US dollars,” he said.

Iran’s decision to switch currencies extends a trend among big oil exporters moving from the dollar as they seek protection from a continuing slide in the petrocurrency’s value. In October Russia said it would diversify its currency reserves into Japanese yen. Overall, Russia is believed to have let its dollar holdings slip and they are now equal with euros.

The dollar’s slide protected non-dollar oil importers from the escalation in the price of fuel early this year. Oil was $63 per barrel at the beginning of January, rose to $74 at the start of July and has fallen back to $63 per barrel this month. However, translated into euros, the rise is less impressive — from €53 a barrel to a peak of €58 before a sharp decline to €48.

The fall in the dollar against major currencies has had a dramatic impact on the revenues of oil exporters and has exacerbated the rumbling anti- American feeling in the Gulf.

In March the United Arab Emirates said that it would switch 10 per cent of its currency reserves from dollars to euros, a decision that closely followed the attempt by the US Congress to block the acquisition by Dubai Ports World of a number of ports in the United States.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 07/12/2006

America's stock markets typically start crumbling four months before each recession, anticipating the crunch in profits. Shares then grind relentlessly down for 10 months or so until they have on average knocked 26 per cent off the S&P 500 index, Wall Street's listing of top companies.

So if you think the US property slump is looking scary after October's 9.7 per cent drop in new home prices, it may be time to take a little money off the table. It has been a lucrative autumn rally, but the four-year bull market is long in the tooth by any standards.

As we report today, the rate of insider stock sales by company directors on both sides of the Atlantic is the highest since records began 20 years ago, with sales outnumbering purchases by 60:1.

It makes scant difference whether your shares are on Wall Street or the London Stock Exchange. The FTSE 100 index is a global play these days. The lion's share of profits come from overseas, while London's AIM market has become a bet on Chinese and Russian companies nesting there by the dozens.

The world economy is what matters, and I don't like the smell of it. Nor, apparently, does Hank Paulson, who made $700 million at Goldman Sachs before taking over the US Treasury this year. He has reactivated a crisis team with a command centre in Washington to cope with the "systemic risk" in a market melt-down. His worry? 8,000 unregulated hedge funds with $1.3 trillion at hand, and derivative contracts now worth $370 trillion. "We need to be very careful here," he said.

A well-sourced article in Washington's Weekly Standard says Mr Paulson fears a "serious crisis that would be a body-blow to the US economy".

Yes, China is booming – for now – but it accounts for just 4 per cent of world consumption. The great US shopping extravaganza is six times bigger, and remains the anchor of the international system. It is slowing fast, unsurprising after 17 interest rate rises from 1 per cent in June 2004 to the current 5.25 per cent. "Big ticket" orders for cars, aircraft, computers and such plummeted 8.2 per cent in October.

Average house prices have fallen from $244,000 in April to $221,000 last month, with more violent corrections in Florida, Arizona, and New England. Builders have warned of a "death spiral" as they slash prices to off-load a glut of unsold homes.

The "happy handover" orthodoxy of the International Monetary Fund is that America will escape with a shallow slowdown. Asia and Europe will pick up the growth baton. The world will march on without missing a step.

Nice if you can get it. The more ominous possibility is that America fails to recover quickly, and takes the world with it. Japan already shows signs of stalling. Retail sales have fallen for two months. Far from bursting back to life as expected, it is still teetering on the edge of deflation.

France ground to a halt in the last quarter as the surging euro ate into the country's industrial core. Airbus was humming when the euro was worth 90 US cents. Now it must compete at $1.33, with wage costs in euros set against delivery contracts in dollars. Currency hedges protect for a while, then reality hits.

German industry says $1.40 is the pain limit. It is hard to see what can stop the dollar sliding that far as funds bet on US rate cuts next year. The yield premium that kept the currency aloft earlier this year is about to narrow, perhaps sharply. The central banks of Asia and Russia are sated on dollar reserves. They may not slash their US holdings, but they are unlikely to add either. So who will fund America's deficits?

"The US needs a trillion dollars a year just to stand still," says David Bloom, currency guru at HSBC. Modern financial crises have always begun on the peripheries of global economy, setting off a chain reaction. Mr Bloom says the seizure this time will be at the heart of the system as the dollar buckles, pressing down on the "aorta of capitalism".

So we have a world where the ageing economies of Europe and Japan are too fragile to withstand a dollar slide, yet America needs a weak dollar to cushion its own downturn. Meanwhile, China is holding its currency far below equilibrium. Nobody is doing much to break this impasse. The 1930s come to mind.

The consensus is that America will rebound quickly, averting a sticky end. But it takes two years for rate rises to feed through an economy, so Americans have not yet faced the worst. Nobody knows how US households with record debt will cope with the squeeze. Borrowings rose 8.1 per cent in 2000, 8.6 per cent in 2001, 9.7 per cent in 2002, 11.4 per cent in 2003, 11.1 per cent in 2004, 11.7 per cent in 2005, with no let-up in 2006. Debt payments have reached an all-time high of 13.9 per cent of personal income.

Americans extracted 6 per cent of GDP from their homes last year in equity withdrawals (ie, more debt), mostly to subsidise their lifestyles. This game is up. Professor Nouriel Roubini from New York University says recession is inevitable. "People have been using their homes as their ATM machine, but many are now facing negative equity so there will be a lot of foreclosures. As the housing recession spreads to manufacturing, this is going to lead to a much harder landing than people think."

The bonds markets are alert, even if equities are not. Interest rates on 10-year Treasury bonds (4.46 per cent) have dropped below short-term rates (5.25 per cent) for five months. This is the "inverted yield curve" of satanic fame, flag of recession. Ignore that at your peril.

Whatever happens, the Federal Reserve will come to the rescue. But how soon? The Fed minutes from December 2000 show some governors fretting about inflation long after the danger had shifted to slump. That wily old bird Alan Greenspan silenced them, knowing in his bones that the economy was going over a cliff.

His untested sucessor, Ben Bernanke – burdened with inflationist baggage – does not yet have the credibility to pull off that stunt. Whatever he really thinks, he will have to play by the book. So batten down the hatches for a long storm.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 03:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Fantastic explantion of the history of oil, oil's influence in war, Peak Oil and US Dollar currency hegemony. All done with humor, amusing analogies and in lay person's terms.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It appears that the rising price of oil is not only impacting gasoline prices, but the inflationary pressures of the increasing cost of petroleum is finally bubbling up to the consumer level in the form of the many products and services which are made or made possible by natural gas and oil.

Source: AP

Excerpts:

WASHINGTON - Consumer spending was weak for a fourth straight month in June as rising gasoline prices left Americans with little to spend on other items. A key measure of inflation rose at the fastest pace in more than a decade.

Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of total economic growth and the slowdown in this area was a big factor in the slowing of the overall economy in the spring to a growth rate of just 2.5 percent, less than half the 5.6 percent pace of the first quarter.

Stagflation: The Federal Reserve is hoping to slow the economy enough to keep inflation under control. However, the new report showed the opposing forces facing the central bank. While consumer spending and the overall economy are slowing, inflation is getting worse.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 08:11 AM | Permalink