Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Euro-Credit Crunch

Credit crunch: Central bank likely to raise eurozone interest rates despite downturn

The European Central Bank seems determined to raise interest rates this week, in the hope of reining in soaring inflation across the 13 member countries of the eurozone. But there are warning signs that members are facing a slowdown like the one affecting Britain.

Some countries would be particularly hard hit if the central bank raises its one-size-fits-all interest rate by a quarter point to 4.25% on Thursday - the first rise for a year.

Figures out yesterday made a rate rise all but certain after inflation jumped to a 16-year high of 4% in June, mainly as a result of higher oil prices. The increase was from 3.7% in May and was greater than financial markets had been expecting.

"If there were any remaining doubts about a [0.25 percentage point] rate hike on Thursday, they can now be put to rest," said Martin van Vliet, economist at ING Financial Markets.


Germany, Europe's biggest economy and the world's largest exporter, has been growing very robustly on the back of a sizzling global economy and has shrugged off the strength of the euro, which makes exports less competitive. But other European economies such as Ireland and Spain are in the middle of full-blown housing market meltdown.


The German economy, which grew at 1.5% in the first quarter of this year, now looks in trouble. Rising petrol prices hit consumer sentiment and business confidence has turned down. Unemployment has ticked up for the first time since March 2006 and retail sales have fallen for three months in a row. Some economists think Germany may show no growth at all in the second quarter.


"Until recently the German economy was the last glimmer of hope for the eurozone economy. The powerhouse of the eurozone economy was running strong, fuelling the ECB's famous 'sound economic fundamentals'," said Carsten Brzeski, economist at ING Financial Markets.

"Now, Germany mirrors the malaise of the entire eurozone. Inflation is close to a 15-year high and a whole range of confidence indicators point to difficult times ahead."

Nevertheless, Germany goes into the slowdown with some momentum behind it. Other economies have run out of steam. The once booming Irish economy is in the middle of a housing slump which has brought it to a shuddering halt and raised talk for the first time in many years that people may again start to emigrate.

Housebuilding has plunged by two-thirds this year and employment in construction has dropped sharply. There are anecdotal reports of thousands of Polish builders heading home again.


A similar housing collapse, the result of enormous over-building in recent years and a big drop in demand, is going on in Spain. Spanish unemployment is heading rapidly towards 10% and inflation is above 5%.


France is suffering a slowdown in the housing market, with property sales down 30% this year and prices flagging. The French are panicking about the impact on purchasing power of higher food and petrol prices. Tighter credit conditions generally are undermining economic growth.


Lavinia Santovetti, economist at Lehman Brothers, said: "The euro area retained a good deal of momentum in the first quarter, with GDP expanding by 0.8% quarter-on-quarter. However, there is mounting evidence that the economy is faltering. A sharp fall in growth now looks imminent."

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/01/europeanbanks.globaleconomy/print)


aC. Sidebar

I have a simple solution to for our European neighbors and at home regarding the current stock market meltdown, stagflation, and down-hill skiing trend of the US Dollar. ECB (European Central Bank) lower your interest rate. US (Federal Reserve) raise your (our) interest rate.


Why you ask? Didn't the housing bubble start because of higher interest rates? Yes, but times have changed. Our economy, or shall I say our global economy is now concentrated on natural resources (specifically Petro - Euro-talk for petroleum) and ever-more the US dollar. The US dollar is at an all-time low and if the ECB does raise the interest rate for the euro-zone, the US dollar will only fall further.

I'm not an economist, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express and read enough BusinessWeek and non-fiction novels to where I can understand the real issue at hand. The issue at hand isn't the housing market, it's not the gas and dollar stupid.

I believe, under my theory, if the ECB lowers the Euro-zone interest rate, the Euro currency will fall against the dollar, thus propping up the dollar. This will in turn lower the price of crude oil temporary because the dollar is temporary stronger than before. (Don't forget, crude oil is priced in dollars.) Please note, there is a reason for why my theory requires the Federal Reserve to act as well.

Under basic Econ-101, lower interest rates will foster demand, thus stimulating growth. In growth you tread the inflation waters. Sound economics is the balance of supply and demand, on the micro and macro levels. If the ECB were to lower the Euro-zone interest rate, demand will increase for housing and borrowing activities because of the cheaper cost of debt. Counterpoint, risk is significantly higher of inflation because now there exist excess subsequent demand and the ever-so-common point of 'not-enough-supply' to match the demand.

Thus you need the US (Federal Reserve) to raise the (or our) interest rates (both Federal Fund / Overnight Rate). We, as in everyone on Earth, live in an ever-growing economy where Nike Air Force Ones are demand in both the big and small towns of America to the big and small towns of Japan and England. Demand for Caterpiller machinery vehicles and Snap-On tools not only exist here in the states, but the European and Asian states as well. To balance out the sound global economic policy (aC's Global Economic Policy), action must be occur on both sides of the ocean.

Yes, the housing market is sucking right now and people will say raising the interest rates will incur further defaults and bankruptcies. Well, I have news for you. People who enter those stupid loans several years ago or in general who enter bad loans will still default no-matter how much you sugar-coat reality. We've seen how the Federal Reserve has lower consecutively the interest rates from last October to last March to low level that are obscene from the 1980's. I do have to say, rates in the 10% range did wonders for my savings account, but I digress. Even at historically low levels, people are still defaulting on mortgages and the banks are still writing them off to no end.

So, to all the members of the Federal Reserve Policymaking committee (FOMC), listen to your one member that voted against the majority decision during the last meeting. He was right to point out that a more aggressive action (raise not maintain rates) was needed to tame inflation. So it looks I have a Federal Reserve President (Dallas I think) on my side / theory. Raising the interest rates will keep inflation at bay and yes, it will slow demand for borrowing activities and growth, but don't forget the caveat of my theory.

When both sides of the ocean make the appropriate moves that I suggest, the action of each country will incur a positive outcome. For American, the Euro will be cheaper due to a substantial increase in the value of the dollar (due to subsequent ECB and Fed actions). American will travel back to Rome, London, and Paris again. Rick Steve's will continue his travel guide dominance with flair now that the term 'budget' will be back. With a temporary weaker Euro, American can buy more European things (i.e. VW, BMW, and authentic Swedish Bikini Team Calendars) cheaper. Yes, I know that will have an effect on American exports, but that's another discussion on global economics involving guns and butter (sarcastic DePaul Econ humor).

So that' s it. My rant about how the higher US dollar and lower Euro will not only lower crude oil prices, but also balance our economies and we can pretend that it's 1999 all over again, minus Enron and MCI-WorldCom. I'll be waiting for my Nobel Prize in Economics now.



Monday, September 11, 2006

Obesity increasing at alarming rate in Europe

Yahoo!
Mon Sep 11, 10:50 AM ET

Overweight and obesity levels are increasing at an alarming rate within the European Union, with over a quarter of men and a third of women considered obese in some countries, the European Commission has warned.

The EU's executive arm presented the results of a major public consultation on diet and exercise, prompted in part by the 14 million overweight children in Europe of whom over three million are considered obese.

"Up to 27 percent of European men and 38 percent of women (are) now considered to be obese depending on the EU member state concerned," the Commission said in a statement Monday.
The highest prevalence of overweight children is found in southern European countries at around 20-35 percent as opposed to 10-20 percent in northern Europe.

"This is now an urgent public health issue requiring co-ordinated action at EU level, as well as within member states," the Commission said.

According to the consultation's results, it is necessary to increase the availability of healthy foods in canteens or in vending machines, reduce the availability of foods that are high in fat and sugar and to promote sports and other physical activity.

There were also calls for better and clearer consumer information on nutrition.

EU Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner Markos Kyprianou said: "The prevalence of obesity has been rising fast in Europe and there is already evidence that this is leading to increasing rates of conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease."

While respondents from industry favoured self-regulation, healthcare professionals, consumer organisations and NGOs remain sceptical about the impact of self-regulation on advertising of foods high in calories but poor in nutrients.

The commission will consider the policy options "and fine-tune its action with the right balance between voluntary agreements and legislative action", its statement said.

Poor nutrition and insufficient physical activity are among the leading causes of avoidable death in Europe.

Obesity-related illnesses are estimated to account for as much as seven percent of total healthcare costs in the 25-nation bloc.


.aC Sidebar

Three words, the Full-English Breakfest (the Full Monty). Yes, that and the northern England/Scotland tradition of Fried Snickers can't be healthy either. Plus, Octoberfest in Germany, great cheeses of France, and Swiss/Austrian chocolate isn't an ideal methods of diet too.

Friday, July 14, 2006

Give Me a Break!

MSN

What happens when you combine the complex codependent subtext of "Toxic" with the deep and meaningful posterior shout-out that is "PopoZao"? Scarily enough, we could soon find out. Britney Spears, apparently not content just to make chubby-cheeked tots with Kevin Federline, tells Harper's Bazaar (via USA Today) that she's also planning to make music with her would-be rapper hubby.

"I'm so proud of Kevin," the erstwhile pop starlet tells the August issue of the magazine, which features her on the cover sporting chocolate locks, a swelling belly and no clothes. "He's been working so hard on his own album since I got pregnant with Preston. I'm so lucky. He's a doll; he's adorable."

Let's hope that when the scruffy, overly fertile former backup dancer takes a breather from "working so hard," he'll return the compliment to his meal-ticket missus, who could probably use some words of encouragement. The beleaguered Britney, 24, admits that while it's "empowering" to have a bun in the oven, "you don't feel the most beautiful all the time."

She fesses up that she was "paranoid" while pregnant with Sean Preston, 10 months, but says that with "this one, I was like, I've just got to wing it. It was weird for me at first because of who I am. Wherever you go, they expect you to look a certain way. I'm not supposed to be this big huge pregnant superstar."

Spears says she has every intention of returning to form -- and performing -- after her second K. Fed kid arrives in the fall, insisting, "I'm going to get really intense with it."

In other Britney news, did she let her New York condo go for a song? The New York Post reports that after several price reductions, she finally managed to unload her 4,000-square-foot, three-bedroom, four-and-a-half bath, four-level Manhattan penthouse.

The lucky buyer reportedly picked up the palatial pad, once occupied by Keith Richards, for a mere $4 million, far below the nearly $6 million Spears wanted when it was originally listed in July 2004.

The digs, which come complete with a library (barely used, we're sure), terrace, media room and solarium, set Britney back $3 million in 2002.


aC. Sidebar
How can you be proud of a husband that works hard on a non-existent, widely available record that's listenable. Also, how would you feel if your husband is concentrating more on a record than a baby and mother? I don't know how indepth the relationship and quality of communication and maturity, but I would take care of my wife and baby over a stupid album.

I have nothing against Britney, just the fact that I am a viable contender to be a good father, friend, and husband that wooud respect and be very gentlemanly to her drives me nuts. I think the media and world backs me up when we wish to see more out of K-Fed in this relationship. Where was K-Fed when Britney had issues with driving Sean Preston on her lap or when the car seat was in the wrong position. It's not all Britney's fault. K-Fed is a father, heck, he's a father of four counting his ex-girlfriend. This is sad. Having a good weekend Mr and Mrs. Spears.

Give Me a Break!

MSN

What happens when you combine the complex codependent subtext of "Toxic" with the deep and meaningful posterior shout-out that is "PopoZao"? Scarily enough, we could soon find out. Britney Spears, apparently not content just to make chubby-cheeked tots with Kevin Federline, tells Harper's Bazaar (via USA Today) that she's also planning to make music with her would-be rapper hubby.

"I'm so proud of Kevin," the erstwhile pop starlet tells the August issue of the magazine, which features her on the cover sporting chocolate locks, a swelling belly and no clothes. "He's been working so hard on his own album since I got pregnant with Preston. I'm so lucky. He's a doll; he's adorable."

Let's hope that when the scruffy, overly fertile former backup dancer takes a breather from "working so hard," he'll return the compliment to his meal-ticket missus, who could probably use some words of encouragement. The beleaguered Britney, 24, admits that while it's "empowering" to have a bun in the oven, "you don't feel the most beautiful all the time."

She fesses up that she was "paranoid" while pregnant with Sean Preston, 10 months, but says that with "this one, I was like, I've just got to wing it. It was weird for me at first because of who I am. Wherever you go, they expect you to look a certain way. I'm not supposed to be this big huge pregnant superstar."

Spears says she has every intention of returning to form -- and performing -- after her second K. Fed kid arrives in the fall, insisting, "I'm going to get really intense with it."

In other Britney news, did she let her New York condo go for a song? The New York Post reports that after several price reductions, she finally managed to unload her 4,000-square-foot, three-bedroom, four-and-a-half bath, four-level Manhattan penthouse.

The lucky buyer reportedly picked up the palatial pad, once occupied by Keith Richards, for a mere $4 million, far below the nearly $6 million Spears wanted when it was originally listed in July 2004.

The digs, which come complete with a library (barely used, we're sure), terrace, media room and solarium, set Britney back $3 million in 2002.


aC. Sidebar
How can you be proud of a husband that works hard on a non-existent, widely available record that's listenable. Also, how would you feel if your husband is concentrating more on a record than a baby and mother? I don't know how indepth the relationship and quality of communication and maturity, but I would take care of my wife and baby over a stupid album.

I have nothing against Britney, just the fact that I am a viable contender to be a good father, friend, and husband that wooud respect and be very gentlemanly to her drives me nuts. I think the media and world backs me up when we wish to see more out of K-Fed in this relationship. Where was K-Fed when Britney had issues with driving Sean Preston on her lap or when the car seat was in the wrong position. It's not all Britney's fault. K-Fed is a father, heck, he's a father of four counting his ex-girlfriend. This is sad. Having a good weekend Mr and Mrs. Spears.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

FYI Guys...

Darwin Revisited:
Females Don't Always Go for Hottest Mate
May 5, 2006; WSJ.com

At first glance, the "sexy son hypothesis" makes perfect sense. According to this pillar of evolutionary biology, a female who chooses a high-quality male will have sons who inherit dad's allure. They, too, will therefore have their pick of females, allowing mom to hit the jackpot: grandmotherhood.

But when scientists followed male flycatchers whose dads were real catches (as judged by a forehead patch that is this bird's equivalent of perfect abs), they found no such thing.

The sons "did not inherit their father's ... mating status," the Swedish researchers wrote in the February issue of American Naturalist. As a result, mom got fewer grandkids than did females who settled for less-attractive males. The studs were so busy mating they had no time to raise offspring, causing their health and fecundity to suffer. Homelier birds were better dads, raising sons who had more mating success.

Poor Darwin. After he developed his theory of how organisms change through variation and natural selection, his thoughts turned to sex. Because females have few eggs (compared with males' limitless sperm), their best strategy is to select the highest-quality males for mates, he wrote in 1871. That way, their progeny also would have superior traits. The offspring would survive and reproduce better, making mom's fondest wish -- to become a grandmother -- come true. (In evolution, success means reproduction, not only for you but for your descendants unto the nth generation, too.)

The theory of sexual selection -- that females choose males with the best genes, causing those genes to become more prevalent in succeeding generations -- is invoked to explain why peacocks have rococo tails and bucks have huge antlers. Neither trait has real survival value, but females choose males that have them, exerting selective pressure for ever-showier versions.

Or so textbooks say. Just as Darwin's theory of natural selection is under attack by America's religious right, his less-known theory of sexual selection is catching flak from some biologists. "In a number of species, reproductive behavior does not conform to Darwin's theory of sexual selection," says biologist Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University. "The idea that females choose the genetically best males is wrong. Instead of choosing mates who will increase the genetic quality of their offspring, females make choices that will increase their number of offspring."

As in the flycatcher study, mating with "sexy" males isn't necessarily the way to a plethora of descendants. True, in species where males contribute nothing but genes to offspring, this strategy may work. But biologists are finding more and more examples where females benefit from a different strategy.

Female crickets mate with just about any male that asks, for instance. Through promiscuity, not choosing the "best" male, they increase the genetic diversity of their offspring, improving the chances that some will survive no matter what pathogens and enemies the kids encounter.

Other females are not as enamored of sexy traits as theory claims. While big-antlered red deer are busy fighting each other to show a female who has the best rack, the doe sneaks off to mate with less well-endowed stags. Female red-winged blackbirds are not easily impressed, either. Having the most macho plumage has no detectable effect on how many offspring a male sires, David Westneat of the University of Kentucky reported in American Naturalist this week.

Nor is flaunting their charms and competing against other males necessarily the best reproductive strategy, as Darwin thought. In some species, cooperation can bring greater success. Bluegill sunfish, for instance, form trios of one small female, one large territory-holding male and one small male that infiltrate that territory when the female releases her eggs. That lets the little scrawny guy, despite the lack of female-attracting heft, become a dad.

Such strategies, Prof. Roughgarden says, show that "each kind of male has its own way of going about its life. Each works out fine." As she and colleagues wrote in February in Science, "animals cooperate to rear the largest number of offspring possible."

Another problem with sexual selection is that it fails to explain the persistence of, shall we say, homely males. If females choose the male with the best traits, as claimed, then after enough generations every peacock should have a tail to die for. But they do not. Every flock has studs and duds. "Shouldn't all the tails be great?" asks Prof. Roughgarden.

Other scientists are not ready to jettison sexual selection, calling it (as biologist Jerry Coyne did in a review) "powerful and largely correct." But some aren't so sure. Primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (pronounced "herdy") calls it "ill-advised" to "give precedence to [females'] quests for supposedly the 'best' genes" when they choose a mate.

Mating can indeed be a competitive sport (see: spring break). But many traits that attract females have nothing to do with good genes. For mysterious reasons, females just developed an attraction for them. Men on a quest for perfect abs can take that as fair warning.

Who likes cats?

http://www.snabbstart.com/film/roliga-katter-mycket-roliga.aspx