<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
			<rss version="2.0">
				<channel>
					
								<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:59:51 GMT</lastBuildDate>
							
								<title><![CDATA[EdgyInChina.org]]></title>
							
								<generator><![CDATA[Doteasy Hosted Blogs - Powered By Doteasy.com]]></generator>
							
								<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/]]></link>
							
								<ttl><![CDATA[60]]></ttl>
							
								<description><![CDATA[Edgy's Blog]]></description>
							
								<docs><![CDATA[http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss]]></docs>
							
								<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:59:51 GMT</pubDate>
							
						<item>
							
											<description><![CDATA[<p>People like Sen. Schumer make it <u><strong>ALL</strong></u> sound so simple. Let the renminbi appreciate and the world's economic problems will be solved, and unemployment in America will fall. Yet, if you would stop and think about it, this is a distinctly implausible claim. The idea that an adjustment in one relative price in the entire global economy will rid the world of imbalances and lead to a new economic nirvana doesn't really make sense. When the Japanese tried to do in the late-1980s exactly what is now being asked of China (shift away from export-led to a domestic demand-led growth) it all ended in tears.<br />
It is wrong to insist that China&rsquo;s global rebalancing imperatives should be addressed by a realignment in a bi-lateral exchange rate with the dollar. What matters most insofar as global imbalances are concerned is China&rsquo;s broad multilateral exchange rate. On that basis, China can hardly be accused of manipulation vis-a-vis the rest of the world. In real terms, the trade-weighted renminbi is up 7.5% over the past six months and fully 20% over the past five years.</p>
<p><br />
<em>Without a fix to America&rsquo;s saving problem (highly unlikely in an era of trillion dollar federal budget deficits) forcing the Chinese to appreciate the RMB versus the dollar, or imposing trade sanctions on them if they don&rsquo;t, is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It would only shift the Chinese piece of the US trade deficit to someone else &mdash; most likely to a higher cost producer. That would be the functional equivalent of imposing a tax hike on already hard-pressed middle class workers. Washington needs to rethink a flawed strategy of attempting to fix America&rsquo;s multilateral international imbalance through a bi-lateral currency adjustment. It is bad politics driving bad economics</em>....&nbsp; <strong><em>Stephen Roach, Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia</em></strong></p>
<p><br />
China was cut off from the rest of the world for nearly 500 years. The very day that it began opening up, the world's available workforce was essentially doubled. Let me say that again &quot;The world&rsquo;s available workforce DOUBLED&quot;. It basically flooded the world with workers who are prepared to accept wages a tiny fraction of those being paid in the West. Western powers knew this when they approved China's entry into the WTO.... Big corporations not only knew this, but lobbied heavily for it. Why? Because they were drooling over the possibility of employing these low-cost workers in their factories - which is exactly (<strong>EXACTLY</strong>) what has happened.<br />
All during most of the 20th century, Western workers enjoyed a &quot;monopoly&quot; on access to global capital, rewarding themselves with wages well above the market-clearing price. <br />
That's now beginning to change. Nominal exchange rate adjustment won't prevent Chinese workers from undercutting their Western equivalents. To think otherwise, is unwise....</p>
<p><br />
My advice is to leave China alone. They have navigated high and low seas with admirable dexterity. Instead, all of these pols and their elitist economist's should strain to find ways to redirect the declining fiscal firepower of the west to reactivate domestic credit. Domestic credit is the major channel for ensuring that the necessary fiscal adjustment does not end up in even more tears.</p>]]></description>
										
											<title><![CDATA[US - Bad Politics driving Bad Economics]]></title>
										
											<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=50613&d=06/22/2010&s=US%20%2D%20Bad%20Politics%20driving%20Bad%20Economics]]></link>
										
											<guid><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=50613&d=06/22/2010&s=US%20%2D%20Bad%20Politics%20driving%20Bad%20Economics]]></guid>
										
											<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:05:05 GMT</pubDate>
										
						</item>
					
						<item>
							
											<description><![CDATA[<p>I can't understand how people can be so ignorant. And I can't understand how people in positions of authority can be so. . .</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Here's an example from todays (4/4/2010) Reuters news:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Reuters News story: U.S. delays China yuan ruling ahead of Hu visit, by Glenn Somerville (Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Xavier Briand)<br />
<br />
Here are the pieces that I believe are mis-information passing as news...<br />
<br />
<em>The U.S. Business and Industry Council, a trade group, said &quot;for three more months, more American factories will close or cut back production and more of their employees will lose their jobs&quot; because unilateral U.S. tariffs are needed to combat &quot;predatory trade practices.&quot;</em><br />
<br />
Instead, the U.S. Business and Industry Council should have said, &quot;Why did all of those American companies move their factories to China in the first place. Those companies are the ones who caused these problems.... It's called cause and effect people.... <br />
<br />
<em>&quot;If we want the Chinese to take us seriously, we need to be willing to say so in public,&quot; Grassley said in a statement.<br />
Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said Geithner should take a hard look at whether China is a currency manipulator and work with it and other trade partners to address Beijing's currency practices. &quot;For years, Treasury has given China's currency practices a free pass, but it's time to re-evaluate,&quot; Baucus said. &quot;For too long, the United States has pursued diplomacy at the expense of American jobs and exports. Further delay is not the answer.&quot;</em><br />
<br />
I wish Republican Senator Charles Grassley would stop acting like its 1920, and that the US can just send its gunboats into China to solve their problems. If Americans want the Chinese to take them seriously, then they (US) needs to stop acting like the emperor of the world. Stop creating financial meltdowns which ruin the entire world economy, and stop with the idea that they are the only ones with answers to problems.... America is in fact NOT a part of the solution anymore, they are the problem.....<br />
<br />
I just wish more people would think things out to their final conclusion before engaging their mouths...l.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
										
											<title><![CDATA[This BS is getting me down....]]></title>
										
											<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=46897&d=04/03/2010&s=This%20BS%20is%20getting%20me%20down%2E%2E%2E%2E]]></link>
										
											<guid><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=46897&d=04/03/2010&s=This%20BS%20is%20getting%20me%20down%2E%2E%2E%2E]]></guid>
										
											<pubDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 09:10:21 GMT</pubDate>
										
						</item>
					
						<item>
							
											<description><![CDATA[<p>I&rsquo;ve been in a real funk lately and unwilling or maybe uninterested in writing. So I&rsquo;m trying to work my way out of it.... The funk, that is....<br />
<br />
Here&rsquo;s an example of what I mean. A recent story on <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1419042320091214?feedType=RSS&amp;feedName=everything&amp;virtualBrandChannel=11563">Reuters.com by Andy Sullivan</a>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now, let&rsquo;s be clear. I don&rsquo;t know Andy, or have any particular opinion about him. What I am doing is using his story as an example of what I feel is why many people are so unhappy with the media. Not just with the news itself, but with the way that &lsquo;News&rsquo; is presented these days..... I mean does anybody &lsquo;think&rsquo; any more, or have we become that dumbed down.<br />
<br />
Here&rsquo;s some examples of what I mean - from the article:<br />
&ldquo;The U.S. government must craft a plan next year to get its ballooning debt under control or face possible panic in financial markets, a bipartisan panel of budget experts said in a report on Monday.&rdquo; <br />
Q: What bipartisan panel? consisting of what experts? Experts by whose opinion? <br />
<br />
&ldquo;Without action, investors could lose confidence in the United States, driving down the dollar and forcing up interest rates, said the former lawmakers and budget officials who crafted the report. That could cause a sharp decrease in the country's standard of living.&rdquo;<br />
Q: 'lose confidence in the United States'... These kinds of comments are so fraught with politics and bs that they would be funny in a different context.... Think about it... If people lose confidence in the US, where will they turn to invest their funds???? England, France or Germany, Russia, Japan or China, or some place we've never heard of before..... Where, exactly....????? There isn&rsquo;t any other place.....<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We will be less free if we don't tackle this,&quot; said Jim Nussle, a Republican member of the commission who earlier served as a White House budget director and chairman of the budget committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.<br />
Q: Less Free ? ?&nbsp; Is this the same Jim Nussle who served under GW, who helped pass the Patriot Act... Which nearly negated the entire Constitution of the United States.... Less Free, are you joking ? ? ? How stupid do these pols think we are ? ? WE are already 'less free... the real question should be: What will you do about it ? ? ?<br />
<br />
Then there is my favorite:<br />
&ldquo;The commission did not issue specific prescriptions but said tax increases and spending cuts would probably be needed.<br />
Q: This means that they really had no idea on how to FIX this mess, only that it's a problem..... so my comment is: 'Do Ya Think'..... Any monkey could have done as much as these people did... (NOTE: when you look at news stories, ask yourself this question: Does this news story state a situation or problem and then offer answers or at least a suggestion on how to fix the problem that is being discussed. If not, then don&rsquo;t tell me that the sky is falling, that a commission of experts (experts in whose opinion?) says so, and that they have no answer to the problem.... Just tell me the facts, and let ME (I&rsquo;m an expert) decide what course of action should be taken...<br />
<br />
Otherwise it should be in the Opinion pages... Where everyone with a nose (or opinion) can post whatever they want.....<br />
<br />
Is that too difficult for the media to understand?</p>]]></description>
										
											<title><![CDATA[Media Stories - Fact or Opinion.....]]></title>
										
											<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=41536&d=12/16/2009&s=Media%20Stories%20%2D%20Fact%20or%20Opinion%2E%2E%2E%2E%2E]]></link>
										
											<guid><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=41536&d=12/16/2009&s=Media%20Stories%20%2D%20Fact%20or%20Opinion%2E%2E%2E%2E%2E]]></guid>
										
											<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:27:45 GMT</pubDate>
										
						</item>
					
						<item>
							
											<description><![CDATA[<p>ALL countries manipulate their currency to their perceived advantage. ALL COUNTRIES. End Of Story.....<br />
<br />
Many elitist economists, with far too many initials behind their name, are using the same old, tired excuse that some emerging countries (namely China) are manipulating their currency, and should allow it to &lsquo;float&rsquo; in the open market.</p>
<p><br />
They want China to allow their currency to rise, just as they insisted Japan do under the Plaza Accord in the 1990's. However, Chinese citizens (not just the government) have suffered enough under western mandates, and are tired of &lsquo;kowtowing&rsquo; to western demands.<br />
<br />
Yet the bigger truth is, the US is the one who has always manipulated their currency. It is the US who wrote the book on manipulating currency that everyone on the planet has read and now follows.... When the Fed raises or lowers interest rates, either to control inflation or to encourage more borrowing to stimulate the economy, it is in fact manipulating the currency. (See Economics 101 blog entry). When banks are allowed to create money (see Banking 101 blog entry), they are manipulating the currency.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>See also a great article by Robert McTeer, published in Forbes: http://bx.businessweek.com/manipulation-of-currency/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fc.moreover.com%2Fclick%2Fhere.pl%3Fr2679046982%26f%3D9791 (just copy and paste into your browser).<br />
<br />
In a recent Reuters story Glenn Somerville and Simon Rabinovitch ask:<br />
&ldquo;WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF CHINA LET ITS CURRENCY APPRECIATE?&rdquo;<br />
&ldquo;Theoretically, the cost of Chinese-made products would rise for consumers around the world. If prices rise sufficiently, other countries' goods might be substituted for those China now makes.... If Chinese consumers were empowered with a stronger currency, they might become more aggressive importers, perhaps even swinging China's trade surplus to deficit.&rdquo; (emphasis added)<br />
<br />
These writers, who have probably never been to China, ask &ldquo;What would happen if China let its currency appreciate? I&rsquo;ll tell you.... There would be massive unemployment, that would surpass even the Great Depression. With the US Labor Force, estimated at 153.7 million in 2007, an unemployment rate of 10% equals 15 - 16 million unemployed. A 10% unemployment figure in China equates to nearly 100 million unemployed. Lets all say that number again. 100 MILLION.<br />
<br />
What these writers, and many other so called China experts fail to recognize is that the spending habits of Chinese citizens were formed thousands of years ago, not by the current regime in Beijing. When the ancestors of these authors were guarding against demons by wearing a garlic necklace and still hiding out in caves, Chinese traders were already practicing their economics along the original 'silk road', and these johnny-come-lately Keynesian's (and/or supply-siders also) don't have a clue.... <br />
Additionally, the Chinese are not stupid, and they have witnessed the economic problems that occurred in Japan since BOJ allowed its currency to appreciate, and as mentioned they really aren&rsquo;t interested in reliving these same disastrous problems.<br />
<br />
Everyone wants the Chinese consumer to increase their consumption rate, including the bosses in Beijing, but allowing the RMB to appreciate overnight would cause much more harm than any perceived good that may come in 30 years.<br />
Many people in China want to be more like the west. Many elitist US economists want China to be more like the west.... I ask &ldquo;why?&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp; Is it so that China can experience all the same economic problems that prevail in the west. Which currently include financial meltdowns, high unemployment (which BTW is going to get much, much higher in the US) with the long term potential for growth gloomy at best.<br />
<br />
So who manipulates their currency? Every country.... and frankly, this is one time I am hoping the Chinese do NOT &quot;want to be like Mike&quot;....</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
										
											<title><![CDATA[Currency Manipulaton 101]]></title>
										
											<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=39534&d=11/02/2009&s=Currency%20Manipulaton%20101]]></link>
										
											<guid><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=39534&d=11/02/2009&s=Currency%20Manipulaton%20101]]></guid>
										
											<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:27:13 GMT</pubDate>
										
						</item>
					
						<item>
							
											<description><![CDATA[<p>In October, 1929, the New York Stock Market collapsed, which was then repeated in markets around the world, in what became the foremost financial crisis in history. However, it wasn't until late 1930 or early 1931 when the real damage began to happen. During that year (15 months), governments enacted lots of stupid laws meant to mollify the general population, (which was generally under-educated) with the thinking that by saving a job here at home, saves the country. Which of course it did NOT do. The unemployment numbers began to grow, and grow.....<br />
<br />
People with bad agenda's led the fight for these laws in the 1930's and they are out front again in 2009, with their no-win strategies. Because much worse than the prolonged economic crisis that was fed by these bad policies, is the political upheavel that occurs in unstable regions. So it will be this year and into the next couple of years, as it was in the early 1930's, that bad politicians everywhere will try to protect their hides and mollify their scared and ignorant constituencies. The unemployment numbers continued to grow, and grow....<br />
<br />
In times of fear and uncertainty, men (and women), do terrible things to each other, and unfortunately we are now in possession of this double edged sword that has NO good side. If politicians don't 'play' to these uneducated masses, then those masses rise up and throw off these very pols and install a fanatic dictator who promises to save the jobs at home, and purge those who caused their problems (See history of Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust 1932-1945, and history of rise of Japanese Militarists and conquest of China and the Pacific Rim 1930-1945).<br />
If the pols do pass laws to protect workers and groups in their own areas, they not only give a greater purpose to the dictators mentioned above, but also suppress their own work force for longer periods by keeping prices artifically high and wages artifically low (see US history of the Great Depression, and the rise of labor unions 1930-1950). In 1937 the unemployment figure reached 25% of the workforce......<br />
<br />
So here we are again, left with the damage to be repaired, and the confidence and jobs to be regained. The last time, it took a decade of being poor and a world war to pull the US out of a depression, and a horn-locking cold-war of nearly three decades before world trade truly started to flow again. Is this the near term future you want for your family ? Yet unemployment is growing to near 10%....<br />
<br />
I don't pretend to have the answers, but I'm confident that in today's world, a replay will prove neither 'instant' nor necessarily provide us with the same winner. In the words of Edward R. Morrow: &quot;Good Night, and Good Luck.&quot;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Next up: Who is really manipulating their currency ? ?</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
										
											<title><![CDATA[Financial Meltdowns don't end overnight.....]]></title>
										
											<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=38988&d=10/21/2009&s=Financial%20Meltdowns%20don%27t%20end%20overnight%2E%2E%2E%2E%2E]]></link>
										
											<guid><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=38988&d=10/21/2009&s=Financial%20Meltdowns%20don%27t%20end%20overnight%2E%2E%2E%2E%2E]]></guid>
										
											<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:21:58 GMT</pubDate>
										
						</item>
					
						<item>
							
											<description><![CDATA[<p>'What!' said the master at length, in a faint voice.<br />
<br />
'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, 'I want some more.' <br />
<br />
Over simplification? ? ? Perhaps, but I believe it&rsquo;s really just that simple.... Whether your name is Oliver Twist, or Oliver Barrett III (the rich son in the movie &lsquo;Love Story&rsquo;), <strong>you want more</strong>. This is true if you live in the London&rsquo;s Brixton ghetto, the Barrio in New York or East LA, or along the railroad tracks leading into Mumbai or some not-so-nice neighborhoods in Chongqing, or Shanghai. This is also true if you live on Park Avenue in New York, or Hillsborough Hills, California, or the French Concession area of Shanghai.<br />
<br />
How many ways do I have to say it ? We ALL want more... It&rsquo;s in our DNA.<br />
<br />
Also, don&rsquo;t confuse &lsquo;more&rsquo; with always meaning &lsquo;money&rsquo;..... While money is certainly a big part of the equation, sometimes prestige, influence, and/or power (things that money &lsquo;can&rsquo; buy) are bigger factors. Sometimes we seek respect - it&rsquo;s certainly arguable if money can actually buy this or not.... Yet, no matter what language, or how it&rsquo;s translated, we all want to get &lsquo;ahead&rsquo;.... We all have &lsquo;greed&rsquo; within us.<br />
<br />
If we didn&rsquo;t want to get ahead, there would be no gambling - farewell Las Vegas. No stock markets - do I really expect or care if company X is going to sell more widgets in the future? I wouldn&rsquo;t be looking for a better job - along with about 6.5 billion other people, and I certainly wouldn&rsquo;t need a bank to keep my money safe. In short, if we didn&rsquo;t want to &lsquo;get ahead&rsquo;, we would all still be living in caves, cowering from our predators and wondering about the movement of the sun, moon and the stars in the night sky.<br />
Sometimes getting ahead just means getting a minimum wage job. Sometimes it means getting a million dollar bonus, and sometimes it means pooling the resources of an entire village to send one of their smartest youngsters to medical school, so that they will return home and provide much needed medical care for those villagers. So let us not forget that there are certainly differing degrees of greed. Yet again, we all have some form of greed within us.<br />
<br />
At no time in this dissertation have I said that greed was &lsquo;bad&rsquo;.... Au Contraire, mon ami. <br />
Greed is in fact a major driver of social advancement, and has greatly contributed to the advancement of mankind as a whole. But my father used to say that extremism in anything is bad, and that moderation in nearly everything was acceptable.<br />
So while I admit to being somewhat &lsquo;greedy,&rsquo; I also work hard to limit my greed to acceptable norms. I don&rsquo;t have to have more money than Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, nor do I want the power of a Barrack Obama or Hu Jingtao. Some clean air to breathe and clean water to drink would be nice though.....<br />
<br />
<br />
Next up, lets go back and add a few more Economics 101 items.<br />
&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
										
											<title><![CDATA[Greed 101]]></title>
										
											<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=38127&d=10/05/2009&s=Greed%20101]]></link>
										
											<guid><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=38127&d=10/05/2009&s=Greed%20101]]></guid>
										
											<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:02:16 GMT</pubDate>
										
						</item>
					
						<item>
							
											<description><![CDATA[<p>What is the reason and purpose of banks? It&rsquo;s an easy question really....<br />
<br />
Banks have several reasons to exist, and they all have to do with the government wherein the bank resides. Banks fill a vital economic role, which explains why they are either government regulated or government owned in every country. In every country on this planet there is one immutable fact: banks exist at the pleasure of the government. While some countries regulate banks more heavily than others, NONE (I repeat, NONE) allow their banks to be &lsquo;un-regulated&rsquo;. . . End of story.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
OK - so banks are regulated by their governments.... So what is the purpose of these regulations? Chiefly they fall into three categories. One, they allow the government to control the supply of money in the economy - by creating money and keeping it safe (notice I said &lsquo;create money&rsquo; - I didn&rsquo;t say &lsquo;print money&rsquo;). Two, they control the &lsquo;source&rsquo; of their citizens money by acting as &lsquo;clearing-house&rsquo; for financial transactions between parties. And finally three, they control the flow of the respective currency in and out of the country. I&rsquo;ll expand on all of these categories later, but our object for now is to keep it simple. <br />
Now if you &lsquo;google&rsquo; banks, you&rsquo;ll find a whole lot of propaganda about an array of &lsquo;services&rsquo; that banks provide. But you shouldn&rsquo;t confuse &lsquo;services&rsquo; with &lsquo;purpose&rsquo; or &lsquo;function&rsquo;. So if you boil all the noise away, you&rsquo;ll find that their basic &lsquo;function&rsquo; is to fulfill these roles in any country&rsquo;s economy.<br />
<br />
Looking at Wikipedia, it says that a main function of banks is to loan and borrow money. Well this leads us into my first category. What happens when a bank &lsquo;loans&rsquo; money to someone (business or people). The bank doesn&rsquo;t give you the currency (cash) when they loan money. They create an account (at their bank obviously) that makes some money available for you to buy something - the purpose of the loan. Even when you complete your purchase, that currency may not even leave the bank. An amount of money is transferred into the account of the entity from which you purchased the item - allowing them to pay their bills, etc., etc...<br />
<br />
The result is that the economy has grown (by the amount of the transaction) and the supply of money in the country has increased. That bank just &lsquo;created&rsquo; money..... Now this is normal operations and not something illegal or unethical. It&rsquo;s all apart of Economics 101.<br />
In this example, if the amount is to be paid to someone who has an account in a different bank, the two banks get together and clear this transaction between themselves. As I indicated in category 2, banks &lsquo;clear&rsquo; transactions between themselves on a daily basis, and this is also nothing new or extraordinary. However, take some &lsquo;cash&rsquo; into a bank and try to open a new account. If the amount is over $1000 or so, you&rsquo;ll be required to prove where it came from, and if any further deposits are to be made, where they come from as well....<br />
In category 3, where do you go when you are about to travel overseas? You go to the bank to get your money exchanged..... The alternative is illegal and I don&rsquo;t encourage you to participate in anything like that..... Yet, the &lsquo;rate&rsquo; at which your money is exchanged into the foreign currency, is &lsquo;set&rsquo; by your bank. Plus any amount you &lsquo;exchange&rsquo; is reported to the government, and you are only allowed to &lsquo;exchange&rsquo; so much. So much for &lsquo;free trade&rsquo; huh....<br />
<br />
Next up... Let&rsquo;s add a pinch of human nature to this soup.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
										
											<title><![CDATA[Banking 101 . . . The "reason' for banks]]></title>
										
											<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=36732&d=09/10/2009&s=Banking%20101%20%2E%20%2E%20%2E%20The%20%22reason%27%20for%20banks]]></link>
										
											<guid><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=36732&d=09/10/2009&s=Banking%20101%20%2E%20%2E%20%2E%20The%20%22reason%27%20for%20banks]]></guid>
										
											<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:15:53 GMT</pubDate>
										
						</item>
					
						<item>
							
											<description><![CDATA[<p>It&rsquo;s really all about two things: Supply and Demand.... That&rsquo;s all.... Really.<br />
<br />
Now a lot of people with vast arrays of initials behind their names (PhD, etc.) will tell you that it&rsquo;s much more complicated than that, and that economists are indeed in great need. If you read the UPI or AP news wire, you could easily assume that economics is on everyone's mind. Continuously, if we are to believe all the hype. Now, I don&rsquo;t have any fancy initials behind my name, but I did engage in the study of Economics for enough years to earn a BS degree, but that I don&rsquo;t consider a BS to be very fancy. Additionally, I have taught the subject at the university level for many years - yes, without being published, tenured, or in possession of a fancy degree..... So I argue that it all boils down to these two things.<br />
<br />
Just in this last years crisis (as with the now forgotten previous crisis) the vast majority of people have turned to economist&rsquo;s for an answer - and by the way, they want that answer &lsquo;right now&rsquo;.... Also, during this crisis (as with the now forgotten previous crisis), economist&rsquo;s are arguing amongst themselves as what the &lsquo;correct answer&rsquo; actually should be.<br />
Now a long time ago, when these economists were just starting out, they learned that economics is the study of how we manage our resources - scarce as they may be.... So it&rsquo;s just about choices... Our choices, and how we (as a society) make these choices. So it&rsquo;s about us, and it&rsquo;s about choosing.... Supply and Demand.... It&rsquo;s really that easy.<br />
<br />
As people, we have needs, wants and desires - notice that I placed these in a particular order. Our first concerns are about fulfilling our basic needs - having enough food, shelter, clothing and clean water to drink (and I suppose we should throw in breathable air). Later, when these basic needs have been satisfied, we look around for other things that we want, and finally as we approach our zenith we develop a craving to fulfill all of our desires. This represents demand. <br />
Now, all along this path we find resources, and people who have a &lsquo;reason&rsquo; to use those resources to provide us with the things that we demand. This is supply. <br />
I know that you&rsquo;re thinking that the &lsquo;reason&rsquo; will always be money, so I&rsquo;ll dispel that now. While it may indicate money a majority of the time, this won&rsquo;t always be true... As there truly are some things money cannot buy.<br />
<br />
Over time, this simple concept has indeed become much more inter-twined and complicated, but if you boil away all the noise, it&rsquo;s still just about Supply and Demand. People need, want and desire stuff, and other people are willing to fill those needs, wants and desires for a price (again, not always money).<br />
<br />
So if Stock Market 101 and Economics 101 are really that simple, how did we get into this current mess? Well, we have to throw in a few more ingredients.<br />
<br />
Next up.... Banking 101</p>]]></description>
										
											<title><![CDATA[Economics 101]]></title>
										
											<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=36016&d=08/29/2009&s=Economics%20101]]></link>
										
											<guid><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=36016&d=08/29/2009&s=Economics%20101]]></guid>
										
											<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:52:19 GMT</pubDate>
										
						</item>
					
						<item>
							
											<description><![CDATA[<p>So you think you know how the stock market works? Well maybe you do.... and maybe not.<br />
<br />
First, I&rsquo;d like to clear up some misunderstandings that many people have about the stock market (New York, Shanghai or ANY stock market). Stock markets are what are referred to as &lsquo;zero sum games&rsquo;, in that for every buyer, there must in fact be a seller. It always takes these two to tango in the market. There is someone who is buying the stock (for any number of reasons which I will discuss later), and someone on the other side who is selling this same stock, for whatever reason.<br />
The company whose stock you are buying does NOT receive the money when you purchase these shares - IPO&rsquo;s will be discussed in a minute - and the company whose stock you are selling is NOT paying you back when you sell your shares. Your transaction is always with another person, or entity. That is why these &lsquo;stock markets&rsquo; are known as &lsquo;secondary markets&rsquo;. Basically you can think of them as the place where people go to invest (gamble) their money on a personal conceived notion or&nbsp; &lsquo;expectation&rsquo; that something 'good' will happen to it - like the price will go up (or down depending on your definition of 'good').....Please re-read this last sentence again...carefully....Although it is very basic, and is somewhat of a generalization, it holds true as it stands.<br />
<br />
The only time that a given company actually receives money from the sale of their stock is during their IPO - Initial Public Offering, or any subsequent offerings that may take place from time to time. One truly good thing about IPO&rsquo;s is that the price per share is generally set and doesn&rsquo;t deviate during the sale just because someone rich, or some large mutual fund just purchased 1 million shares one milli-second before you. Once the IPO is completed - usually within several hours - it is these &ldquo;initial&rdquo; shares, and only these shares that are subsequently traded on the stock exchange. The number of these shares outstanding (or available for trading) does not change without a subsequent &lsquo;public offering&rsquo; of additional shares. In other words, those shares sold at the IPO of a given company may then change hands in the secondary market on an daily, hourly, minutely or milli-second basis, but it is only these shares that can be offered for trade.<br />
<br />
These secondary markets are &lsquo;played&rsquo; by large insurance companies, mutual funds, BANKS, trust funds of large well-healed investors and little people like you and me. All are seeking to reap a reward. But we are only betting against each other - NOT the house, as there is NO house.....<br />
<br />
I, like most people prefer the term &lsquo;investing&rsquo;, but before you lay your money down, you should thoroughly understand what you are getting into BEFORE you begin placing your bets.....</p>]]></description>
										
											<title><![CDATA[Stock Market 101]]></title>
										
											<link><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=35578&d=08/22/2009&s=Stock%20Market%20101]]></link>
										
											<guid><![CDATA[http://apps.edgyinchina.org/Blog/?e=35578&d=08/22/2009&s=Stock%20Market%20101]]></guid>
										
											<pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 06:56:11 GMT</pubDate>
										
						</item>
					
				</channel>
			</rss>
		