From Stratfor:

Red Alert: The G-7 - Geopolitics, Politics and the Financial Crisis

The finance ministers of the G-7 countries are meeting in Washington. The first announcements on the meetings will come this weekend. It is not too extreme to say that the outcome of these meetings could redefine how the financial markets work, certainly for months and perhaps for a generation. The Americans are arguing that the regime of intervention and bailouts be allowed to continue. Others, like the British, are arguing for what in effect would be the nationalization of financial markets on a global scale. It is not clear what will be decided, but it is clear that this meeting matters.

(Stratfor's $30 oil prediction may come true after all. But not because of the collapse of China. The collapse of the US, maybe.)

I thought this quote from the same article on forces working towards regionalisation was also very relevant:

For example, American banks lend to European banks. If the United States comes up with a plan which guarantees loans to U.S. banks but not European banks, and Europeans lend to Europe and not the United States, the integration of the global economy will very quickly shatter, leading to significant limitations on international trade, currency convertibility and so on. You will nationalize economies that can’t stand being purely national.

Sounds like Germany failing to pay UK/France who then failed to pay the US.

Who then brought in Smoot Hawley:

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was considered by many economists to be the single factor that transformed the U.S. recession into a global depression. The legislation was enacted on June 17, about 8 months after the collapse of the U.S. stock market. It quadrupled import tariffs on 20,000 goods, particularly agricultural products. Countries immediately retaliated, bringing international trade to a halt and depressing global demand. Ironically, the U.S. economy was showing signs of recovery by the spring of 1930. Unemployment stood at 7.8%, but the decline in global trade doubled the rate by 1931. The unemployment rate in the U.S. continued to climb, peaking at 25.1% in 1933. Although the decision to shelf the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Colombia should not be considered to be a return to U.S. protectionism, the growing restrictions against food exports could be the start of a dangerous trend.-Roubini

but this time Russia waits with open arms and gas/oil
for the cold winter coming.

We've got til Sunday PM for something/

Has anyone got any insight on the other concern mentioned in the article?
Trying to run an international equivalent of the UK guarantee on LIBOR rates is apparently vastly complex, and since risk is effectively taken out of the equation and loaded on to the taxpayer, there would seem to be no effective mechanism left to differentiate good and bad risk.
Judging by the record of management of nationalised industries, one can't be very confident of a good outcome.

Hey Mc did you see this one?

"A new dawn for Iran"
By Chris Cook

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JJ09Ak01.html

"I have been working for some seven years, with a background in global financial services at the highest level, to assist Iran in developing a coherent financial system fit for the 21st century."

"It is ironic that Iran has been protected from being infected by the "Anglo disease" by the very sanctions which were aimed at damaging it."

"This currency would be created by unitizing energy as units redeemable against energy within the "PetroTrust" framework I am presenting in Tehran at the International Oil Refining Conference on October 11-12. Such units would then circulate globally, subject to mutual guarantees, within the framework of an International Clearing Union similar to that proposed by the great economist John Maynard Keynes at the first Bretton Woods conference in 1944"

I believe that Iran should examine - from first principles - how a market economy might operate collaboratively to develop Iran's productive economy, rather than being operated as a casino for the benefit of financiers at the expense of the productive economy.

I look forward to working with my Iranian friends to achieve an economy fit for the 21st century.

Chris Cook's comments are not so much provocative as loaded with irony.

The mother of all ironies. Babylon falls and the land of the Medes (Persia) rises again. Cyrus the Great rocks on.

Ça plus change, ça plus la même chose.

Exactly. From SuddenDebt:

"Finance as practised in the last 30 or so years has no place in this brave new world. There is no room - or any need whatsoever - for chop-and-shop LBO strippers, asset pumpers, market operators, derivatives designers, financial engineers... No, this gallery of rogues has seen the end of their days. Instead, relationship finance will fast make a comeback, if only because the manufacture and placement of unprovenanced securities to faceless "investors" is no longer possible. From now on real investors - the only ones still left standing - will ask for every detail and reason behind their potential investments.

And the market knows... The collective wisdom of millions acting in their self-interest has ground market prices of old-style financial companies into dust. That's no coincidence and no "crisis", either. It's the most obvious sign that the Pony Express is no more... And like all major turning points there will be plenty of opportunity for those with foresight, once the dust settles.
Posted by Hellasious at Thursday, October 09, 2008 "

No economy, no Empire.

We've got til Sunday PM for something

Oh, D@MN!!!!! I am coming to hate those Sunday PM announcements.

People who are experts in economics and finance usually don't understand energy. A prime example might be Alan Greenspan, who was a disciple of Ayn Rand and who spread her mantra of unbridled capitalism leading to today's extreme distress.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/greenspan-time.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html

Since it was cheaper in economic terms to rely on imported oil instead of domestic supply in the 1980's, we imported ever larger volumes of the stuff. As a nation, the U.S. could have continued Nixon's "Project Independence" and Carter's follow on efforts, but we did not. Now, we are finding that to have been a very bad decision, as there may not be enough time to make a transition to sustainable energy sources as the fossil fuels are depleted.

Oil at $30 a barrel? Maybe for a short while, given the inelastic nature of oil production and consumption. But, the Peak will eventually be seen and the price will of necessity begin to soar again. Like the stock market on a given day, there will be "volatility", but the long term price trend is likely to be upward.

E. Swanson

The WSJ website had the following headline, linked on yesterday's Drumbeat:

The Official Demise of the Oil Bubble

Jim Rogers noted that there have been at least two large price pullbacks since the current secular bull market started in 1999. That gave me the idea for the following

A What-If: Basically the same story, but written at the end of 2001:

In November, 2000 the price of crude oil averaged about $34 a barrel. What seemed like a bewildering ascent in the price of crude at the time is now a relief to traders, who watched oil fall $14 a barrel to average about $20 a barrel in November, 2001 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Like a number of other commodities, oil’s move went from a steady ascent to a vertical bounce in the fall of 2000, before speculative excess started to drain from the market. And those who believed that the oil price was justified by fundamentals — being, as it is, an actual product, rather than an Internet company’s vague promise of revenue — are smarting.

“This is a market that is basically returning to the price level of July, 1999, which it arguably should never have left,” says Evans Tims , energy analyst at Citigroup. “We pumped up a big bubble, expanded it to an impressive dimension, and now it is popped and we have bubble gum in our hair.”

Oil prices remain 2-3x more expensive than they were back in 2003-2004 when the NASDAQ settled in the 7,000-8,000 range.

Que? NASDAQ peaked in 2000 during dot.com bubble at about 4,600. In '03-'04 it was in the 1500-2000 range.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?D5=0&CE=0&D4=1&...

Jim Rodgers on CNBC.com yesterday

The current rescue plans, which will force governments to issue more debt, print money and flood the markets with liquidity, will flare up inflation after the crisis is over and will create worse problems, Rogers warned.

"We're setting the stage for when we come out of this of a massive inflation holocaust," he said.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27097823

If the bailouts lead to a spike in inflation, into the double digits like in 1980, recovery form the mortgage crisis will be followed by an new crisis as consumer's credit card payments climb rapidly. A wave of bankruptcies which could follow the 'recovery' would renew pressure on the banks holding these debts.

That is not true,

(1) Should there be an increase in the money supply (so far it is shrinking) AND
(2) Should there be resultant asset-price inflation

(3) It will be great for Americans who are Asset Rich (Houses, real-estate, commercial property via REITS, other assets) but Cash poor.

Americans will easily be able to pay off their credit loans via selling of some assets or borrowing cheaply agains assets that are worth more now (e.g. home equity) instead of relying on usurius credit card rates.

Rogers is trying to buy the same assets on the cheap, while shedding crocodile tears for average Americans. (& he has always done that)

Also Rogers has publicly stated on many occasions that the place where he puts his money is the PRC.

The only cash rich entities are KSA, PRC, some other gulf states, Russia, Norway

Rogers is also fond of coming on TV (he is frequently invited to Fox News) and boasting about how rich he is:

Questions:

(1) Is he really that wealthy?

(2) How much income tax does he pay? Since he talks about everything else why does he not boast on the amount of tax that he pays?

(3)Perhaps he has sheltered his wealth in a charitable foundation? No one seems to have heard of it, unlike for e.g. the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation

(4) What is the source of his wealth?
Corrolary: I will assert that traders cannot get that wealthy. Buffet had operating companies and is buy and hold. The other famous stock investor (who may be broke right now after his lousy bets on YHOO, MOT, others) is Carl Icahn. But all his bets are public knowledge. The United States Government REQUIRES that any individual or entity who has more than $100 million in investible assets file statements with the SEC disclosing their holdings. Where are Rogers' filings?

This is the same Jim Rogers who said China was a screaming buy even at 5000. It's at 2100 for those of you scoring at home.

Half the time he's right and half the time he's wrong. I have similiar success when I'm guessing as well. Maybe I'm just jealous of his bike ride around the world.

Strangely enough he was able to accomplish this motorbike-ride around the world without being kidnapped or otherwise harmed. Yet he is a self acknowledged Wealthy American, who went to all
sorts of places that do not have much law and order.