February 11, 2010
The trade balance figures are out and it once again showing how pathetic we are as a country selling our wares. For some reason, President Obama believes that it is possible to double our exports within five years. An admirable goal, but is it possible?
From the NYTimes.com with commentary:
So far, administration officials have not laid out how they plan to double American exports to $2 trillion in 2015, from $1 trillion today. Mr. Obama said he was starting a National Export Initiative that will “help farmers and small businesses increase their exports,” but did not elaborate. White House officials, when pressed, said only that the commerce secretary, Gary F. Locke, would give a speech on the matter next week.
Somehow, the U.S. is going to have to work on the anti-dumping rules and the problems we are having with China and other nations that we have been angering. But, it appears that one of the ways in which exports will grow is by reducing taxes, tariffs on any U.S. product and also increasing those on Imports. PROTECTIONISM 101
Separately, on Thursday, Mr. Locke announced that, as part of a plan to reduce export burdens on American companies, the United States might remove restrictions on exports of goods with potential military applications when such technologies were available worldwide.
Now, this is one of the stupidest things I could ever imagine that could be dreamed up. Why would we reduce the restrictions on military applications? I do not care if they are available through other sources, if we have a policy that is obviously in the interest of national security, it should not be trumped by the desire for financial gains. Already we have supplied too much of our technology to the world powers, many who are not our best friends.
“We have too many controls on items readily available around the world,” Mr. Locke told the United States-China Business Council.
Export control rules are meant to keep dual-use technologies like computer encryption software and airplane parts out of the hands of American foes that could use them for military purposes.
So, in the end, the brainiacs in Washington believe that the recent attacks on Google (GOOG) and other companies should be allowed and we should even provide some of the technology to help the hackers along? No, can’t be, I must be reading into this with a negative eye…..
Disclosure: Horowitz & Company clients may hold positions of securities mentioned as of the date published.
February 11, 2010
So, Greece gets less than a half a page? This is the entire statement that they are willing to make to calm the fear of global markets?
It is amazing that we have been in the dark for this long and now no one is doing anything to turn on the lights. Read more
February 9, 2010
So this crosses my desk the other day. It is going to benefit someone…. But who? It appears that the one who will benefit will be the seller as there is a step rate and it is callable anytime after issue.
More importantly, notice that the teaser is for Read more
February 4, 2010
Is this protectionism??
Perhaps, but maybe this is something that we should all be taking a bit more seriously. I am still very unclear how trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan help to improve employment. We already have thousands of employees in the region (aka soldiers) and that can be considered enough for now. Right?
No matter what it is said to be, this is an act of protection for the U.S. economy and that may not be so bad as these countires cannot add much benefit or additional employment at this time. The real problem is the message. How will other countries Read more
February 4, 2010
Continuing with the theme that CNBC is the “silver lining” station of the financial media world. Earlier today, CNBC’s iPhone App provided me this pushed data, for which we thought was a good release… at least at Read more