以解放者為名的國度，奇妙的天空之鏡

Currencies dominated this year’s annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund. More precisely, two currencies did: the dollar and the renminbi, the former because it was deemed too weak and the latter because it was deemed too inflexible. But, behind the squabbles, lies a huge challenge: how best to manage the global economic adjustment.

In his foreword to the new World Economic Outlook, Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s economic counsellor, states: “Achieving a ‘strong, balanced and sustained world recovery’ – to quote from the goal set in Pittsburgh by the G20 – was never going to be easy . . . It requires two fundamental and difficult economic rebalancing acts.”

The first is internal rebalancing – a return to reliance on private demand in advanced countries and retrenchment of the fiscal deficits that opened in the crisis. The second is external rebalancing – greater reliance on net exports by the US and some other advanced countries and on domestic demand by some emerging countries, notably China. Unfortunately, concludes, Professor Blanchard, “these two rebalancing acts are taking place too slowly”.

We can consider this rebalancing on two dimensions. First, the erstwhile high-spending, high-deficit advanced countries need to de-leverage their private sectors on the journey to what Mohamed El-Erian of Pimco, the investment company, called “the new normal”, in his Per Jacobsson lecture. Second, the real exchange rates of economies with robust external positions, strong investment opportunities, or both, need to appreciate, while expansion of domestic demand offsets the consequent drag from net exports.

Aggressive monetary policy by reserve-issuing advanced countries, particularly the US, is an element in both processes. The cries of pain now heard around the world, as markets push currencies up against the dollar, partly reflect the uneven impact of US policy. Still more, they reflect the stubborn unwillingness to accept the needed changes, with each capital recipient trying to deflect the unwanted adjustment elsewhere.

To put it crudely, the US wants to inflate the rest of the world, while the latter is trying to deflate the US. The US must win, since it has infinite ammunition: there is no limit to the dollars the Federal Reserve can create. What needs to be discussed is the terms of the world’s surrender: the needed changes in nominal exchange rates and domestic policies around the world.

If you wish to understand how aggressive US policy might become, read a recent speech by William Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He notes that, “in recent quarters the pace of growth has been disappointing even relative to our modest expectations at the start of the year”. Behind this lies deleveraging by US households, in particular. So what can monetary policy do about it? His answer is that “very low interest rates can help smooth the adjustment process by supporting asset valuations, including making housing more affordable and by allowing some borrowers to reduce debt interest payments. Beyond this . . . to the extent that monetary policy can ‘cut off the tail’ of the distribution of potential adverse economic outcomes  . . . it can help encourage those households and businesses with money to spend to do so”.

Above all, today’s low and falling inflation is potentially calamitous. At worst, the economy might succumb to debt-deflation. US yields and inflation are already following the path of Japan’s in the 1990s (see chart). The Fed wants to stop this trend. That is why another round of quantitative easing seems imminent.

其實已經看完原著在去看（我不大想受到電影圖像的影響，讓我無從產生自己閱讀小說的mental image），所以電影要怎麼演的梗都摸的差不多了。但是我還是要說這電影還是太可愛了～太可愛的電影了啦～我已經把這個Quota用完了，後面的節目怎麼辦？「為什麼讓我看到這麼白爛又好笑的電影啊～要是我以後看不到怎麼辦啊？」

 

beagle2001 分享 有道是越爛越飆，廢物垃圾指數越高者越起笑呀

beagle2001 分享 廢物指數真的是很重要的選股參考，因為夠廢物，才會更飆

beagle2001 分享 如果手上的持股不怎麼動，那是你的標的不夠爛、不夠廢!!! 台股真的是個快樂的瘋人院

beagle2001 分享河蟹你全家！

http://www.plurk.com/p/2zdyu2

beagle2001 分享 昨天才去祖國山寨版噗浪試用一下，今天就因事「維護」了，偶真帶賽，呵呵

http://www.plurk.com/p/2zjb3r

Picture of at Listal

SUPERHEROS
by PANDABOX (Panda comes from 祖國)

A夢化的超人、蝙蝠俠、蜘蛛人等
還蠻有趣的
會畫畫真是一件好事

4G
快速開機
下單

什麼都賣的Y拍，草泥馬當然也有囉～日本figma盒玩預定，不過還是雷雷＆萌萌可愛，希望動物園有天可以看到（N年沒去啦）

http://www.plurk.com/p/2bpmwn

（南）《相應部經典。荒野經》SN01‧10

天神問：
「那些住在森林裡的修行人，過著寂靜清淨的生活，一日僅一食，如何能容光煥發？」
世尊答：
「他們不對過去悲傷，不對未來冀求，安住於當下，所以容光煥發。
對過去悲傷、對未來冀求，那些愚人們因為如此，而如同被割下的新鮮蘆葦般日漸枯萎。」

苦悶的日子裡，寶萊塢帶來一陣甘霖

為什麼我們會內需不足?為什麼我們沒有強大的中產階級拉動內需？我們的財富到那兒去了？看完了如下的兩個實例，你就會明白為什麼了。

看看拉美與美國的差距，就會明白我們今天內需不足的狀況是怎麼形成的，拉美的貧窮在於它沒有形成良好的財富再生體制，套一句比較主流的話，它缺乏一種財富積累上的可持續發展能力。

舉一個簡單的例子來說明這樣的差別。


第一種情況：

假設在一個地方發現了金礦，來了一個人投資建了一個礦場，雇一百個工人為他淘金，每年獲利1000萬，礦主把其中的50%做為工人工資發下去，每個工人每 年收入5萬，他們拿一萬來租房子，剩下的四萬可以結婚，生孩子，成家立業，礦主手裡還有五百萬，可以做投資。因為工人手裡有錢，要安家落戶，所以，房子出 現需求。於是礦主用手裡的錢蓋房子，租給工人，或者賣給工人。工人要吃要喝，所以，開飯店，把工人手裡的錢再賺回來。開飯館又要雇別的工人，於是工人的妻 子有了就業機會，也有了收入。一個家庭的消費需求就更大了。這樣，幾年之後，在這個地方出現了100個家庭。孩子要讀書，有了教育的需求，於是有人來辦學 校，工人要約會，要消費，要做別的東西，於是有了電影院，有了商店，這樣，50年過去以後，當這個地方的礦快被挖光了的時候，這裡已經成了一個10萬人左 右的繁榮城市。

而第二種情況是這樣的：

假設同樣發現了金礦，同樣有人來投資開採，同樣雇100工人，同樣每年獲利1000萬，但是礦主把其中10%作為工資發下去，每個工人一年1萬。這些錢只 夠他們勉強填飽肚子，沒有錢租房子，沒有錢討老婆，只能住窩棚。礦主一年賺了900萬，但是看一看滿眼都是窮人，在本地再投資什麼都不會有需求。於是，他 把錢轉到國外，因為在本地根本就不安全，他蓋幾個豪華別墅，雇幾個工人當保鏢，工人沒有前途，除了拚命工作餬口，根本沒有別的需求。唯一可能有戲的就是想 辦法騙一個老婆來，生一個漂亮女兒，或許還可以嫁給礦主做老婆。50年下去以後，這個地方除了豪華別墅，依然沒有別的產業。等到礦挖完了，礦主帶著巨款走 了，工人要麼流亡，要麼男的為盜，女的為娼。

這兩個很簡單的例子，其實就是拉美和美國不同的發展軌跡。也許今天美國人應該說，感謝華盛頓，他為美國締造了最現代最科學的政治體制，感謝亨利.福特，他 一手締造了美國的中產階級。而拉美國家就沒有那麼幸運了，他們的大獨裁者創造了掠奪性的經濟體制，以一種豪強的姿態瘋狂瓜分著社會財富，而使整個經濟虛 脫，再也無力發展。

這裡我們有必要再提一下亨利.福特。古今中外所有的商業人物中，亨利.福特對社會經濟的影響無人能出其右。正是他用他的T型車一手締造了最初的中產階級， 並將美國社會第一個引入了現代社會（歐洲在這一點上，比美國晚了幾十年）。亨利.福特說我要讓我的工人能買得起我的T型車，於是他給工人發高工資，他還創 造了流水線的生產方式，使汽車大幅降低，於是，福特公司一躍成為最大的汽車公司，於是有了錢的工人可以買汽車，可以買房子，可以做其它的消費，於是中產階級誕生了。於是在完成西部擴張，在領土上已經沒有迴旋餘地的美國發現了另外一個金礦，迅速成長的中產階級帶動了巨大的需求，支撐起龐大的國內市場，繼續拉 動經濟高速增長。

可愛的韓娃～小眼睛很慧黠（偶的菜）
所幸不是生長在北方

1.拉第二波解套自救波 量價背離

2.
3.最弱勢的指數
4.夜星

出貨台的邪惡宣言，偶的預感偶還真的沒想到可以準到這種地步 ，「留長下影線」實在太經典了

《各報要聞》麥格理：台股恐拉回1,000點
2009/08/20 07:48 時報資訊

【時報-各報要聞】麥格理資本證券台灣區研究部主管張博淇昨（19）日指出，基於5大理由（資金動能即將到頂、企業獲利高點已屆、投資價值不再便宜、中國題材降溫、國民黨執政危機）考量，台股將無可避免從7,135點波段高點起，出現一波幅度逾1,000點的技術性拉回走勢。

「莫拉克政治風暴」逼得總統馬英九緊急召開中外記者會，但反映在昨天台股壓尾盤的表現上，顯然無法取信於投資人，港商德意志證券台灣區研究部主管王俊朗認為，馬英九民調支持度從60％跌掉一半至30％，從近期台股表現來看，顯然散戶對台股投資信心已盡失。

王俊朗指出，短期來看，台股成交動能趨緩與指數表現欠佳已說明一切，長期而言，市場開始擔心國民黨2012年政權是否能續保，直接衝擊到的是已進入常軌的兩岸關係是否再生變。

除此之外，張博淇在近期海外marketing時，就向國際機構投資人陳述台股將出現技術性拉回的基調，他認為，台股長線仍看好沒有錯，但未來3個月內指數會浮現拉回盤整風險，且按慣例，拉回幅度都得超過1,000點，因此，以前波高點7,185點來看，極有可能回測6,000點。

事實上，張博淇認為，目前有5大理由迫使台股無可避免出現一波技術性拉回：一、資金動能即將到頂；二、企業獲利高點已屆；三、投資價值不再便宜；四、中國題材降溫；五、國民黨執政危機；尤其是最後兩項，在馬團隊救災行動飽受批評後，將同步衝擊年底縣市長選舉，以及未來兩岸開放政策的信心與延續性。

至於該如何佈局？張博淇認為，極短期內非科技股（如中鋼、台泥、台塑）與電信股（如中華電）將優於科技股。

至於科技股，則只能挑聯發科與緯創這種2010年成長力道題材非常確定的標的，而面板股當中的友達，則因為投資價值已低於長期平均值、股會表現有機會優於大盤。

不過，張博淇提醒，因為長線仍相當看好台股，這波技術性拉回仍是非常好的買點。

至於金融股，基本面不看好，應避開保險與證券股，但如富邦金控等風險性低的個股倒是可以考慮。

王俊朗也持相同看法，預估台股短線將拉回，中長期、也就是未來6至12個月穩步走揚，對於科技與景氣循環股仍應採逢低回補的策略。 (新聞來源：工商時報─記者張志榮／台北報導)

IN nature, every action has consequences, a phenomenon called the butterfly effect. These consequences, moreover, are not necessarily proportional. For example, doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society. Realizing this, the world properly worries about greenhouse emissions.

The butterfly effect reaches into the financial world as well. Here, the United States is spewing a potentially damaging substance into our economy — greenback emissions.

To be sure, we’ve been doing this for a reason I resoundingly applaud. Last fall, our financial system stood on the brink of a collapse that threatened a depression. The crisis required our government to display wisdom, courage and decisiveness. Fortunately, the Federal Reserve and key economic officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations responded more than ably to the need.

They made mistakes, of course. How could it have been otherwise when supposedly indestructible pillars of our economic structure were tumbling all around them? A meltdown, though, was avoided, with a gusher of federal money playing an essential role in the rescue.

The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery. But enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered and, before long, we will need to deal with their side effects. For now, most of those effects are invisible and could indeed remain latent for a long time. Still, their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself.

To understand this threat, we need to look at where we stand historically. If we leave aside the war-impacted years of 1942 to 1946, the largest annual deficit the United States has incurred since 1920 was 6 percent of gross domestic product. This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P., more than twice the non-wartime record. In dollars, that equates to a staggering $1.8 trillion. Fiscally, we are in uncharted territory.

Because of this gigantic deficit, our country’s “net debt” (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent. Admittedly, other countries, like Japan and Italy, have far higher ratios and no one can know the precise level of net debt to G.D.P. at which the United States will lose its reputation for financial integrity. But a few more years like this one and we will find out.

An increase in federal debt can be financed in three ways: borrowing from foreigners, borrowing from our own citizens or, through a roundabout process, printing money. Let’s look at the prospects for each individually — and in combination.

The current account deficit — dollars that we force-feed to the rest of the world and that must then be invested — will be $400 billion or so this year. Assume, in a relatively benign scenario, that all of this is directed by the recipients — China leads the list — to purchases of United States debt. Never mind that this all-Treasuries allocation is no sure thing: some countries may decide that purchasing American stocks, real estate or entire companies makes more sense than soaking up dollar-denominated bonds. Rumblings to that effect have recently increased.

Then take the second element of the scenario — borrowing from our own citizens. Assume that Americans save $500 billion, far above what they’ve saved recently but perhaps consistent with the changing national mood. Finally, assume that these citizens opt to put all their savings into United States Treasuries (partly through intermediaries like banks).

Even with these heroic assumptions, the Treasury will be obliged to find another $900 billion to finance the remainder of the $1.8 trillion of debt it is issuing. Washington’s printing presses will need to work overtime.

太熱血啦～
雖然由一群高齡高中生演出的 XD
塔子算漂亮，不過也不是高中女生啊～

在雜誌上看到的，回家google一下，這款還蠻喜歡。
攝影包包總算有比較有設計感的產品出現了，搶眼多了，只是似乎都特別指明女生用的？
管他的，好看就好。