Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
wild action today!
Fay Wray - Crime of the Century
lips are sealed!
Reminds me of a Beatles tune :)
China syndrome? 9 February 2008
Half a Trillion for "Defence"
By Gwynne Dyer
Last week the Pentagon asked Congress for the biggest defence
budget since the Second World War: $515 billion, plus an additional $70
billion to cover the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for part of
the coming year. The United States is proposing to spend more on the armed
forces, quite apart from the running costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, than it
did at the height of the Cold War against the Soviet Union -- and yet
almost all the commentary and analysis in the US media has focussed on the
spending on the two wars.
Even that is a lot of money. The US Congress has already approved
$691 billion in spending on Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, and the total
estimate for this year alone is $190 billion. Not only that, but some of
the money in the regular defence budget can also be indirectly attributed
to America's wars in the Muslim world, like the expenditure on new
equipment to replace the weapons that have been destroyed or worn out in
the wars.
But there is a great deal more money in the current US defence
budget -- probably three times as much -- that has nothing to do with the
"war on terror." Even if you accept the deeply suspect proposition that
invading foreign countries is a useful way to fight terrorism, invading the
target countries (which generally do not inhabit the higher reaches of the
technological pecking order) does not require eleven aircraft carriers and
fleets of stealth bombers.
So what is all the rest of the money for? According to Michael
Klare, defence correspondent for "The Nation", the answer is obvious.
"The US military posits its future on the China threat. That is the
ultimate justification for a defence budget of $500 billion a year. There
is no other plausible threat. If you look at the new budget which came out
just this week, it calls for vast spending on new weapons systems that can
only reasonably be justified by what they call a "peer competitor", a
future superpower that could threaten the United States, and only China
conceivably can fill that bill. Not Iran, not Iraq, or some (other) rogue
state. Only China fits that bill."
It's obvious, when you think about it. If the United States had no
present or prospective "peer competitor", how could the Pentagon justify
spending huge amounts of money on next-generation weapons? For beating up
on "rogue states", last-generation-but-one weapons are more than adequate.
So there has to be a peer competitor, whether it understands its role in
the scheme of things or not. And only China can fill that role.
So what is the alleged competition about? Energy, of course, and
mostly oil. Michael Klare again: "The Pentagon and US strategists talk
openly about US-China competition for energy in Africa, in the Caspian Sea
basin, and in the Persian Gulf, and they talk about the danger of a
China-Russia strategic alliance that the US has to be able to counter.
This is very much part of US concerns. They talk about the Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation as a proto-military alliance that threatens
America's vital interests.
"Terrorist assaults and skirmishes with Iran or some other rogue
state are more likely on the curve of probability, and the military is
geared to fight these kind of regional skirmishes....But when they talk
about the greatest threats that they might have to face, for which they
have to allocate their largest sums and acquire their most potent weapons,
it's the China-Russia alliance that they're preparing for and asking
Congress to allocate the largest sums of money for."
What the US military are not doing, for the moment, is telling the
American public that China is why they want all that money. The amorphous,
infinitely expandable "war on terror" can be used to cover all sorts of
other expenditures as well. Nobody is required to prove that China really
does pose a strategic threat to America's oil supplies, or to demonstrate
that a Chinese-Russian alliance is a serious political possibility.
But that happy time is probably coming to an end. As the "terrorist
threat" gradually shrinks down towards its true, rather modest dimensions
in the minds of American voters and even American politicians, the wisdom
of spending so much money on a strategic confrontation with China that does
not yet exist -- and may never actually come to pass -- is bound to come
under question.
As for an enduring Chinese-Russian alliance, the notion is about as
credible this time round as it was back in the early days of the Cold War.
Since China is the country that poses the greatest potential threat to
Russia, it can be a good short-term strategy for Moscow to hug China close.
But the alliance lasted only thirteen years last time (in the early years
of the Cold War), and it would probably not survive even that long on a
second occasion.
This year's US defence budget will probably go through more or less
uncut, because few members of Congress who face re-election in November
will want to leave themselves open to accusations of being "soft on
terror." But next year will almost certainly be a different story. For
the Pentagon, the good old days are coming to an end.
lol - cant keep up to the chatter here
my kids paid .345 spoiled brats
they just need to buyout KCL for $10/share :)
The Mosaic Company at Goldman Sachs Ag Conference Tuesday, February 12, 2008
http://ir.mosaicco.com/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=70455&eventID=1653081
Catchy stuff eh, the song is 12 years old now but seems to fit with this decades mindset.
Lyrics could be an email from Bin Laden to Bush Sept 11th.
Breathe with me
Breathe the pressure
Come play my game Ill test ya
Psychosomatic addict insane
Breathe the pressure
Come play my game Ill test ya
Psycho-somatic addict insane
Come play my game
Inhale, inhale, youre the victim
Come play my game
Exhale, exhale, exhale
Raytec Metals arranges $3.6-million private placement
2008-02-13 12:59 MT - News Release
Mr. Brian Thurston reports
RAYTEC ARRANGES INSTITUTIONAL FINANCING
Raytec Metals Corp., subject to regulatory approval, has arranged a non-brokered private placement of eight million units at a price of 45 cents per unit, for gross proceeds of $3.6-million.
Each unit will consist of one common share and one-half of one non-transferable share purchase warrant. Each whole warrant may be exercisable for a period of two years to acquire an additional common share of the company at a price of 75 cents per whole share purchase warrant. The common shares and share purchase warrants issued under this financing will be subject to a four-month hold period from the date of closing, as per TSX Venture Exchange policy.
The warrants will contain a provision which provides that if after June 22, 2008 (being the anticipated end of the four-month hold period), until the expiry date of the warrants, the closing price of the company's shares exceeds $1.25 for 10 consecutive trading days, the company may accelerate the expiry date of the warrants to the date that is 30 days after the day the notice of the new expiry date is provided to the holders of the warrants.
The company has received commitments for the full offering from several institutional investors.
The financing is anticipated to close on or before Feb. 22, 2008.
Finders' fees in the form of cash and/or securities will be paid or issued pursuant to the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange.
The proceeds of the placement will be used for advancement of the company's newly acquired potash properties and for general working capital.
U.S. Investment Strategist for Merrill Lynch, Jose Rasco, talks about ‘agflation’ and how investors can play the soft commodities market.
RESOURCE INVESTOR: On the line now from Merrill Lynch in the United States is Jose Rasco, who’s an investment strategist at that particular institution. Jose, how serious is this agflation situation?
JOSE RASCO: We think it’s very serious and we think it’s not just a story for 2007 or 2008. We think it’s something that’s going to continue for the foreseeable future.
RESOURCE INVESTOR: It’s a problem for reserve banks of course because there’s nothing really one can do in terms of monetary policy when faced with agflation. You can raise interest rates as much as you like, but unfortunately, it has minimal effects. Is that one of the dangers of agflation?
JOSE RASCO: Oh absolutely. If you look at what’s going on with inflation rates around the world, a lot of the cyclical components of inflation will be slowing over the next 6 months in the U.S. in particular as well as some other countries that are going to experience an economic slowdown either alongside the U.S., or following on after that, but it’s the non cyclical components, basically the food, which should be putting upward pressure on overall inflation.
RESOURCE INVESTOR: Previous agflation cycles have been characterized by, for example, droughts in the Midwest. This particular rally in food prices, like the wheat and the corn that I was talking about earlier, seem to have far more structural bases and could go on for much longer. Is that the impression you’re getting?
JOSE RASCO: Oh, absolutely, and I think if you look at the corn based ethanol, that’s only part of the problem pushing up food prices. You have supply constraints globally in terms of the amount of arable land available. You have huge shifts in demand, not just from the developing world, from the emerging markets as well, where people are moving to cities, and incomes are rising, and they’re changing their dietary patterns, and last but not least, is that energy and introduction into the food equation, whether it’s corn-based ethanol; a lot of people are now looking at the oil, the vegetable oils. One big move in many markets now is to move away from trans fat oils. That move away from trans fat oils is putting pressure on sunflower oils, vegetable oils, palm oils, which by the way, can also be used to make biodiesel, so again, there’s more upward pressure on another part of the food equation, which I think we’re going to be seeing this year on the oils part of the market.
RESOURCE INVESTOR: Before we get into what we can actually do to take advantage from it from a capitalist point of view, what about the social side of things? Is there any chance that this could cause social unrest in certain countries? The world has a history of it.
JOSE RASCO: Oh absolutely, and I think we already see part of it in Mexico. You had the beginnings of riots because the price of corn had risen so rapidly, and corn is such a staple in their diets that people were revolting, and the government had to step in to put in price controls, so that is a definite possibility that it will lead to some social unrest. The good news is in many other emerging markets, is there’s a switch away from some of these products towards other types of food consumption, so hopefully it’ll forestall that for the foreseeable future, but the possibility is there, that’s for sure.
RESOURCE INVESTOR: If we look at the markets and the way to take advantage of this, in which particular stocks, in which particular sectors of the financial markets are going to benefit, those are the obvious ones. We can go out and we can buy corn futures, or wheat futures, or soybean options, or whatever, but are there any particular areas of the stock market that may benefit from this type of rally which may last for many years?
JOSE RASCO: Well, I think one of the things you want to look at is you want to look also at the farm equipment business, the people who make the equipment that help produce the commercial farms that increasingly have to be built. You want to also look at the fertilizer companies, as a lot of the movement now in many parts of the world is more organic foods and foods that are safer in nature, so that’s another thing we’re looking at is organic foods, the pot ash companies, the fertilizer companies, a lot of those companies as well. Another issue we’re looking at is food security. I think increasingly people are concerned about the stability and the security of the food supply and that’s another area that is quite interesting from our perspective.
RESOURCE INVESTOR: Why is it so interesting? Sorry, can you explain the link there?
JOSE RASCO: Yeah, sure. If you look increasingly, foods are being imported. For example, in China foods are being imported increasingly from the African continents and in other areas as the amount of arable land they have available is dwindling, so food supply and food security is an issue. In the United States, as we are using more corn for ethanol and we’re exporting other products given the high global price, we’re having to import foods from other countries where we have historically have not done so, so what happens now is people are more concerned about the supply of the food, in other words, that’s part of food security. It’s not just the safety of the food and is it well preserved, it’s also security in terms of do we have enough of it to go around?
RESOURCE INVESTOR: Are there any specific stocks you’re allowed to talk about at Merrill Lynch....
JOSE RASCO: Not really.
RESOURCE INVESTOR: But these trends are well entrenched despite the fact we’re quite a way into a bull market. You think this could be a cycle that could go on for many years, Jose?
JOSE RASCO: Yeah, in fact, from our perspective, we’re looking forward to – not looking forward to, obviously, in a pessimistic way, but I think what’s going to help alleviate some of the pressure we’ve seen on some of these stocks – some of these stocks have risen, some of them have taken a fall of late, and I think what you’re going to see as the U.S. economy slows, if rest of world growth slows with it, we could see some slowing in the agflation story in the second half of this year, and as a result, we could see a slowing in some of those stock prices, which is to me a buying opportunity, because long term, this is still a trend we like a lot.
RESOURCE INVESTOR: Would it be fair to say as well if the U.S. economy does slow down and if the major U.S. stock indices do start to falter, that these stocks could be seen as defensive, and defensive stocks might be the way to go?
JOSE RASCO: Oh, absolutely. That’s part of our overall core strategy globally, is to be more defensive, because we think the U.S. economy is heading into recession, and we particularly like the food companies, as you mentioned. Historically they’ve been defensive plays, but they’re one of the few defensive plays that do have some pricing power, and that’s why we like them a lot, yes.
RESOURCE INVESTOR: Jose, thanks very much for your time this evening, brief as it was. That was Jose Rasco, who’s an investment strategist at Merrill Lynch.
Audio here http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=40390
Class Afloat - Sail and Study Abroad
Franz Ferdinand - This Fire
POZ is moving!
keep the buggers in check
bring them on
Prodigy - Breathe
probably wont be the last either
Nice pop, congrats!
KCL will come through
you been eating bannock up north?
yup metals are dead