will be known as 1999 BC. ( before clinton ) . Let us make a new constitutional amendment giving him the right to a 3 or 4th or maybe life tenure. Everyone and everything was mentioned and will be helped except for one forgotten group the gold bugs. BOO hoo Boo hoo Boo hoo ......

Just made it into the State of the Union Address. Its official....

Because nobody’s life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/jokeoftheday.htm

He does not appear to know the difference between avoiding conviction in a court of law ( legal innocence ) -- and true innocence.

I see no indication that he will step down, and let Al Gore take over -- even if Al Gore would have a chance now of being elected two terms. One reason WJC will not do this is that Al Gore probably would not survive even one presidential election.

Hillary -- on the other hand -- what a frightening thought!

But then -- Kenneth Starr would probably stop any wishful thinking on her part.

Personnally I see nothing WJC will gain from staying in power to the bitter end, except a delay in prosecution on criminal charges brought forward by Kenneth Starr. If I were WJC, I would resign before Kenneth Starr has time to make more of a case. It would seem to me that delay will only make things worse for him, rather than better. It is almost as if the number of years WJC stays in office is more important than anything else -- how odd! Now -- he isn't naively hoping that he can declare martial law on Y2K, is he?

On the other hand he may be genuinely afraid that if he retires, he may become a liability to the shady group that put him in power. I wonder -- what else can he do for an oncore -- after selling so many military and commercial secrets for votes.

Good to hear that the new European unity is not all-powerful. It is reassuring that some examples of more efficient markets cannot be suppressed.

Too bad Hong Kong is slowly becoming history.

I do not benefit by access to such markets myself, but it is important that they exist as an example to those who wish to suppress free enterprise.

I have nothing against the concept of the 'New World Order' in its ideallized sense -- no wars, more stable trade, one world currency. The only problem is that if the power if the entire world economy is focused on one small group, the potential for tyranny is much greater. Looks like those 20 EC Commissioners have already made a big head start with a corruption scandal even before the 'ink was dry'. Apparently the European parliament was unable to fire them all, due to fear that this would interrupt the EURO launch. Could be that we will have impeachment trials for Boris Yeltsin, the 20 EURO commissioners, and WJC.

I must admit that the concept of 'Social Security' is a ludicrous term given that our illustrious government has been robbing the piggie bank for as long as I can remember. As I recall, the Teamsters got in trouble for such things. Just imagine what our government would do to GM if the GM executives ran off with their employee's retirement funds.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Governments do the same thing with their entitlements -- as far as I can tell. The German and French tax rates are higher than the US rates, and apparently even more inefficiently spent. I find it really amusing that the main beneficiaries of the EURO launch -- Germany and France -- have decided to export their inefficient taxation/welfare system. I naively thought that the Europeans would find the EURO launch an opportunity to streamline, and improve efficiency. Nothing of the sort. It seems the EURO launch is a perfect opportunity to begin by cracking down on anyone that offers lower cost business -- such as the offshore tax havens.

If the EURO launch goes as I suspect, many efficient markets in Europe are going to bite the dust -- with a 'flight to safety' windfall for the fewer and fewer efficient markets outside the grasp of the EC.

Outta here to another market.Back later in the week.

Lou_Jan: Interesting, isn't it? 75% of all 401k ( and 403b? ) funds going into equities like clockwork -- probably on autopilot until employment rolls tail off -- or a heavy duty shock of some kind. Perception of a y2k problem could do it. Given the narrowing market breadth, since approx Apr 98 or so, it is tempting to speculate that most of the funds are going into internet stocks, and some other unnnamed sectors. That does not suggest a healthy market. Without breadth to bouy the markets, only a few markets need to head south to trash the whole Nasdaq, NYSE, or SP500. Prescription for potential disaster if the general market does not wake up.

And now WJC is proposing formally that Social Security funds go into a 401k or 403b -- and hence into the markets. If the markets head south one fine day, Social Security would then be in even a more worse fix, come 2010-2015 when the baby boomers retire. WJC and the Congresss are waiting to see who blinks first. WJC wants to shoot holes in the Congressional proposal, and Congress wants to shoot holes in the WJC proposal -- so nothing will get done -- right away anyway. The impeachment proceeding will prevent a high level of cooperation between congress and the White House.

The CFTC Doesn't Believe in the First Amendment

by Declan McCullagh

WASHINGTON -- Ever thought of slapping up a Web page devoted to gold prices? Got an urge to vent about those overpriced pork bellies?

Be careful. Unless a public-interest law firm wins a trial scheduled for 29 March, you could face a US$500,000 fine and five years in federal prison.

That's the penalty a little-known federal agency called the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ( CFTC ) has ordered, and the Institute for Justice is hoping to overturn the decision with a First Amendment lawsuit.

US District Judge Ricardo Urbina rejected the institute's request for summary judgment at a hearing Thursday, saying he needed more information -- and a full trial -- before ruling on the case.

CFTC's Interpretation Regarding Use of Electronic Media requires anyone who wants to publish opinions on commodity futures to ask for a license -- a tedious process that includes fingerprinting, fees, audits, and a background check. Publishing without registration is a federal felony.

They're opinions. You can't license someone who's giving their opinions, Institute for Justice staff attorney Scott Bullock said after the hearing.

This shows the federal government is actively trying to regulate the Internet outside the context of indecency, which has received most of the attention.

Bullock was referring to the well-publicized and ultimately doomed Communications Decency Act, which restricted online indecency. Its successor is the subject of a trial in a Philadelphia federal courtroom next week.

The Institute for Justice -- a nonprofit group staffed by free-market litigators -- sued the CFTC in 1997. The lawsuit claims that requiring a person to register as a commodity trading advisor -- even if the person does not manage funds or offer personal advice -- violates the First Amendment's prohibition on government licensing of the press. Plaintiffs in the suit include Internet publishers, authors, and subscribers.

CFTC in 1996 updated its regulations, which already applied to newsletters, to include the Internet and computer software. The agency defends the rules as a necessary cornerstone of the regulatory framework enacted by Congress to protect consumers.

The regulations say anyone who, for compensation or profit, engages in the business of advising others through electronic media such as the Internet must register with the government. As an example, the agency says an owner of a Web site with a list of hyperlinks recommending other Web sites must register -- or go to jail.

Giving the Institute for Justice a boost in their lawsuit is a similar 1985 Supreme Court case that said petitioners' publications fall within the statutory exclusion for bona fide publications under Securities and Exchange Commission rules, though the justices did not rule on First Amendment grounds.

Congress in 1974 created the CFTC to regulate futures contracts for commodities, including oil, natural gas, currency, electricity, and agricultural products.

http://www.nypostonline.com/commentary/2837.htm

WJC has just decided to vigorously defend himself in the Senate -- speaking up on all matters where he things criminal charges are being brought forward. I think this is a major mistake by WJC -- his defense should not be that of a defense lawyer - but rather that of someone who has gone astray, and admits it. A legal fight by WJC will only anger the Senators as they will consider this an attack on their office -- an attempt to wrest power from the Senate. The Senate is not a court of law -- they can set their own rules. Wm Rehnquist will keep things fair, but I doubt WJC will get off on the technicality he seeks.

I am amazed the markets have not picked up on WJC's mounting problems. Public testimony -- much more likely now -- is likely to be sensational. Monica has said she would testify. It will be interesting to see what kinds of developments will trash the markets. I do agree with APH that the markets will likely go up if WJC resigns. A long bitter battle in the Senate is a different story all together.

My short-term prediction: The US markets will go up in relation to the WJC's State-of-the-Union address. DOW 10k coming up? Likely. But that's it, and a head and shoulders is forming.

Donald, all: I share your scepticism reagarding Brazil, though the money available to throw at the problem should keep them afloat for a while. Question -- although the Real is now floating, does that mean that Brazilian foreign-owned debt has been devalued too, or is it denominated in US dollars? If this is so, this would explain why many of the Brazilian states are threatening to default on their payments, as of this morning. If the foreign owned debt is actually in US dollars, I would guess that the next step is some kind of 'roll over' -- deferred payment. Perhaps do the Mexican gambit with the Bofospoda ( sp? ) -- just take it 'off budget' and congress votes to pay the interest each year.

All: I enjoyed the discussion about whether the 'weak' US dollar has created worldwide problems. I think Mooney or Rhody said that the problem was actually that the US dollar was too strong, not too weak. I agree. It is not a problem of devaluing US reserve dollars -- it is a problem of a dollar getting steadily stronger, and currencies pegged against the dollar getting nailed to the wall. Eg, Hong Kong and Brazil, among others. Perhaps China will have the next forced devaluation. IMHO, the 'powers that be' are trying to make the US dollar weaker, not stronger ( except perhaps our trading partners, who love the current excellent balance of trade ) .

Eventually the use of US dollars as reserve currency in so many CB's will come back to haunt us -- but not until some other currency becomes a serious threat to the dollar. And -- US dollars flood the world markets. It will not be the scandal ridden EURO -- not right away, anyway.