Weak Dollar Will Jeopardize the U.S. Economic Recovery

Although recent data is signaling that the worst for the US economy may be over, the current pace of growth may not be sustainable.



First, the poor condition of the labor market is likely to start having an impact on growth in the form of lower consumer spending. Second, the ongoing weakness in the dollar will eventually make it harder for the US government to keep borrowing money from abroad to stimulate the economy.

Indeed, there are more and more good news coming for the US economy and it is expected that growth may reach as much as 3% in the second half of 2009. In fact, in September industrial production recorded the third consecutive monthly increase and inventories continued to shrink. Moreover, retails sales has grown in August and September even excluding vehicle sales. More importantly, it seems the housing market, probably the biggest cause for the recent financial crisis, has reached the bottom and housing starts and existing home sales have bounced higher.

However, the economy recorded more job losses in September than in August and unemployment rate reached 9.8%, the highest since 1983.



Evidently, without growth in employment, households can’t generate income and create demand which is necessary in elevating production levels. In addition, the biggest fiscal deficit on record combined with the anticipation of low interest rates for a long time is discouraging investors from leaving money in the United States and driving down the value of the dollar. This week, US dollar slipped beyond $1.50 per Euro for first time in 14 months. And although a weak dollar has a positive effect on exports, imports prices are also rising bringing the danger of stagflation.

Comments

[Michael Clark:]

Oil prices are rising, less because of demand, than because oil (and other commodities) are anti-dollar plays....it's like a see-saw, Dollar Down, Commodities Up. But once oil hits a non-absorption rate, it sinks the economy. Then the Fed will have to support the dollar, to try to aid American consumers and business by driving down the price of oil. Scylla and Charybdis. And the passage between the two disasters is getting narrower and narrower.

Oct 22 04:59 AM

[LilBob:]

Michael is spot on about oil prices, but rising oil prices represent an opportunity, and that opportunity si for a resurgence in the development of alternative energy technologies, which-in my view-are our only real hope for a transformative technology that can usher in a new period of economic growth. At this point the economy has fallen so far that continuing to beat the same long dead economic horse isn't likely to produce significant results. Development of new transformative technologies, or the creation of economic policies that break down oligopolistic market structures-thereby increasing competition in the marketplace are needed.

The flip side of the weak dollar argument is that along with the recent return of the "Buy American" ethos a weakened dollar may increase the cost of foreign capital goods and spur more Americans to look for American made goods-thereby altering our trade deficit and reducing the hemorrhaging of American consumer capital via trade. There is even the potential that other countries-such as the Euro nations may increase their imports of US made manufactured goods. (The notion of the Chinese becoming significant consumers of American made goods is-quite honestly-a pipe dream.) The recent weakening of the dollar does show some parallels to the devaluation of the dollar during the Roosevelt years, now the nation needs to find a way to restore the consumer base and increase middle class wealth to restore our nations typical and (presumably) preferred economic structure without the vehicle of war production.

Oct 22 06:44 AM

[socrateaz:]

The negative balance of trade could not continue. The dollar needs to fall to where the balance in trade is about equal. I truely believe many of the current problems will eventually be traced back to the US running deficits in trade balance for too long. If you have gotten in trouble with a loan in the past, You will know the feeling of being controled by the need to repay. It is probably like indentured slavery. You have to repay but you feel like there is no real way out! The US has borrowed its way toward a similar situation. Do you think the US could declare bankruptcy when things get too bad? Or will the citizens feel like slaves to countries it borrowed wealth from? The devaluing of the dollar is acting as relief toward that obligation so not as much wealth should go toward borrowing. more. Payback will not seem as nice as the original borrowing for the future provides.

Oct 22 06:57 AM

[chap08:]

I guess it was the SA editors, rather than the author, who chose the stupid headline. "Weak Dollar Will Jeopardize the U.S. Economic Recovery" is the sort of nonsense believed by most on SA, but it is nonsense none the less.

As Peter Schiff recently said, we need to simultaneously decrease consumption and increase production. The only way to do that is to increase exports and reduce imports. You logically can not do it any other way. The only realistic way to achieve that is through a weaker dollar. With a stronger dollar, it would be impossible.

The Europeans understand this better than people in the US. They are seriously worried about the strength of the Euro, and that it will choke off their recovery. They may well act to bring the Euro down against the dollar. They are thinking both about their export markets and their imports from China, which are pegged to the dollar.

Yes a weak dollar increases import prices, but a strong dollar is an unsustainable fiction. It's a fiction that has allowed us to live comfortably while our trade deficit and unemployment rise. The longer we try to sustain that fiction, the more painful the final reckoning will be.

Oct 22 07:13 AM

[Moon Kil Woong:]

Oil prices at $80 is already high enough to cripple the US considering it's weak economic health. Yes GDP has bottomed because we have to pay more for gas and electricity? Is this really the type of spending you can call a recovery? For one thing it makes no jobs and lowers rather than improves American's standard of living.

If this is the aim of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury I hope someday Obama will wake up from his Bush Jr. relapse and start representing the type of change he said he would bring about. For starters he could can Geithner for Volker and replace Bernake with Sheila Bair. That would be sweet medicine and sweet justice.

Oct 22 07:14 AM

[User 353732:]

1.The weaker the dollar, the higher oil prices must go to maintain their real value of oil. Rising oil prices are merely a quantification of dollar debasement.

2. The weaker the dollar the more capital will flee the dollar and the US. The dollar is no longer a riskless investment and the US is no longer friendly to risk capital, real talent and new business formation. On the contrary, the Fiat Dollar is a riskier place for global investors to store their money than real assets such as oil and copper and Asia is, now, far more hospitable to risk capital, entrepreneurship, true talent and innovation than the US

3. The combination of rising energy prices(which reduce discretionary income for consumers), capital flight(which reduces job creating investments in the US) and the hostility of the US Regime to new and small businesses(which account for most net job creation) will lead to far greater job losses in the Productive Economy than job gains in export industries.

The fake and falling dollar is bad for most consumers, bad for most ordinary Americans who are looking for jobs and bad for the long term wealth and income generating capacity of the US.
To claim that a crippled dollar is god for ordinary Americans is part of the same vast deceit that says overborrowing, overconsuming, mindless regulations, concentration of wealth and systematic suppression of price signals in the economy is the prescription for enduring prosperity.

Oct 22 07:57 AM

[popey:]

The relentless devaluation of the USD will start to attack the fixed income markets. Soon real interest rates will turn negative, as the Fed will be behind the inflation curve. So with negative real interest rates + stagflation, the investment community will soon realize that the USA cannot grow its way out of its deficit obligations. When that tipping point is reached, there will be a catastrophic meltdown in the USD and gov bond markets, and massive social dislocation in the USA. The country will disintegrate. It is simply a matter of a few years.

Oct 22 08:12 AM

[chap08:]

User 353732's views are typical of SA opinion, so let's look at what's right and wrong.

What's right:

"The weaker the dollar, the higher oil prices must go to maintain their real value of oil"
"The fake and falling dollar is bad for most consumers"
"Asia is, now, far more hospitable to risk capital, entrepreneurship, true talent and innovation than the US"
"the Fiat Dollar is a riskier place for global investors to store their money than real assets such as oil and copper"
"the US is no longer friendly to risk capital, real talent and new business formation"

In summary: import costs will go up and this will hurt the consumer. Meanwhile, stronger economies elsewhere will continue to march forward, leaving the US behind.

I'm sorry, but this is just reality catching up with us. One way or other, living standards have to fall for a while. We can not continue to put our heads in the sand. Priority has to go, not to consumers for once, but to rebuilding our productive capacity. When we have achieved that, we will deserve a stronger currency - and we will get one.

What's wrong:

"more capital will flee the dollar and the US"
"The dollar is no longer a riskless investment"
a weak dollar is ..."bad for most ordinary Americans who are looking for jobs and bad for the long term wealth and income generating capacity of the US."

The reality is that capital continues to flood in to the US, as it has been doing for a decade or so. There is no shortage of capital in the US and there would be no shortage of investment, if we had something to invest in. Without a productive economy to invest in, investment has just been wasted on things like housing.

The dollar never has been a riskless investment. To the uninformed, it may have appeared to be; but it has been increasingly risky over the last decade. This is because it has been increasingly propped up artificially by mercantilist nations. They do this for their benefit - not ours. The risk is that at some stage they will remove these artificial props.

A weaker dollar would not be bad for job seeking Americans - it would be good for them. I have personally been involved in outsourcing jobs to Asia. I know why it happens - it is because we are uncompetitive. A more competitive exchange rate would have been a factor in the outsourcing decisions that I have been involved in. A lower dollar makes us more competitive and creates more jobs. These jobs are the key to our long term wealth. You don't create long term wealth by propping up the consumer.

In the longer term, we will rebuild our economy and the dollar will naturally want to strengthen. At the moment though, the economy is weak and the dollar needs to fall.


On Oct 22 07:57 AM User 353732 wrote:

> 1.The weaker the dollar, the higher oil prices must go to maintain
> their real value of oil. Rising oil prices are merely a quantification
> of dollar debasement.
>
> 2. The weaker the dollar the more capital will flee the dollar and
> the US. The dollar is no longer a riskless investment and the US
> is no longer friendly to risk capital, real talent and new business
> formation. On the contrary, the Fiat Dollar is a riskier place for
> global investors to store their money than real assets such as oil
> and copper and Asia is, now, far more hospitable to risk capital,
> entrepreneurship, true talent and innovation than the US
>
> 3. The combination of rising energy prices(which reduce discretionary
> income for consumers), capital flight(which reduces job creating
> investments in the US) and the hostility of the US Regime to new
> and small businesses(which account for most net job creation) will
> lead to far greater job losses in the Productive Economy than job
> gains in export industries.
>
> The fake and falling dollar is bad for most consumers, bad for most
> ordinary Americans who are looking for jobs and bad for the long
> term wealth and income generating capacity of the US.
> To claim that a crippled dollar is god for ordinary Americans is
> part of the same vast deceit that says overborrowing, overconsuming,
> mindless regulations, concentration of wealth and systematic suppression
> of price signals in the economy is the prescription for enduring
> prosperity.

Oct 22 09:04 AM

[thiazole:]

"Evidently, without growth in employment, households can’t generate income and create demand which is necessary in elevating production levels. In addition, the biggest fiscal deficit on record combined with the anticipation of low interest rates for a long time is discouraging investors from leaving money in the United States and driving down the value of the dollar. This week, US dollar slipped beyond $1.50 per Euro for first time in 14 months. And although a weak dollar has a positive effect on exports, imports prices are also rising bringing the danger of stagflation."

The fact that inventories have been falling for more than a year now (and the total they have fallen is around $200 billion) tells us that production levels will need to be increased whether demand increases or stays constant - if both demand and production remain constant, ALL business inventories will be gone in about 6 years. Obviously, that isn't an option.

As far as the weak dollar goes, look at 2008. This recession was poised to be nasty from the start, but increasing exports kept the recession mild until the banking crisis hit. Why were exports growing so much? A weak dollar. CLEARLY a weakening dollar means the standard of living for Americans will go down, but that is the price to pay when we are in this much debt. If an individual is in debt, he must work harder to make more money (ie, produce more and export more) and consume less (ie, import less). That is just the reality of getting out of debt.

Oct 22 10:58 AM

[thiazole:]

It amazes me how many thumbs down you are getting for such a logical and true post. Populism is alive at SA and it is just as dumb as populism in the broader public.


On Oct 22 09:04 AM chap08 wrote:

> User 353732's views are typical of SA opinion, so let's look at what's
> right and wrong.
>
> What's right:
>
> "The weaker the dollar, the higher oil prices must go to maintain
> their real value of oil"
> "The fake and falling dollar is bad for most consumers"
> "Asia is, now, far more hospitable to risk capital, entrepreneurship,
> true talent and innovation than the US"
> "the Fiat Dollar is a riskier place for global investors to store
> their money than real assets such as oil and copper"
> "the US is no longer friendly to risk capital, real talent and new
> business formation"
>
> In summary: import costs will go up and this will hurt the consumer.
> Meanwhile, stronger economies elsewhere will continue to march forward,
> leaving the US behind.
>
> I'm sorry, but this is just reality catching up with us. One way
> or other, living standards have to fall for a while. We can not continue
> to put our heads in the sand. Priority has to go, not to consumers
> for once, but to rebuilding our productive capacity. When we have
> achieved that, we will deserve a stronger currency - and we will
> get one.
>
> What's wrong:
>
> "more capital will flee the dollar and the US"
> "The dollar is no longer a riskless investment"
> a weak dollar is ..."bad for most ordinary Americans who are looking
> for jobs and bad for the long term wealth and income generating capacity
> of the US."
>
> The reality is that capital continues to flood in to the US, as it
> has been doing for a decade or so. There is no shortage of capital
> in the US and there would be no shortage of investment, if we had
> something to invest in. Without a productive economy to invest in,
> investment has just been wasted on things like housing.
>
> The dollar never has been a riskless investment. To the uninformed,
> it may have appeared to be; but it has been increasingly risky over
> the last decade. This is because it has been increasingly propped
> up artificially by mercantilist nations. They do this for their benefit
> - not ours. The risk is that at some stage they will remove these
> artificial props.
>
> A weaker dollar would not be bad for job seeking Americans - it would
> be good for them. I have personally been involved in outsourcing
> jobs to Asia. I know why it happens - it is because we are uncompetitive.
> A more competitive exchange rate would have been a factor in the
> outsourcing decisions that I have been involved in. A lower dollar
> makes us more competitive and creates more jobs. These jobs are the
> key to our long term wealth. You don't create long term wealth by
> propping up the consumer.
>
> In the longer term, we will rebuild our economy and the dollar will
> naturally want to strengthen. At the moment though, the economy is
> weak and the dollar needs to fall.

Oct 22 11:04 AM

[lavalamp:]

It does not matter how far the dollar falls, it will not restore the balance of trade, that is, so long as the Asian countries artificially peg their currencies to the $. If they continue to peg to their currency to the dollar the imbalance will continue until the cost to manufacture and cost to transport a widget equals the cost to manufacture it locally.


On Oct 22 06:57 AM socrateaz wrote:

> The negative balance of trade could not continue. The dollar needs
> to fall to where the balance in trade is about equal. I truely believe
> many of the current problems will eventually be traced back to the
> US running deficits in trade balance for too long. If you have gotten
> in trouble with a loan in the past, You will know the feeling of
> being controled by the need to repay. It is probably like indentured
> slavery. You have to repay but you feel like there is no real way
> out! The US has borrowed its way toward a similar situation. Do
> you think the US could declare bankruptcy when things get too bad?
> Or will the citizens feel like slaves to countries it borrowed wealth
> from? The devaluing of the dollar is acting as relief toward that
> obligation so not as much wealth should go toward borrowing. more.
> Payback will not seem as nice as the original borrowing for the future
> provides.

Oct 22 11:35 AM

[rcstocks:]

"...there are more and more good news coming for the US economy" then "Evidently, without growth in employment, households can’t generate income (sic) and create demand which is necessary in elevating production levels. In addition, the biggest fiscal deficit on record combined with the anticipation of low interest rates for a long time is discouraging investors from leaving money in the United States and driving down the value of the dollar."

Thank you Mr. Smith. Everyone over here!!! I have found the Matrix.

Oct 22 12:14 PM

[Tony Petroski:]

Anna. Good try. Keep going and you will improve.

Your graph has negative numbers as your copy has "Although recent data is signaling that the worst for the US economy may be over, the current pace of growth may not be sustainable."

The current pace, according to your graph, is minus 5%. I think we can sustain that pace.

Oct 22 12:26 PM

[chap08:]

Thanks thiazole. I keep putting these things out to see if someone from the SA cookie cutter is prepared to think about it and respond logically. I'm still waiting!


On Oct 22 11:04 AM thiazole wrote:

> It amazes me how many thumbs down you are getting for such a logical
> and true post. Populism is alive at SA and it is just as dumb as
> populism in the broader public.

Oct 22 12:27 PM

[Dave Wrixon:]

No, imports go down due to reduced consumption, and exports rise due to increases and more importantly efficiency gains in production, not the other way around.


On Oct 22 07:13 AM chap08 wrote:

> I guess it was the SA editors, rather than the author, who chose
> the stupid headline. "Weak Dollar Will Jeopardize the U.S. Economic
> Recovery" is the sort of nonsense believed by most on SA, but it
> is nonsense none the less.
>
> As Peter Schiff recently said, we need to simultaneously decrease
> consumption and increase production. The only way to do that is to
> increase exports and reduce imports. You logically can not do it
> any other way. The only realistic way to achieve that is through
> a weaker dollar. With a stronger dollar, it would be impossible.
>
>
> The Europeans understand this better than people in the US. They
> are seriously worried about the strength of the Euro, and that it
> will choke off their recovery. They may well act to bring the Euro
> down against the dollar. They are thinking both about their export
> markets and their imports from China, which are pegged to the dollar.
>
>
> Yes a weak dollar increases import prices, but a strong dollar is
> an unsustainable fiction. It's a fiction that has allowed us to live
> comfortably while our trade deficit and unemployment rise. The longer
> we try to sustain that fiction, the more painful the final reckoning
> will be.

Oct 22 01:20 PM

[chap08:]

What? "exports rise due to increases ..." in what? consumption??

Consumption is approx $10,200 billion. Lets' say it goes down 10%. That's approx $1,000 billion. Exports are approx $1,500 billion, imports are $1,800 billion. Productivity gains are currently strong at 2.5% pa.

How is it possible to have reduced consumption, increased production and a strong dollar? You say it will happen through productivity. Productivity gains of 2.5% will have a radical impact on our exports? I don't think so. Remember that other countries are improving productivity too. As for imports, why would consumers drop cheap imports as opposed to expensive domestic goods?

Perhaps you have a magic new productivity machine. Please explain your plan.


On Oct 22 01:20 PM Dave Wrixon wrote:

> No, imports go down due to reduced consumption, and exports rise
> due to increases and more importantly efficiency gains in production,
> not the other way around.

Oct 22 02:37 PM

[Frugal Joe:]

Looks like Ben and Timmy want a weaker dollar to pay back the Trillions in debt with cheaper dollars.

I don't see the dollar EVER regaining its strength.

Oct 22 07:36 PM

[mna:]

Well, just to play devil's advocate, if the US wants to increase exports without depreciating its currency, it can release all the self imposed export controls on high tech products such as older defense technology and supercomputers. That would be a big boost. Or if you're really feeling suicidal and are looking for short term benefits at the expense of long term gains, you can add tariffs and pray to god the other nations don't retaliate (not likely).

Realistically though, the strong dollar is unsustainable with the current productivity of our economy. It's really not a choice. The Asians have been supporting the dollar for the last decade with their productivity. It's only a matter of time before they decide they've had enough of subsidizing the US consumer's lavish lifestyles and decide to pull the plug. I don't like the loose monetary policy anymore than the next guy, but it is a necessary evil if the US government and the US consumer continues to spend more than it produces.

Allow me to add one more point though. Loose monetary policy can't overcome egregious long term fiscal policy. Ultimately there's only so much you can depreciate before people lose confidence and your currency crashes to zero. Monetary policy is a short term bandaid at best, ultimately our fate lies in responsible fiscal policy on the government as well as an individual level.

On Oct 22 02:37 PM chap08 wrote:

> What? "exports rise due to increases ..." in what? consumption??
>
>
> Consumption is approx $10,200 billion. Lets' say it goes down 10%.
> That's approx $1,000 billion. Exports are approx $1,500 billion,
> imports are $1,800 billion. Productivity gains are currently strong
> at 2.5% pa.
>
> How is it possible to have reduced consumption, increased production
> and a strong dollar? You say it will happen through productivity.
> Productivity gains of 2.5% will have a radical impact on our exports?
> I don't think so. Remember that other countries are improving productivity
> too. As for imports, why would consumers drop cheap imports as opposed
> to expensive domestic goods?
>
> Perhaps you have a magic new productivity machine. Please explain
> your plan.

Oct 22 08:02 PM

[Dave Wrixon:]

No, you cannot read. Exports rise due to increases in Production.

Sure, you can get a short-term boost in exports if you drop your prices, but a weak dollar will not increase your capital investment. All that happens is that smoke stack industries are forced to become sweat shops. OK, I would be the first to acknowledge that living standards in the US need to drop until they are in balance with national levels of real wealth generation, which are very much lower than most assume, but I would not suggest that Americans should aspire to compete with the sweat shops of the third World. They need to invest and innovate to stay ahead of the curve, but first they much cut the cost across the board to try to make themselves competitive. That means cutting the size and the level of consumption of Government. It unfortunately means real suffering. In Thatcherite Britain it was necessary often to wait two years for medical operations. Many died waiting. I would not try to justify cutting to that kind of level but clearly sacrifices do need to be made. Most importantly sacrifices need to be made to achieve a viable investment environment. Sure there has been plenty of investment in the US in recent years but it has nearly all been totally misdirected. Instead of being channeled at wealth generating industries, it has simply been poured into a bloated consumer sector, and consequently largely wasted. The basic question is how do we persuade investors to put their money into factories and enterprises that will produce goods and services that the rest of the World actually not only wants but will pay a premium for?


On Oct 22 02:37 PM chap08 wrote:

> What? "exports rise due to increases ..." in what? consumption??
>
>
> Consumption is approx $10,200 billion. Lets' say it goes down 10%.
> That's approx $1,000 billion. Exports are approx $1,500 billion,
> imports are $1,800 billion. Productivity gains are currently strong
> at 2.5% pa.
>
> How is it possible to have reduced consumption, increased production
> and a strong dollar? You say it will happen through productivity.
> Productivity gains of 2.5% will have a radical impact on our exports?
> I don't think so. Remember that other countries are improving productivity
> too. As for imports, why would consumers drop cheap imports as opposed
> to expensive domestic goods?
>
> Perhaps you have a magic new productivity machine. Please explain
> your plan.

Oct 23 04:15 AM

[chap08:]

Dave, thanks for a considered response. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I believe that you are making the following errors:

1. "Exports rise due to increases in Production".

Unfortunately not. If that was true, all that any economy would ever have to do to get out of recession is start up the production lines. In the real world, you need demand - you need someone to buy what you produce. If you don't have that you just build up inventory. The demand for our products is currently insufficient. That's why we have low exports and a struggling domestic economy. The question is: how do we create demand for our products or switch to produce other products that have greater demand?

2. "a weak dollar will not increase your capital investment"

China has a deliberately weak currency. Have they struggled for capital investment? Have they hell. They have had plenty of capital to invest - and more importantly, they have good investment opportunities. A weak dollar would likely have no net impact on investment, but what it would mean is that we start to have investment opportunities. So the investment would start to go in to productive assets rather than housing and treasuries. Why would anyone invest in productive assets in the currently uncompetitive US, rather than competitive Asia?

3. "I would not suggest that Americans should aspire to compete with the sweat shops of the third World"

Neither would I. That's not what I'm suggesting. A weaker currency does not mean that we should start mass producing textiles and shoes. A lower dollar would not work that way. It would do three main things. Firstly, it would increase the volume of our existing products because they become cheaper for the world. Secondly, it would make the US more competitive at the margin. So, less high tech manufacturing and service jobs would be off-shored. More domestic goods would be substituted for imports, which have oil heavy transport costs. Thirdly, because of the first two, the domestic economy is boosted. This then has a multiplier effect on spending, employment and government tax revenues.

Lastly, you say "The basic question is how do we persuade investors to put their money into factories and enterprises that will produce goods and services that the rest of the World actually not only wants but will pay a premium for?".

With respect, that's not the basic question. We have investors who are willing to do this. I know this because I am one of them. The problem is that, currently, it would be commercial suicide. It will remain that way until there is more demand for American goods and services in the world. That demand will not exist until we have a lower dollar.

On Oct 23 04:15 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:

> No, you cannot read. Exports rise due to increases in Production.
>
>
> Sure, you can get a short-term boost in exports if you drop your
> prices, but a weak dollar will not increase your capital investment.
> All that happens is that smoke stack industries are forced to become
> sweat shops. OK, I would be the first to acknowledge that living
> standards in the US need to drop until they are in balance with national
> levels of real wealth generation, which are very much lower than
> most assume, but I would not suggest that Americans should aspire
> to compete with the sweat shops of the third World. They need to
> invest and innovate to stay ahead of the curve, but first they much
> cut the cost across the board to try to make themselves competitive.
> That means cutting the size and the level of consumption of Government.
> It unfortunately means real suffering. In Thatcherite Britain it
> was necessary often to wait two years for medical operations. Many
> died waiting. I would not try to justify cutting to that kind of
> level but clearly sacrifices do need to be made. Most importantly
> sacrifices need to be made to achieve a viable investment environment.
> Sure there has been plenty of investment in the US in recent years
> but it has nearly all been totally misdirected. Instead of being
> channeled at wealth generating industries, it has simply been poured
> into a bloated consumer sector, and consequently largely wasted.
> The basic question is how do we persuade investors to put their money
> into factories and enterprises that will produce goods and services
> that the rest of the World actually not only wants but will pay a
> premium for?

Oct 23 06:07 AM