Turkish Forum

Category: South Asia

  • POOR RICHARD’S REPORT

    POOR RICHARD’S REPORT

    Poor Richard’s Report                                                                        

     

                                                                                                    Over 300,000 readers

    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth while providing needful income is my primary goal in these unsettled times. I have been given the ability to evaluate, study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on the future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients. 

    March 10, 2000 the stock market topped out.

    March 10, 2009 the stock market bottomed. 

    This does not mean it is going to run back up. The leaders of past bull markets do not lead the charge in new bull markets. This bear market has been the second worst in our history and probably the worst ever in other countries. It will be 5, 10, maybe 15 years before the averages make new highs- that is, if they do not change the components too much. Stocks bottom when the future looks the bleakest. So I believe we are near or at the bottom of a major cycle. It is a market of stocks not a stock market.

                 I have written that the market has bottomed, but the recovery is going to be long and painful for some. We have to institute new global regulations and retrain ourselves to be more frugal. We buy a home because we love it and want to live in it, not to turn a quick profit. We buy a stock because the company has a good product, provides a necessary function for the good of the community, and over a period of time will grow.

                Countries and consumers are tapped out. The ratio of household debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose from 66% in 1997 to 100% in 2007. We are not alone. In the United Kingdom it was an even bigger jump.

                In the US the overall debt reached 350% of GDP. Only 85% is private. This figure was 180% in 1980. The next bubble to burst will be credit cards and then, if we are unlucky, we will have a debt implosion. Individuals and corporations will do their best to reduce debt. They will be shut out from borrowing because of the massive borrowing the US Government will have to do. This will be true for many other countries also.

                Today there is a debate between Socialists and their foes that want less government intervention in their daily lives. I believe the truth lies in the middle. We can not be all things to all people. In the past we have borrowed on the future and it is now pay back time. We have to downsize our dreams and expectations or we could find ourselves in the same straight jacket that the Germans found themselves in 1930’s. The American spirit is that of a “can do will try for it” attitude. Today, while you are reading this letter, there is someone trying to figure out a cheaper source of energy. Until the discovery is achieved we will have a slow recovery. I believe that day will come from an area we least expect. Have faith.

                    With a slow recovery major corporations will wallow in the mud. Medium size companies that can move and change quickly and do not have a built in bureaucracy will become the new leaders. It has been my observation that the pinnacle of leadership lasts about 10 years. That leadership is attained because the new hires believe in the company. Later hires join because of the name and it’s safety. Competitors multiply and the growth rate slows down. As Andrew Carnegie was fond of saying “shirt sleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations” can apply to this corporate sequence.

                If you want to participate in this new bull market you must change your thinking. The averages mean nothing today. The market is made up of individual securities. You will want to know how your stock is doing. Not the market. Some stocks are going to drift lower because they are still over priced or because they have had a good run in the past and accounts are now overloaded with a past leader. These stocks should be sold. Taking a loss is really a good deal. First you limit your loss and you have given yourself liquidity. Liquidity means you have constant funds for your next purchase. The losses you accumulate can be used to reduce your taxes by $3,000 per year. This applies, as of 3/10/2009, before Obama changes the system. 

                Now lets say you have taken $25,000 in losses. Smile! You have just set yourself for the future. I am not referring to the next 8 years of  $3,000 worth of deductions. Let’s say two years from now that you have taken $20,000 gains in various trades and you face a monster tax bite. You can now use the remainder of your tax loss carried forward, which could be $19,000. Now your tax bite is only $1,000. This is why taking a loss is smart. More money has been lost by investors not doing a trade because of “taxes”.

                Now initially in this new market preferred stocks that have the 85% tax credit should do well, especially if it is selling below its call price. If they call it from you, you stand to make a gain. Corporate debt that is selling below par of strong companies will represent good value. Companies that hired a key person for the future while others have been downsizing is a big tip off.

                Gold is an investment for caution. The President’s strategy is to have a little inflation to support the housing market. Incidentally, the European Union and world leaders are debating over what should happen.  Some of the foreign politicians that carry a big stick are as follows: Wen Jiabao, 66, the Chinese prime minister who is under fire at home because he “put the brakes on too fast”. Angela Merkel, 54, the Chancellor of Germany who favors a “new global constitution” for financial markets. Nicolas Sarkozy, 54, President of France who regards himself as de facto leader of Europe given Gordon Brown’s domestic, political, and economic woes and Angela Merkel’s cumbersome coalition.  Gordon Brown, 58, UK prime minister who was the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and believes he is ideally equipped to tackle the crisis. He will host the Group of 20 summit of industrial and developing nations in London on April 2.

                Central bankers include the following: Jean-Claude Trichet, 66, President, European Central Bank who believes politicians and central bankers must do their utmost to shore up economic confidence. Zhou Xiaochuan, 61, Governor, Peoples Bank of China who has held that position since 2002 and is considered a principal supporter of faster market reforms. Fluent in English he can hold his own among economists. A sleeper is Mario Draghi, 61, Chairman, Financial Stability Forum and governor, Bank of Italy who is a US educated economist, former Goldman Sachs executive, and a respected transatlanticist.

                Regulators of note are: Adair Turner, 53 of the UK. Sheila Blair, 54 Chairman of the FDIC. Mary Shapiro, 53, Chairman of the SEC.

                Economists include: Robert Shiller of Yale. Montek Singh Ahuwalia, 65, Deputy Chairman, Indian Planning Commission. Robert Zoellick, 55, President, World Bank. Pascal Lamy, 61, who is Director General of the WTO. Paul Volcker, 81, Chairman, Economic Advisory Board. Fed Chairman in 1979-1987. He warned early and powerfully about subprime mortgages. Paul Krugman, Professor at Princeton University and columnist, NY Times. He has carved out a niche as the democrats’ liberal conscience. Then we have Leszek Balcerowicxz, 62, Professor of economics, Warsaw School of Economics.  

                Bankers to watch are: Lloyd Blankfein, 54, Goldman Sachs chief executive. Jamie Dimon, 52, Chairman of JP Morgan. Stephen Green, 60, Chairman of HSBC since 1962. He has voiced strong views about the need for reform of banking.  A lay preacher and author of a book about reconciling religion with free markets, he has criticized the industry’s excesses during the boom along with Peyton Patterson, Chairman, President, and Chief Financial Officer of NewAlliance Bank.  

                At the top of the list is President Barack Obama, 47, the revues on his economic rescue plan are mixed, but much detail is awaited.  In the meantime, the president is pressing ahead with radical domestic reform agenda encompassing healthcare, the environment, and education. As promised, it has a strong whiff of both audacity and hope. Then we have Ben Bernanke, 55, Chairman of the US Federal Reserve who is a scholar of the Great Depression. He has knowledge of measures that the central banks can use at times of great crisis and he has had ample opportunity to put his theories into effect, using an expanding range of tools too try to arrest the slide.”

                With this list of partial names one can see that this is a global problem; global problems need global answers. This will take time and patience. This is why I recommend the sales mentioned above and a hefty cash position. Sure, the market is trying to bottom, but the prudent way in the 21st century is to wade in step by step. One should also check in with a professional – like me.

     Cheerio !!!

    Richard C De Graff

    256 Ashford Road

    RER       Eastford Ct 06242     

    860-522-7171 Main Office  

    800-821-6665 Watts

    860-315-7413 Home/Office

    rdegraff@coburnfinancial.com

     

    This report has been prepared from original sources and data which we believe reliable but we make no representation to its accuracy or completeness. Coburn & Meredith Inc. its subsidiaries and or officers may from time to time acquire, hold, sell a position discussed in this publications, and we may act as principal for our own account or as agent for both the buyer and seller.

     

     

    This analysis is courtesy of the Financial Times and this assessment is by Lionel Barber, editor.  March 11,2009 page 7

  • Turkey’s New Mission

    Turkey’s New Mission

    Shlomo Ben-Ami

    TEL AVIV – Ever since Turkey’s establishment as a republic, the country has oscillated between the Western-oriented heritage of its founder, Kemal Ataturk, and its eastern, Ottoman legacy. Never resolved, modern Turkey’s deep identity complex is now shaking its strategic alliances and recasting its regional and global role. Indeed, Turkey’s changing perception of itself has shaped its so-far frustrated drive to serve as a peace broker between Israel and its Arab enemies, Syria and Hamas.

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s missionary zeal to replace Egypt as the essential regional mediator, and his violent tirades against Israel’s behavior in Gaza, looks to many people like an attempt to recover Turkey’s Ottoman-era role as the guarantor of regional peace and security. Its credentials for this role in the Middle East are by no means negligible.

    Turkey is a true regional superpower, with one of the largest armies in the world. At the same time, it is the only Muslim country that, while no less worried than Israel about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, can maintain excellent economic and political relations with Iran, regardless of American displeasure. Of course, Syria is Iran’s ally, too, but no country in the region has the leverage with it that Turkey possesses. And Turkey’s diplomatic reach in the region is also reflected in its recent signing of a friendship treaty with Saudi Arabia, while maintaining excellent relations with Pakistan and Iraq.

    Europe’s persistence in snubbing Turkey’s attempts to join the European Union, the rise of violent anti-Western popular sentiment in the wake of the Iraq war, and strained relations with the US – owing in part to the forthcoming Armenian Genocide Act – are major factors in Turkey’s change of direction. The civilizing efforts that Ataturk’s revolution directed inward and in favor of disengagement from the Arab and Muslim worlds are now being revisited. The Turkey of Erdogan’s dominant Justice and Development Party (AKP) appears to be seeking a new mission civilisatrice , with the Middle East and the former Soviet republics as its alternative horizons.

    The uneasy challenge for Turkey is to secure its newfound regional role without betraying Ataturk’s democratic legacy. Turkish democracy and secular values have been greatly enhanced by the country’s dialogue with Europe and its American ties. Turkey can be a model for Middle Eastern countries if, while promoting its regional strategic and economic interests, it resists the authoritarian temptation and continues to show that Islam and democracy are fully compatible.

    For Israel, the long overdue message is that its future in the Middle East does not lie in strategic alliances with the region’s non-Arab powers, but in reconciling itself with the Arab world. In the 1960’s, David Ben-Gurion’s fatalistic pessimism about the possibility of ever reaching a peace settlement with the Arab countries led him to forge an “Alliance of the Periphery” with the non-Arab countries in the outer circle of the Middle East – Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey (he also dreamed of having Lebanon’s Maronite community as part of that alliance).

    All of these countries did not have any particular dispute with Israel, and all, to varying degrees, had tense relations with their Arab neighbors. The myth of Israel’s military power, resourcefulness in economic and agricultural matters, and an exaggerated perception of its unique capacity to lobby and influence American policy combined to make the Israeli connection especially attractive to these countries.

    The “Alliance of the Periphery” was a creative attempt to escape the consequences of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It reflected the yearning of the Jewish state to unleash its creative energies in economic and social matters, as it created space for an independent, imaginative foreign policy that was not linked to, or conditioned by, the paralyzing constraints of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Shlomo Ben Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as vice-president of the Toledo International Centre for Peace, is the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.

    But the security that this scheme was supposed to produce could never really be achieved; the centrality of the Arab-Israeli conflict could not be attenuated. The Arabs’ capacity to maintain their pressure on Israel and to keep world opinion focused on the Palestinians’ plight made Israel’s quest for evading the consequences of the conflict, either through periodic wars or by forging alternative regional alliances, a futile exercise.

    The Islamic revolution in Iran, the changes in Ethiopia following the end of Haile Selassie’s rule, the collapse of Maronite Lebanon, and Hezbollah’s takeover of that country left Turkey as the last remaining member of Israel’s Alliance of the Periphery. Turkey’s powerful military establishment may want to maintain close relations with Israel, but the widely popular change in Turkey’s foreign policy priorities, and the serious identity dilemmas facing the nation, send an unequivocal message that the alliance can no longer serve as an alternative to peace with the Arab world. From now on, it can only be complementary to such a peace.

    Shlomo Ben-Ami is a former Israeli foreign minister who now serves as the vice-president of the Toledo International Center for Peace. He is the author of Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.

    © Project Syndicate 1995-2009

    Source:  www.guatemala-times.com, 03 March 2009

  • AN EXPLANATION TO ARMENIAN DIASPORA

    AN EXPLANATION TO ARMENIAN DIASPORA

    MR. SASSUNIANS COLUMN IS TRYING TO FIND A SUITABLE EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE ALLEGED – ARTIFICIAL GENOCIDE CLAIMS OF ARMENIAN LOBI.. IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING VALUABLE ANALYSIS ABOUT U.S.  FOREIGN POLICY.. A VERY VALUABLE AND AN EYE OPENER COLUMN.  AS TURKISH FORUM  WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND OUR MEMBERS TO READ AND SHARE…

    PS: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMAS DECISION? AND HOW HE REACHED TO? .. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING  POSTING AFTERD THE MR. SASSUNIANS COLUMN

    TRUTHS HAVE REACHED PRESIDENT OBAMA AND DECISION

    From: Harut Sassounian [mailto:sassoun@pacbell.net]
    Sassounian’s column of March 5, 2009

    U.S. Prefers to Leave Iraq Through

    Jordan and Kuwait, Rather than Turkey

    Ever since Pres. Obama declared that he would end Americaʼs military presence in Iraq, Turkish officials have been salivating at the opportunity of presenting the United States with a series of demands in return for allowing U.S. troops to leave through Turkey.

    As a NATO ally and staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, one would have expected that the Turkish government would extend all necessary logistical assistance to the United States to withdraw its troops from the region in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. Instead, Turkeyʼs leaders are viewing the U.S. departure as a golden opportunity to exploit to the hilt for their own benefit.

    Even before anyone from the U.S. government mentioned about the possibility of American troops leaving Iraq through Turkey, Ankara officials volunteered to support such an idea, of course, subject to negotiations and eventual approval by the Turkish Parliament. In other words, if the price was right, and if all Turkish demands were met, Turkey would be more than happy to give its blessing.

    Turkish leaders are also pleased that Pres. Obama is going to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, in addition to seeking soldiers from other countries. This is yet another opportunity for Turks to fleece the U.S. Todayʼs Zaman newspaper quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Turkey is opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, beyond its 800 non-combat soldiers already there. However, since the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is approaching and both Pres. Obama and the Congress are expected to take a stand on this issue, Turkey may change its mind and decide to contribute troops to Afghanistan, after all!

    This is the same kind of horse-trading that went on in 2003, when Washington asked for permission to enter Northern Iraq through Turkey. After lengthy bargaining on how many billions of dollars the U.S. would offer Ankara to allow such passage, the Turkish Parliament voted down the American request. This rejection delayed the start of the war, forcing U.S. troops to travel from the Mediterranean to Iraq through the Persian Gulf, and resulted in more casualties among American troops who had to fight their way from Southern Iraq to the North.

    One wonders what demands the Turks would make this time around to allow U.S. troops to leave Iraq through Turkey and to send more Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars would Turkish leaders ask for and which U.S. policies, in addition to genocide recognition, they would seek to influence?

    One would hope that Pres. Obama draws valuable lessons from the experience of previous administrations — that Turkey is not a reliable ally — a lesson also learned by Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.

    It appears that some U.S. military officials have already concluded that they cannot place the fate of American soldiers in the hands of capricious Turkish leaders. U.S. troops are expected to be evacuated from Iraq through neighboring Jordan and Kuwait, which have never put any conditions nor made any demands on the U.S. government! Given the attractiveness of the withdrawal route through these two friendly Arab countries, the American military may completely ignore the Turkish transit option. The traditional Turkish practice of making excessive demands may have finally backfired.

    The Associated Press (AP) released a report last week, disclosing that U.S. troops will “shift” to the South (Kuwaiti border) and “exit” through the desert, meaning Jordan. The AP quoted Terry Moores, deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, as stating: “The Marines have already tested exit routes through Jordan with plans for a full-scale exodus” in 2010.

    One would hope that at long last, U.S. appeasement of Turkey might be coming to an end. The mistake made by previous U.S. administrations as well as Israeli governments is that the more they cave in to Turkish blackmail, the more demanding the Turks become.

    Due to Turkeyʼs persistent use of bullying tactics in the past, U.S. commanders have good reason to be concerned with choosing the Turkish option out of Iraq. What would happen, if in the midst of the troop pullout, Turkish leaders object to a particular U.S. policy? What if the Turks threaten to block the transit of U.S. troops unless the State Department revises its latest human rights report which accuses Turkey of torture, unlawful killings, limited freedom of expression, and restrictions on minorities?

    The wisest approach is to eliminate all such demands and threats once and for all, by telling Turkey that unless it cooperates fully with the U.S., it will receive no further economic or military aid. After all, Turkey needs the United States much more than the U.S. needs Turkey. The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog!

    ——————– YORUM SS AYA TARAFINDAN —————-

    Harut Sassounian’s Weekly Commentary

    U.S. Prefers to Leave Iraq Through READER’S REPLY COMMENTS!

    Jordan and Kuwait, Rather than Turkey

    By Harut Sassounian
    Publisher, The California Courier
    Senior Contributor, USA Armenian Life Magazine

    Ever since Pres. Obama declared that he would end America’s military presence in Iraq, Turkish officials have been salivating at the opportunity of presenting the United States with a series of demands in return for allowing U.S. troops to leave through Turkey.

    “…salivating? What level of literary newsman ship is this, insulting from the first line!

    As a NATO ally and staunch opponent of the war in Iraq, one would have expected that the Turkish government would extend all necessary logistical assistance to the United States to withdraw its troops from the region in a safe, orderly and expeditious manner. Instead, Turkey’s leaders are viewing the U.S. departure as a golden opportunity to exploit to the hilt for their own benefit.

    Benefit of gold (!) over one million dead innocent Arabs plus PKK terror just next door, by aggressors who came 10.000 miles away for looting oil of the neighboring country, bringing calamities of all types instead of democracy and progress! Sir, is your logic normal?

    Even before anyone from the U.S. government mentioned about the possibility of American troops leaving Iraq through Turkey, Ankara officials volunteered to support such an idea, of course, subject to negotiations and eventual approval by the Turkish Parliament. In other words, if the price was right, and if all Turkish demands were met, Turkey would be more than happy to give its blessing.

    That was a dirty agreement between two adventurous leaders, which was “shot dead by accident” thanks God!

    Turkish leaders are also pleased that Pres. Obama is going to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, in addition to seeking soldiers from other countries. This is yet another opportunity for Turks to fleece the U.S. Today’s Zaman newspaper quoted unnamed Ankara officials as stating that Turkey is opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, beyond its 800 non-combat soldiers already there. However, since the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is approaching and both Pres. Obama and the Congress are expected to take a stand on this issue, Turkey may change its mind and decide to contribute troops to Afghanistan, after all!

    “fleece USA (?) ! Is Armenia going to send troops to Afganistan or give bases to USA as she did to Russia?

    This is the same kind of horse-trading that went on in 2003, when Washington asked for permission to enter Northern Iraq through Turkey. After lengthy bargaining on how many billions of dollars the U.S. would offer Ankara to allow such passage, the Turkish Parliament voted down the American request. This rejection delayed the start of the war, forcing U.S. troops to travel from the Mediterranean to Iraq through the Persian Gulf, and resulted in more casualties among American troops who had to fight their way from Southern Iraq to the North.

    Sir, a man of your standing and education should not be swept out of logic just by cause of nationalism! Would USA permit Turkey to “station 65.000 soldiers in Texas, use Houston, New Orleans as landing-transit harbor and go to war with Mexico using USA soil, passing an army and armor of about 100.000 and destroy neighborly relations?” Any answers?

    One wonders what demands the Turks would make this time around to allow U.S. troops to leave Iraq through Turkey and to send more Turkish soldiers to Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars would Turkish leaders ask for and which U.S. policies, in addition to genocide recognition, they would seek to influence?

    The “genocide lie, is a dirty fly in the menu on the table, which has to be served and shared”! Did it ever occur to you how much economic loss and military cost did Turkey suffer because of this unfortunate “oil banditry”?

    One would hope that Pres. Obama draws valuable lessons from the experience of previous administrations — that Turkey is not a reliable ally — a lesson also learned by Israel during the recent Gaza conflict.

    It appears that some U.S. military officials have already concluded that they cannot place the fate of American soldiers in the hands of capricious Turkish leaders. U.S. troops are expected to be evacuated from Iraq through neighboring Jordan and Kuwait, which have never put any conditions nor made any demands on the U.S. government! Given the attractiveness of the withdrawal route through these two friendly Arab countries, the American military may completely ignore the Turkish transit option. The traditional Turkish practice of making excessive demands may have finally backfired.

    Sir, you are trying to guide USA, the country that sheltered you, into adventures and risks, just because of your “Great Armenian ego”! This error was done by your grand fathers a century ago, and it was the innocent

    well-doing Turkish Armenians that paid the bill, when all humpabets ran away leaving their compatriots in misery!

    The Associated Press (AP) released a report last week, disclosing that U.S. troops will “shift” to the South (Kuwaiti border) and “exit” through the desert, meaning Jordan. The AP quoted Terry Moores, deputy assistant chief of staff for logistics for Marine Corps Central Command, as stating: “The Marines have already tested exit routes through Jordan with plans for a full-scale exodus” in 2010.

    One would hope that at long last, U.S. appeasement of Turkey might be coming to an end. The mistake made by previous U.S. administrations as well as Israeli governments is that the more they cave in to Turkish blackmail, the more demanding the Turks become.

    “Turkish blackmail ? Or Turkish surrender and tail waging? The diaspora Armenians have not done any good for the Armenians in Armenia, or Turkey or elsewhere. Empty words of rich, secure persons, do not solve hunger!

    Due to Turkey’s persistent use of bullying tactics in the past, U.S. commanders have good reason to be concerned with choosing the Turkish option out of Iraq. What would happen, if in the midst of the troop pullout, Turkish leaders object to a particular U.S. policy? What if the Turks threaten to block the transit of U.S. troops unless the State Department revises its latest human rights report which accuses Turkey of torture, unlawful killings, limited freedom of expression, and restrictions on minorities?

    The wisest approach is to eliminate all such demands and threats once and for all, by telling Turkey that unless it cooperates fully with the U.S., it will receive no further economic or military aid. After all, Turkey needs the United States much more than the U.S. needs Turkey. The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog!

    Human Rights? Of Turkey or Iraq or USA or Armenia?

    Sir, keep the scenarios and observations for your own self. Turks are not dogs and have no tails to wag, like few typical brainwashed fanatic writers, continuously fomenting nothing but GRUDGE and TROUBLE, which is the only product they are talented to market worldwide! For more historical facts advise Altan and read as suggested.

    March 9, 09

    Sukru S. Aya – Istanbul

  • Secretary Addresses Pakistan, Afghanistan…

    Secretary Addresses Pakistan, Afghanistan…
    By Donna Miles
    American Forces Press Service
    WASHINGTON, March 1, 2009 – As the United States reviews its strategy in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said he’s gratified by Pakistan’s growing recognition of the importance of eliminating extremist safe havens along its border.Speaking on CNBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gates called the situation on the Pakistani side of the volatile border region “worrisome.” He noted that the region has become a haven for Taliban, al-Qaida and other extremist groups that work together to support common goals.

    “As long as they have a safe haven to operate there, it is going to be a problem for us in Afghanistan,” Gates said. “The key here is our being able to cooperate with and enable the Pakistanis to be able to deal with this problem on their own sovereign territory.”

    Gates said his talks with Pakistani leaders during the past week, part of the Obama administration’s review of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, left him convinced that Pakistan recognizes the importance of fixing the problem.

    “They clearly now understand that what is going on in that border area is as big a risk to the stability of Pakistan as it is a problem for us in Afghanistan,” he said.

    Gates said the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, along with military and civil support provided by other partner nations, is helping provide stability. This, he said, is preventing terrorists from reclaiming former safe havens in Afghanistan that could be used to plot against the United States and other countries.

    As the United States reviews its Afghanistan strategy, President Barack Obama is promoting broad dialogue and seeking input from not only Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also Europeans and other allies. “We’re bringing in an awful lot of people to get different points of view,” Gates said.

    Gates said the review, which he hopes will be completed in a few weeks, will help establish a way forward. He said it also will help determine whether more than the 17,000 additional troops already authorized will be sent to Afghanistan.

    The secretary addressed a variety of other defense-related issues during today’s Meet the Press broadcast.

    On Iran:

    The U.S. focus on Iraq — now or in the past — hasn’t distracted the past or current administration from “the growing problem with Iran and its nuclear program,” Gates said.

    “I think there has been a continuing focus on, ‘How do you get the Iranians to walk away from a nuclear weapons program?’ Gates said. “They are not close to a stockpile. They are not close to a weapon at this time. And so it is a question of whether you can increase the level of the sanctions and the cost to the Iranians of pursuing that program.”

    At the same time, Gates said it’s necessary to “show them an open door if they want to engage with the Europeans or with us” if they abandon the program.

    The global economic crisis and the drop in oil prices that’s left Iran cash-strapped could actually help the effort, he said. “Our chances of being successful seems to be a lot better at $35 or $40 dollar [a barrel] oil than they were at $140 oil, because there are economic costs to this program,” Gates said.

    On Mexico:

    The United States could help the Mexican government in its crackdown on drug cartels, Gates said.

    The secretary heralded President Felipe Calderón’s initiatives and said the United States could ultimately be in a position to help. Among assets the U.S. military might contribute, he said, are training, reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities and other resources.

    “It clearly is a serious problem,” Gates said.

    On the global economic crisis:

    The economic crisis poses a serious threat to international stability and international cooperation, Gates said.

    “Terrorism is a much more limited and defined threat,” he said. “They are both real. [But] the economic threat clearly affects many, many more people and countries.”

    On Russia:

    Russia represents “a real challenge” as Prime Minister Vladimir Putin asserts Russian’s role as an international player by blocking initiatives it doesn’t support, Gates said.

    But “there is a chance to reset the relationship, because there are a number of areas where we have common interests,” including arms control, he said, reiterating Vice President Joe Biden’s recent comments at a security conference in Munich, Germany.

    “So we will be looking for opportunities to see if we can make some progress with the Russians,” Gates said. “But it has been tough.”

    On serving as defense secretary:

    Gates remained mum on how long he intends to serve as Obama’s defense secretary, saying he has no specific date in mind to leave his post.

    The decision, he said, is “clearly up to the president.”

    But asked if he would remain on the job through the end of Obama’s four-year term, Gates responded: “That would be a challenge.”
    Biographies:
    Robert M. Gates
    Related Articles:
    Gates: Plans on Track for New Transition Force Role in Iraq
  • Will it Strengthen U.S.-Turkish Relations?

    Will it Strengthen U.S.-Turkish Relations?

    Will the Closure of Manas Airbase Strengthen U.S.-Turkish Relations?

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 35
    February 23, 2009
    Saban Kardas

    The Kyrgyz parliament’s vote to close down Manas Airbase puts at risk supply routes for international forces operating in Afghanistan shortly after the U.S. decision to bolster the American military presence in Afghanistan (EDM, February 20). The attempts to find alternative routes in the wake of this controversial decision highlight the strategic cooperation between Turkey and the United States and the role Turkey could play in maintaining a supply route for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

    Referring to some Russian and American experts, the Turkish press has speculated that the United States may try to find another base in Central Asia to compensate for the loss of Manas. Given the growing Russian influence in the region and the declining credibility of the United States following the Russo-Georgian war in the summer of 2008, however, they claim that the United States would have a hard time securing a new base agreement. If the Americans fail to convince Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to accept U.S. requests, according to the Turkish press, the United States then would request a military base in Turkey’s Black Sea town of Trabzon (Hurriyet, February 19; Evrensel, February 20; Yeni Safak, February 20).

    As the speculation mounted, the question of whether the United States had indeed knocked on Turkey’s door was raised to Metin Gurak, the spokesman of the Turkish military, during his weekly press briefing on Friday, February 20. Gurak stressed that as of the briefing Turkey had received no such request (Ihlas Haber Ajansi, February 20).

    The same day, U.S. military sources announced that they had been able to secure the cooperation of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to allow transportation of non-lethal supplies to Afghanistan through their territories (AFP, Friday 20). In a development that apparently lends support to the Turkish press reports, Retired Air Force General and chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, told 6 News, a private Turkish news station, that although the decision of the Kyrgyz parliament would not disrupt U.S. operations, it would make maintaining the supply routes more inconvenient and possibly more expensive. Noting that Manas was used mainly for refueling purposes, he emphasized that other bases in the Middle East, including in Turkey, could also host refueling tankers but with more operational costs involved. Myers said that the United States was seeking its NATO allies’ support and emphasized his belief that Turkey and the United States would maintain their constructive cooperation in Afghanistan (Star, February 20).

    Indeed, since the beginning of military operations in Afghanistan following September 11 and the subsequent launch of international stability operations, Turkey has provided military assistance to the U.S.-led coalition, in both the context of the transatlantic alliance and Turkish-American strategic ties. During the initial operations leading to the fall of the Taliban regime, the United States used Turkish airspace and Incirlik Airbase for the campaign, although Turkey did not deploy combat troops. Turkey has also actively participated in the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) and commanded this NATO mission for two terms.

    Can Turkey offer Trabzon? Analysts maintain that Trabzon offers many advantages in terms of its key location, which allows access to Middle Eastern, Central Asian, and Caucasus theaters; and therefore it is reportedly of interest to U.S. military planners. However, Turkey has previously declined American requests for setting up a base in Trabzon. Following the fall of Manas, the U.S. may press with a renewed proposal, but it is unlikely that the Turkish government would make such a politically risky decision. Also, Trabzon is one of the Anatolian cities where nationalist feelings and anti-Americanism run high; and, short of drastic U.S. actions to restore the deteriorating American image in Turkey, stationing U.S. personnel in the area might be a politically bad decision.

    Therefore, claims about possible requests concerning an airbase in Trabzon might be exaggerated. Nonetheless, it is the case that as Afghanistan emerges as a major issue on the agendas of NATO and the Obama administration, Turkey is coming under pressure about its role in Afghanistan. Diplomatic sources believe that during his conversations with the Turkish prime minister and president, President Obama might have requested his counterparts to commit more Turkish troops or other forms of military contributions to U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (EDM, February 19).

    Subsequent developments support such a conjecture. NATO defense ministers met in Poland in an informal meeting on February 19 and 20 to discuss the agenda for the next summit in April. They welcomed the U.S. decision to raise troop levels but underscored the need for civilian contributions to be boosted as well (www.nato.int, February 20). Upon his return to Turkey from the meeting, Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul told reporters that he had had a chance to discuss Turkey’s contributions with its alliance partners. Noting that Turkey’s direct aid to Afghanistan amounted to $200 million, he said that Turkey assisted in the training of the Afghan military and police. Gonul also said that he had met separately with the Afghan and American defense ministers and discussed ways in which Turkey’s contributions might be increased (www.trt.net.tr, February 21).

    In addition to Turkey’s possibly increased role in Afghanistan, Turkey is one of the major exit routes for U.S. planes withdrawing troops from Iraq (Hurriyet Daily News, February 23). These developments have an element of irony. The Turkish Parliament’s refusal to allow American forces to use Turkish territory to launch the northern front against the Iraqi Army in 2003 led many to claim that the Turkish-American relationship would go south. Soon after the fall of Baghdad and in a mood of triumph, some even speculated that the United States might punish Turkey by closing down the Incirlik base as part of its plans to relocate military bases worldwide. Only a few years after the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns began, the United States had to abandon many of its positions in its new-found allies and might be requesting the use of Turkish territory.

    The Kyrgyz parliament’s decision highlights both the importance of having a long-term and reliable ally in an area of strategic importance to U.S. interests and the mutual dependence between Turkey and the United States.

    https://jamestown.org/program/will-the-closure-of-manas-airbase-strengthen-u-s-turkish-relations/

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report
    Over 300,000 readers
    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth while continuing to provide needed income is my primary goal for these unsettled times. I have been given the desire to study and observe global money progressions and trends for the last 50 years. I evaluate possible future trends in order to provide positive concepts for you to form your own conclusions. The main purpose of this letter is to warn you of possible financial sinkholes.
    Good Bye Stocks – Hello Bonds

    We are leaving the golden era of free enterprise due to unmitigated greed and chicanery. We can easily adjust if we accept the true meaning of what awaits us. If we fight to retain our old dreams and fantasies we will see ourselves being spoon fed by fat socialist bureaucrats for the “common good”.
    In this letter I will present some facts for your perusal and then you can make up your own mind in regards to your financial decisions. Those willing to change their offensive strategy can become winners in life’s never ending battles.
    The result of these recent price disturbances (all the bubbles bursting) is the falling value of the property that has been borrowed against. The value of the property’s income also falls. We have come from extreme over indebtedness and now find ourselves in a hole – we should stop digging.
    This is a hard lesson that our grandparents learned in the 1930’s, but sadly has been forgotten as satanic greed took over our souls. We now find ourselves caught between a recession and a depression. I call it a MESSYSESSION.
    All the corporations whose bubbles have burst must work down their inventories; since many are in the financial sector this will take time. Individuals must use their earnings to pay down debts to save their homes instead of spending money on frivolous purchases. The Rule of 72 has the deck stacked against them, unless the Usury Law is resumed. The lack of the Usury Law is quicksand for our economic recovery.
    The working down of inventories alone can be deflationary, however, the Federal Reserve has been pumping money into our supply pipeline at super speed. When an entity goes bankrupt, those debts do not go back into circulation, they go to money heaven. This is why the Fed has to keep the supply pool full and why this action should keep us out of a depression.
    Having to pay down all this debt slows down our economy and hurts our suppliers worldwide. This is why we have a world wide Messysession.
    Corporations that have borrowed from the Government will have a hard time maintaining their common stock dividends because their first priority is bond interest. Their second priority is preferred dividends. What is left over will then be distributed to common stock holders or used for debt reduction. Debt reduction means job security.
    Sooner or later the US Government will have to go on a massive borrowing campaign. This could weaken the dollar and send interest rates soaring along with the price of Gold – for a while.
    Some recessions are “V” shaped, which means stocks fall down hard and come back up quickly. Stocks tumble, but recover because there are people looking across the valley. If the recovery is like an elongated “U” or “L” one needs binoculars to see across the valley to a recovery. This could cause price to earnings ratios to shrivel, since analyst’s earnings estimates will be suspect at best. The economy can take a year or two to recover based upon how responsible Congress is. It will be years before our economy fully recovers from all the bubble bursting. What we need is a cheap new energy invention.
    The only period, since 1872, where stocks substantially outperformed bonds on a prolonged basis was the 1950s to 1960s. This was a golden era for stocks and it has taken many abuses to wind down.
    These are some of the many issues that President Obama faces on the home front. Now we shall look at some of his international problems.
    Europe is changing. It used to be that France and Germany were the major players, with Great Britain looking on. The United States has encouraged the expansion of the European Community to diminish the power of the two largest countries. Poland is emerging as an economic power and if Turkey is admitted, as they should be, they will bring new found political clout for the first time since the demise of the Ottoman Empire 90 years ago. Their inclusion could bring stabilization to the chaotic Middle East situation. Turkey has freedom of religion, a vigorous economy (17th largest), and a solid government. Their influence is growing. They also have a strategic location to insure peace long term.
    Then, there is Russia, who can throw all kinds of money around, but when it comes to signing on the dotted line – they cannot be trusted. Turning off gas supplies in mid-winter and canceling major contracts with world-renowned companies are actions that are hard to forget. Obama has pledged to focus US military power on the war in Afghanistan. The bulk of supplies must come from the north. Russia does not want a ballistic missile defense system in central Europe. It wants a halt to NATO expansion and reduced American influence in the Caucus and central Asia. They also want a broad renegotiation on non-trivial treaties that are terrible for Russia in 2009. (Anyone want to be President?)
    We must come up with a way to renew confidence for the consumer. First and foremost is the renewal of our Usury laws that were dropped because disintermediation was wrecking the banking system in the 1970s. Creating lasting jobs will not happen by just building roads. These programs must be done so that they promote or improve future growth. It is difficult to do this on a national level because there are too many fingers in the pie. Programs done on a state level are easier to control. It is more realistic to meet regional needs.
    Lowering corporate taxes when a corporation moves into intercity areas would mean better roads, and businesses to support them. Raising taxes invites tax avoidance schemes that only benefit the issuer. It also removes money from the private sector. Today, pricing power has evaporated.
    There must be global reorganization of the securities laws, most importantly the Uptick rule. Countries that do not participate should be banned from trading within the member countries. Today hedge funds and institutions have spent millions of dollars on sophisticated trading programs. This makes for an uneven playing field and has driven the small investor to the sidelines, as witnessed by declining volume on the exchanges. The large institutional investor becomes the ultimate bag-holder at the bottom of markets when they have no one to sell to.
    If a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is declining that means the average on corporate earnings will be declining also. This means fewer companies will be showing an increase in earnings and therefore there will be fewer securities that have an investment grade value. Since there are already too many mutual funds and they all cannot buy the same stocks, that game is over. I would sell your mutual funds while you can if you are over 55 years old. If they get too many orders for liquidation they have the option of delivering stock of the same value to you. That is an easy way to get rid of their losers. If you are under 55 and own a balanced fund where the income can be reinvested on a periodic basis you are in the catbird seat. Lower prices will mean more shares and 10 to 15 years from now when the market recovers you could be a wealthy person. Other low income on non paying funds should be sold. It could be 20 to 25 years just to breakeven and that is only if it is a survivor.
    First quarter earnings are going to be a disaster. I suspect this is when many will throw in the towel and give up.
    Gold should be considered a hedge – possible short term.
    Here are some moneymaking ideas. A successful portfolio can be 20% equities 50% fixed income and 30% cash.
    By equities I mean income-producing securities yielding over 5%. There are a few out there that are “stupid” cheap versus dirt-cheap. Then there are preferred stocks, many of which are 85% tax-free. Many are selling below their call price. This means if a company wants to improve its balance sheet, they can do that by calling your preferred from you by paying the call price. If they fail to pay a preferred dividend it becomes cumulative. To resume payments they must make up the back dividends first. One that falls into this category is: AMERCO Pfd A (NYSE) 20 (2-6-09) pays $2.125 which yields 9.41%. gives you a tax free yield of 8%. If they call the stock at $25 you will have a $5 gain which amounts to a 25% gain. You won’t be able to have this return with common stocks over the next several years.
    Tax free bonds were good when income tax rates were 55%-92%. The low tax rates today are beaten by preferred stock’s rates, such as the one I mentioned above. You have a ready market and real value. What you see is what you get. There was an issue on Long Island that defaulted in the depression. A default like that today would wreck havoc in the entire sector. For safety reasons, please avoid tax-free bonds.
    Since the US has to borrow around a trillion dollars or more, Government bonds could be an instant loss. For now, I would avoid these also. That leaves us with corporate bonds. Many corporate bonds have a better balance sheet than the United States. Buying bonds in the five year range is the safest place to be. As the bond gets closer to maturity the price fluctuations are at a minimum and easily salable. You are better off buying an individual bond than a fund. The fund will charge a yearly management fee as well as anything else they can get away with. Also, some funds simply dump bonds into a portfolio and walk away. There was a case where a fund dumped their holdings of an issue right at the very bottom, only to have the bonds called a few months later. Please remember that corporate bond holders have first lien on a corporation’s asset.
    I suspect that in a few months you will see a stampede out of many mutual funds and a proliferation of all types of bond funds trying to cash in on the new trend. Keep it simple- buy your own.
    I know I have thrown many ideas your way in this letter and I apologize, but I feel the times warrant such thinking. I will be available, free of charge, to anyone who would want to discuss any of these ideas at the addresses below.
    CHEERIO!!!!
    Richard C De Graff 2/10/2009
    256 Ashford Road
    RER Eastford Ct 06242
    860-522-7171 Main Office
    800-821-6665 Watts
    860-315-7413 Home/Office
    rdegraff@coburnfinancial.com

    This report has been prepared from original sources and data which we believe reliable but we make no representation to its accuracy or completeness. Coburn & Meredith Inc. its subsidiaries and or officers may from time to time acquire, hold, sell a position discussed in this publications, and we may act as principal for our own account or as agent for both the buyer and seller.