Market capitalism, when having the hots, doesnÂ’t do things in moderation. And today global market capitalism certainly is having the hots.



Indeed, when market capitalism isnÂ’t going off the rails into deepest despair, it is steadily working up a credenza of the hots. As forecasts go, all one really needs to know is whether we are going off the rails shortly, or whether the hots will prevail.



This is a profound question, despite its formatting.



Over the past 135 years, the world economy has known three long periods of despair.



Following financial speculation and failure, a disastrous two-decade global depression got underway in 1873, mainly because policymakers didn’t know how to handle ‘simple’ global collapse.



Following WW1 (1914-1918), America entered the Roaring Twenties on a roll. Its expanding domestic markets, deep confidence and backlog of technical innovations fed its growth process (like China/India in years to come).



Elsewhere the picture was quite different. Europe had bled heavily during WW1. Transition from war to peace economy was badly handled, attempting balanced budgets and re-storing the gold standard anchoring exchange rates to its pre-1914 condition, despite enormous relative inflation undermining trade competitiveness. Policymakers proved clueless about ‘complex’ global failure.



Deepening underperformance marked Europe in the 1920s. US speculation eventually overheated, markets failed, policy failed and a global vortex marked the 1930s (those departing the gold standard or starting rearmament recovering early).



The third failing occurred in the 1970s. Overburdening governments, falling productivity, accelerating inflation, overheating systems, and explosively higher energy costs dented global growth. It lasted nearly a decade (1974-1982). Unlike earlier episodes, growth continued. Disruption was relatively short, with no deep prolonged depression.



In between these malfunctioning episodes, manic growth runs can be observed. Especially La Belle Epoque (1894-1914) and the post-WW2 growth flowering (1948-1973).



In contrast, the post-1970s saw two very varied decades (1982-2002), with bewildering experiences, good and bad.



The post-1970s at times saw good growth in the US, de-bubbling in Japan, structural malaise in Europe, explosive growth in Asia, reform in emerging markets, and spectacular financial crises. There was the Latino debt explosion (1982), the global equity implosion (1987), another Mexican detour (1994), Asian contagion (1997), Russian and LTCM default (1998), and 911 terror (2001).



These two decades were out of character, neither marked by global depression or outperformance. Though regionally the malfunctioning and shocks at times were bad, policy reactions were mostly magnificent.



In an underlying sense, meanwhile, a couple of things were shaping positively. A case of the hots was under construction, with new management.



China started on its modern capitalist road in 1978. Its growth story took time to acquire critical mass. IndiaÂ’s reform of its Hindu growth engine dates from 1994.



Together they entered an extended high-growth phase from 2002, with ChinaÂ’s industralisation overwhelming the global commodity pipelines, hugely benefiting commodity producers (Russia, OPEC, Brazil, Australasia, Canada, South Africa), reliving earlier global high-growth eras.



The US nearly lost its footing, following the ending of another roaring equity boom, and terror, but aggressive policy action turned the corner by 2002.



Emerging markets in Latin America had been fundamentally reforming since 1982Â’s debt explosion, in Eastern Europe since communism and RussiaÂ’s collapse in 1989, in South Africa already long predating apartheidÂ’s collapse in 1994 and in Asia following the 1998 Contagion. By 2002 all these emerging parts had a much better act together.



Japan took 15 years of stagnation to overcome its 1980s excesses. By 2005 it was finally again ascending, both Japan and Europe benefiting from US and Asian growth.



Thus the early stirrings of synchronised global high-growth can be traced to 2002. A new phase of the hots was shaping, marked by fast global growth (4%-5%), commodity price explosions and strong emerging asset markets.



This first (imperfect) round of global synchronization matches the US economy trough-to-trough (2001-2007). The next round (2008 onward) could be more synchronized as Japan and Europe should be more fully participating, with many emerging markets at full speed.



High global growth is marked by strong demand, good supply responses, low inflation and accommodating policy. Asia and other emerging markets are adding aggressively to global supply and savings, while net capital absorbers (America and others) consume strongly.



Although monetary policies in leading economies are turning neutral, this may not derail the new high-growth era. With pipelines slow in responding, commodity prices may stay high for many years. With some global parts net savers, others enjoy strong capital inflows, though roles should evolve over time (affecting exchange rates).



High global growth could remain in the ascendancy for a long time, unless cut short by geopolitical conflict or massive institutional failure. Looks like the global hots are back, its momentum enduring, as is its nature.



This new global high-growth era is still very young, promising major opportunities for reforming modernizers, such as South Africa.



Cees Bruggemans is Chief Economist of First National Bank. Register for his free e-mail articles on http://www.fnb.co.za/economics

Nineteen South African companies have made it onto this year's prestigious Forbes Global 2000, which ranks the size of firms listed on the world's stock exchanges according to their market value, turnover, profit and assets.



Companies in the financial services sector top the list, with the Standard Bank and First Rand banking groups ranked, respectively, as the world's 285th and 361st largest public companies.



Next comes synthetic fuels giant Sasol, at 390th place, followed by insurance company Sanlam (454th) and telecommunications parastatal Telkom (589th).



Many companies founded and grown in South Africa but now based elsewhere in the world made it even higher on the list. Old Mutual, which moved its head office to London in 1999, came in 185th place. The Anglo American mining group was ranked 116th, and beer company SAB Miller 370th.



Mining conglomerate BHP Billiton, which has significant interests in South Africa but is classified as UK/Australian, was ranked 101st.



A balanced assessment
The Forbes list is considered one of the most balanced assessments of the size of public, listed companies, at is uses four different factors: market value, turnover, profit and assets. This is in contrast to rankings that concentrate on single measures, such as market capitalisation, resulting in misleadingly skewed results.



With 19 companies on the list, South Africa is far ahead of the rest of Africa in terms of global business. Egypt scored only three firms, and Liberia and Morocco one each.



The country is also ahead of, among others, Mexico (with 17 global companies), Austria (10), Denmark (11), Finland (15), Greece (12), Ireland (8), Norway (9), Russia (14), Saudi Arabia (5) and Singapore (14). Brazil is in the same spot as SA, with 19 global companies, while mainland China has 28 and India 33.



The US predictably tops the Forbes Global 2000, with 693 companies. Next is Japan with 320 companies, followed by the UK with 130.



US financial services firm Citigroup clinched the number-one spot on the list, followed by General Electric, Bank of America, American International Group and HSBC Group.



The full list of South African companies on the Forbes Global 2000 is as follows:


285 - Standard Bank Group (banking)
361 - FirstRand (banking)
390 - Sasol (oil and gas operations)
454 - Sanlam (insurance)
589 - Telkom (telecommunications services)
815 - MTN Group (telecommunications services)
976 - Remgro (conglomerates)
1 114 - Bidvest Group (conglomerates)
1 123 - Investec (diversified financials)
1 145 - Impala Platinum Holdings (materials)
1 155 - Imperial Holdings (transportation)
1 280 - Barloworld (conglomerates)
1 508 - Naspers (media)
1 524 - Metropolitan Holdings (diversified financials)
1 812 - Gold Fields (materials)
1 841 - Sappi (materials)
1 892 - Steinhoff International Holdings (consumer durables)
1 894 - Alexander Forbes (diversified financials)
1 989 - Tiger Brands (food, drink)


Forbes Gloabal 2000 companies with strong links to South Africa include:


101 - BHP Billiton (mining)
116 - Anglo American (mining)
185 - Old Mutual (financial services)
370 - SAB Miller (food, drink)


http://www.southafrica.info

http://www.resize2mail.com/

Tis good to be back. I have been without a pc for a while.

I hope you all have a great day. :thumbs:

By Nic Cicutti, MSN Money special correspondent

House prices might be reaching their peak but if you want to get into the house buying market now may still be the ideal time

Suddenly, like the first falling leaf at the end of a long summer, a few tremors are being felt in the housing market.

Surveys appear to show that property prices, for so long a one-way bet, are beginning to stall. In a few areas, it is being whispered, they are even falling.

The very horror of it! What on earth will we talk about at dinner parties now?

The practical consequence of scare stories is that, understandably, they are likely to put some people off buying their own homes. They will opt to rent instead.

Switching to renting a home may not be wise

Indeed, some existing homeowners are actively discussing the possibility of selling up, renting for a year or two and then buying back into the market again when prices have fallen.

Now, IÂ’m all for personal freedom of choice in these matters. If you want to incur costs of up to 3% when selling your home, plus many thousands more - including stamp duty of up to 4% - to buy one back, be my guest. You are obviously gambling on prices falling by at least 10%, probably nearer 20%, in very quick order.

But as far as IÂ’m concerned, people should keep buying. Not if you canÂ’t afford to, of course: in that case you ought to rent instead.

My own rough guideline is that you should never be paying more than 35% of your monthly take-home income on a mortgage – and you should also factor in the potential cost to you of mortgage rates moving up by 2% in your affordability calculations.

But if you CAN afford to buy and are wondering whether you should bother, here are five good reasons you should take the plunge.

1) Property is NOT an investment

In the past few years we have become used to the idea that property is an asset, in exactly the same way as the shares we hold in our pension fund or an ISA are assets.

ThatÂ’s simply not true. And hereÂ’s why:

You mainly buy a property because, at the end of the day, it provides a roof over your head. Whether it goes up or down in price should not really matter to you. As long as you like it, you can make the repayments and want to live in that area, nothing else really matters.
The only way you will "really make money" out of it is if you decide to sell up at some stage and keep the profits, or downsize and do the same.
True, a growing proportion of people do downsize. According to research from Assertahome, an online property finding firm, one in three house sales involve people selling up to move to a smaller property.
However, some 54% of those who downsize (average age 46), make the decision primarily to get rid of their mortgage, not because they want equity from their property as cash in hand. A further 15% are doing so because they have split up from their partners. Not much cash in hand there either.
Some 20% are retirees over 60. They too are looking to clear their mortgage - not surprising, given that they have an average annual income of £23,500. Only 12% of those who buy a smaller property (4% of the total number of buyers) actually take the cash - and even then they often "recycle" it, giving their children a leg up the property ladder instead.
In other words, property is not the cash-generative machine many people think it might be. And even when it is, the period between buying and selling can last for 20 years or longer.

2) Property IS a good long-term investment

Confused? Allow me to explain.

Even though a home SHOULD be treated primarily as a shelter and not an investment, no-one likes to buy a property, or anything else for that matter, only to discover that it is worth far less than they paid for it only a couple of years before.

Oddly enough, this feeling doesnÂ’t stop people splashing out on a brand new car - despite knowing that the minute it gets driven off a garage forecourt it will lose up to 35% of its purchase price.

But in the case of our homes, it is still nice to feel validated by the right choice, particularly as it is the largest financial purchase most of us are likely to make in our lifetimes.

In fact, evidence suggests that while property doesnÂ’t perform as well as shares over the long term, it does generally retain its value over the years.

The Halifax has been publishing its survey of house prices since 1983. Back then, the average UK property cost just under £30,000. Today, it is worth just under £160,000.

You can download an excel file of this data from the http://www.hbosplc.com website

Nationwide’s survey, which dates back to 1952, shows a similar set of figures. By the way, the average price of a property back then was £1,891 - and the average wage stood at £489.

You can download an excel of this data from the http://www.nationwide.co.uk website

Have prices kept pace with inflation over this period? NationwideÂ’s survey uses 1957 as its starting point and looks at what you could have bought with the money used to buy a house back then.

Moving forward 47 years, prices have outstripped inflation five times over.

You can download an excel file of this data from the http://www.nationwide.co.uk website

Equally, there have been long periods when, despite the fact that prices were rising, inflation eroded a significant part of those increases.

The trick with property is not to focus on the short-term but look ahead at least 25 to 30 years - roughly the amount of time it takes most of us to pay off our mortgage!

By the way, although changes in the property market happen with the speed of a huge tanker turning in the Channel, certainly when compared with shares, what is also true is that the recovery of prices in the mid-1990s was fairly rapid.

Up to mid-1994 they were still falling. But in the period between September 1994 and June 1995, they rose 8%. Miss out on that and you would regret it.


3) Negative equity is nothing to worry about

Every story about the last property market collapse focuses on what happened between 1989 and 1995, when prices collapsed.

Millions of people found themselves paying off mortgages that were greater than the value of the homes they were living in. In some cases, the disparity was upwards of 30% and I personally know a couple whose flat plummeted by 50% in value over that period.

At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people had their homes repossessed. They were unable to pay their mortgages and, in many cases, would symbolically march into their lendersÂ’ offices, hand over the front door keys and walk out again.

For them, the early 1990s were a miserable period.

But there is a danger of confusing things here: it was not negative equity that led to repossessions but a sharp economic downturn during which unemployment rocketed, coupled with high inflation, when interest rates shot up to 15% at one point.

For those who were able to continue paying off their home loans, negative equity was an unfortunate fact of life, but changed little: they were still able to live in the homes they had bought.

The major problems were faced by those who, mainly for work reasons but also in cases where couples split up, found themselves wanting to move but were unable to do so.

Lenders reacted by launching mortgage products on the market that allowed borrowers keen to move to do so.

Of course, a significant effect of negative equity was that there were pockets where prices fell more dramatically. This was either because they had bought “starter” homes (little better than bedsits) that no-one wanted, or because they lived in parts of the country that were badly affected by worsening economic conditions.

But for the rest of us – I was there too - if our £50,000 homes dropped in value to £40,000, the chances were that the one we were hoping to step up to had dropped by a similar percentage.

So moving was not impossible, just a lot more difficult.

4) Demographics are on your side

Prices of residential property are partly fuelled by mass psychology, as we know.

It is easy, when prices are booming, for individuals to make "rash" decisions, paying higher and higher prices because they think that unless they do, they will have to pay even more, further down the line.

But there is also a fundamental shortage of residential property in the UK, which few experts believe is likely to be resolved in the next decade or so. If anything, it could get worse.

The recent Barker Review of the UK property market, carried out on behalf of the Treasury, makes the point clearly:

In 2002, the last year for which figures are available, around 183,000 houses were built in the UK, 138,000 of which in England. Taking into account of demolitions and conversions, the net number of new homes was 134,000, a 0.6% increase in the UKÂ’s housing stock. This is more or less in line with homebuilding trends in recent years.
Official projections of "household formation", the number of singles or couples who require a home for themselves, indicate that the number of households in England alone is expected to increase by an average of 155,000 a year over the 1996 to 2021 period. In the 10 years to 2000, household formation is estimated to have been an average 196,000 households a year.
In other words, each year the number of homes built is about 20,000 less than what is needed.

For more information on the Barker report go to the http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk website

The Council of Mortgage Lenders, which has also researched the issue, suggests:

By 2021 there are projected to be 2.1 million more married people in England, counterbalanced by 5 million more single adults and a further 1.5 million divorced.
Most of the net increase in household numbers comes from one-person households, with the number of married couples more than compensated for by an increase in the number of co-habiting households.
Obviously, a key driver for household formation is the relationship between income and affordability - what a person earns, relative to prices in the market.

If, as has been happening, the multiple of income to property prices rises from 3.5 to nearer 5 times earnings, many people will not be forming households: they will live at home or in rented accommodation.

However, that suggests prices are more likely to remain static for some time, rather than fall.

5) You can be your own master (or mistress)

Think about it: the chances are that if you live in rented accommodation, you have surrendered any decision about how the place should look to your landlord.

Because he or she is after an easy life, you probably have a nice white or beige colour scheme, with decently ordinary sofas and armchairs, a reasonably comfortable bed and appliances that work, for the most part.

Deep down, you yearn for something uniquely yours, where you can express your own personality rather than suffer someone elseÂ’s commercially-determined blandness.

You want lime-green walls with cerise curtains, rubber flooring and, yes, a genuine avocado colour bathroom suite. Oh, and donÂ’t forget the parachute, dyed black and strategically hanging, fully open, over your water bed.

If you rent, you will never really be able to decide how you live. If you buy your own property, you will never have to put up with someone else‘s good taste again.

Which is why I repeat: as long as you can afford it, you should consider buying regardless of the doomsayers who warn that property prices are set to collapse. They are probably wrong. But even if they are, you will be having a lot more fun waiting for the market to turn than them.

I had to go and do this today and it confirmed what I had always believed, it is nothing but a licence for the test centres to print money.

My daughter who had to sit this test, has been in the schooling system since the age of 8, and is now a first year law student at uni, yet she had to do it and pay the £34.00. (It took her a total of 3 minutes to answer the 24 questions I took 5 minutes). And they tried to convince us to purchase a book from Waterstones, which I point blank refused. The questions were either irrelavent or an insult to ones intelligence.

i.e. What is the population of England
What do you do if you spill someones beer in a pub
how often do most people give their children pocket money

Genuine questions from the test.

These things have been brought in as a result of the terror attacks, do they think that this will stop them?

New Zealand's captain, Stephen Fleming, admitted that South Africa's pacemen had been too hot to handle, after his side were bundled to a 128-run defeat in the first Test at Centurion.

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/rsavnz/co...44828.html

Had this e-mail...... :mmm:



* Yes, you read that correctly. stress can make you
FAT! :camdu:



* Easy ways to control the fatty effects of cortisol

* Dump your deadline and other stress-relief tips



Ah, there's nothing like an Easter Bank Holiday
weekend is there?

Kids everywhere. traffic jams blocking up the
motorways. and everybody getting hyperactive and fat
on enormous chocolate eggs.

Okay, I'm being a bit of a grumpy old man here. But
if you're one of those types who NEVER get stressed,
I doff my cap to you.

As for me, I've worked in office conditions all my
working life - often during public holidays - writing
to hit deadlines and spending time on the phone
trying to squeeze information out of people. I must
admit I am prone to hair pulling, panic and excessive
coffee drinking.

Thing is, I thought that if there was one benefit to
stress, it was that it makes you thin.

Which was why I've always been confused about the
annoying tyre around my waist.

Then I discovered the awful truth: stress can make
you FAT!

*****************************************************
Yes - stress can make you fat - and here's why..
*****************************************************

When you're stressed, adrenaline pours through your
body, warning it that it's under attack. This
adrenaline causes fat cells to pump fatty acids into
your bloodstream to give you extra emergency stores
of energy.

This is from the days when we had to run from
predators. Stress was a kind of survival tool for our
ancestors.

These days, stress is triggered by hectic schedules,
heavy workloads, money worries, illness and family
crises. But in these cases, adrenaline still produces
the same fatty acids...

And because of our modern lifestyles, it's hard to
burn this stuff off.

We don't run or fight when we're stressed. No.
Instead, we're stuck at our desks or trapped in our
car, or we run to the nearest pub, café or snack shop
to eat and drink our way to relaxation.

And it gets worse..

Because while all that stress-induced fat hangs
around in your bloodstream, ready for a non-existent
fight-or-flight. a hormone comes along and dumps all
that fat into your belly!

The hormone is called Cortisol. It's produced to help
your body process the fat released by adrenaline. It
mops up the unused fatty deposits and then packs them
in your abdomen.

Not only is cortisol linked with fat, but also
diabetes, heart disease and depression. This means
that there's a chance that your health could be under
threat if you're particularly stress-prone.

So that's the problem. But as you'll see in a moment,
there are some easy solutions.
********************************************
Easy ways to control the effects of Cortisol
************************************************

Ok. Let's recap.

Stress causes the body to produce fat in the
bloodstream to give you a burst of energy. Then
cortisol comes along and processes this stuff in your
stomach.

Result: over time, you will gradually gain more
weight because of stress.

So here are some ways you how can control cortisol
and eliminate the effects of your stressful life.

** Let's go with the obvious first. It's hardly
secret knowledge, but if you do some exercise during
your week, you will work off that stress and battle
the bulge.

** Don't skimp on your sleep. A University of Chicago
study published in the journal 'Sleep' showed that
men who slept only 4 hours had 37% more cortisol in
their blood than men who got a full 8 hours sleep.

** Make sure you get 'good quality' sleep. Human
growth hormone is essential to help prevent the loss
of muscle mass, caused by cortisol. Another
University of Chicago study showed that men who got
plenty of deep sleep released almost 65% more human
growth hormone (HGH) than men who slept lightly.

** Watch some comedy! In one study, a group who
watched comedy for 60 minutes had less cortisol in
their blood compared with a group that tried to relax
without any special stimulus. So if you're feeling
stressed and wound up after a day's work, try
watching a funny film or go and have a laugh with
your friends.

** Take vitamin C. For stress, take 1,000 milligrams
of vitamin C in small doses throughout the day.

*** Don't booze or drink coffee three hours before
you go to bed. This dehydrates you until your body
thinks there's a water shortage. This will trigger a
rush of cortisol to protect your body.

There are also some psychological techniques you can
use to minimise stress.

*****************************************************
Dump your deadline and other stress-relief tips
*****************************************************

G. Gaynor McTigue, author of the best-selling 'Why
Make Yourself Crazy?, claims we should "eliminate
unnecessary deadlines".

"Our life is full of them," he writes. "Arbitrary and
unrealistic time constraints imposed by ourselves and
others that serve only to make us more pressured,
anxious, stressed out. for no worthwhile reason.

"Avoid the trap of assigning time frames to
everything you do, especially if you have little idea
how long it will take. Instead, make your goal one of
completing a project in a careful, professional,
satisfying manner. In other words, as long as it
takes to do it right."

You should also try to write all your problems down
on a piece of paper or white-board. This works on two
levels.

Firstly, you vent your frustrations in private, which
lets off a lot of pent-up stream. Secondly, by
working through a problem on paper, you may discover
an insight or solution to whatever is frustrating or
bothering you.

American health writer, Chet Day, has this final tip
for when you feel your stress levels rise:

"Breathe deeply. Pay attention to your breathing.
When you get stressed, your breathing becomes short
and shallow. By consciously slowing down your breath,
your thoughts and actions will follow suit. Visualise
something soothing as you breathe fully and deeply."

**************************************
I hope this has all been pointless for you
*********************************************

Of course, I hope your Easter break has been relaxing
and fun and that today's bulletin has been totally
WORTHLESS.
:luck: