msft

Oil prices got a boost today from the news of a large interest rate cut in China, which analysts believe should have the result of lifting oil demand for the country.

China is doing all it can to keep its booming economic growth alive. The country announced its largest interest rate cut in 11 years, as the People's Bank of China slashed rates by 1.08 percentage points.

Oil prices, which have been in a virtual free fall since their record high levels over the summer, moved up as high as $52.76 earlier in the session, and are now trading up $1.40 a barrel to $51.75.

The move by China should help the country rebound from the current slowdown it is seeing in economic growth. The massive expansion of the economies in China and India are a major reason why oil prices moved so much higher in the past couple years, and if today's announced cuts have the intended effect of increasing economic activity, then the country should indeed see an increase in its thirst for oil.

Forbes -- which was formerly known as The Capitalist Tool -- is reportedly on the verge of being sold to a Russian Oligarch by the name of Mikhail Prokhorov. It turns out that the Russian idea of capitalism is a bit different than the Western one. But that doesn't stop Forbes from taking Russia's cash.

As I posted, Russia is happy to accept Western money. But once Russia has the Western money, it gets rid of the Westerners who brought in the loot. In the U.S., we have our own special brand of capitalism which rewards the richest of the rich with eight figure bonuses by borrowing $30 for every $1 of capital to close huge deals, while the taxpayers cover the deals' losses.

The Forbes sale -- if it goes through for an estimated $625 million to $750 million -- would be tinged with a sad irony. That's because its former Russian bureau chief, Paul Klebnikov, was gunned down in July 2004 after his investigative reporting into oligarchs like Prokhorov made them nervous. The biggest beneficiary of this sale will be Elevation Partners -- which includes U2's Bono -- based on the 40% stake it bought in Forbes for $250 million.

It's a beautiful day for Bono, but a strange one for Forbes and Capitalism.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Time provides the advantage of not only additional events, but also the ability to the compare these events to conditions and issues in previous eras -- an argument against 'instant-analysis' and a major reason my Ph.D. advisor said, "Don't study any public official's decisions until he or she has been dead for 20 years."

Hence, time is naturally providing more evidence and perspective on the recently-ended period of global economic growth, and increasingly the evidence is showing that it was a global economy of unsustainable imbalances -- balances that policy makers mistakenly ignored.

2001-2007: a policy void

First and probably foremost there was the oil price imbalance. Whether they were driven up by speculators, by institutional investors seeking a return on equity, global energy demand, and/or by other factors, economists had warned for years that the U.S. and global economies could not continue to grow at adequate rates with oil above $80 per barrel. In fact, every previous oil shock in the modern era was followed by a recession in the United States. Still, little was done from a policy standpoint to stem oil's price rise.

Similarly, the U.S.'s then-increasing trade deficit, a good part of which had been fed by purchases of imported oil, and the notion that U.S. consumers could serve perpetually as the growth engine of the export-oriented developing world, was unsustainable, given stagnant U.S. incomes, and its nadir savings rate. Yet little was done to address this imbalance.

OPEC stopped by to see the president of Russia. The cartel probably wanted to know if the large country will be willing to cut output when the cartel does.

According to The New York Times, "As oil prices tumble amid fears of a worldwide recession, OPEC has been testing the prospects of Russia joining in production cuts to help support global prices." The Russians, apparently, did not encourage OPEC's advances.

In many ways, Russia staying away from OPEC does not make sense. Falling oil prices must be hurting the huge nation as much as the problem is undermining income in the Middle East. On the face of it, Russia should want to go along with any production cuts to improve its profits. If it does not, it could help oil consuming nations like the U.S.

But Russia may have a different agenda. Unlike most other nations, Russia wants to assert itself as a world power, something it lost after the fall of communism. Oil prices and its military are two of its largest chess pieces. It can dispense crude to its allies and threaten to hold it back from its adversaries. That might include the U.S., which is battling it for control in smaller nations including Georgia.

Oil is not just oil for Russia. It is leverage.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Nouriel Roubini, the once obscure New York University economics professor who two years ago predicted the current global financial crisis, now says leaders of the world's major industrialized economies and developing countries must implement an 'all fronts' approach to avert a financial calamity and a global depression.

"It will take a significant change in leadership of economic policy and very radical, coordinated policy actions among all advanced and emerging-market economies to avoid this economic and financial disaster," Roubini said on his web site, RGE Monitor.

Roubini urged that national policy makers take immediate action to end the crisis, which has dramatically tightened credit conditions worldwide, constraining the ability of corporations to undertake daily operations, which will hurt GDP growth rates in every region.

And, ironically or by coincidence, leaders will have an opportunity to dialogue and implement a common strategy: officials from the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Group of Seven (G-7) nations meet in Washington, D.C. this weekend for their previously-scheduled annual meeting.

Think the price of oil can remain sky-high amid a U.S. recession, a global economic slowdown, and the worst credit market conditions in decades?

Think again.

Oil prices are headed back to $50, according to analyst at an investment firm based in Russia.

Chris Weafer, analyst at Uralsib Capital in Moscow, said the Russian market is projecting that oil prices will plunge to about $50 per barrel, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. Amid a U.S. recession and a global economic slowdown, oil has fallen about 38% to $91.07 per barrel after hitting a record high of $147.27 per barrel in July.

Oil price projections are especially important in Russia because oil revenue has provided much of the capital for Russia's development, economic expansion and funds for the Russian Government's programs.

Further, Weafer now expects Russia's GDP growth to slow to 3% in 2009, as global growth and the financial crisis slows both foreign demand for oil and commercial activity in Russia, The Journal reported. In turn, that will force Russia's government to reduce spending for certain programs, while eliminating funding for others, Weafer added.

U.S. consumers have another reason to worry about gas prices. Two of the largest oil-producing nations in the world are forming a military alliance, and neither nation likes the U.S.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez signed new energy agreements with Russia on Friday, shortly after obtaining a $1 billion loan to buy more Russian arms."

Chavez has kicked a number of U.S. and EU oil companies out of his country as he has nationalized the industry. It would not be beyond imagination that Russia and the South American nation would use a combination of oil and guns to try to weaken U.S. influence in its own hemisphere and force America into more military spending to patrol the regions to its south.

Chavez has already begun spreading money around to his neighbors in the hope of being viewed favorably. Having a stronger military presence should help him make the case that he can keep the U.S. from using its power to push him out of his role as the most powerful political figure north of Brazil and south of Mexico.

Could the financial crisis result in the United States losing its status as the world's financial superpower?

Indeed it could, Germany's Finance Minister Peter Steinbrueck told MarketWatch.com.

"The United States will lose its status as the superpower of the global financial system, not abruptly, but it will erode," Steinbrueck said, MarketWatch.com reported. "The global financial system will become more multi-polar."

However, Steinbrueck clarified his statement in subsequent remarks to FT.com. "When we look back 10 years from now, we will see 2008 as a fundamental rupture. I am not saying the dollar will lose its reserve currency status, but it will become relative," Steinbrueck told FT.com. Further, Steinbrueck repeated Germany's refusal to allocate public funds to acquire distressed/bad assets, arguing that the crisis is mainly hitting the United States.

The U.S.: a decade of descent

Economist Richard Felson concurred with Steinbrueck's analysis for the most part, but added that the U.S.'s decline, more accurately described as "a descent," is not irreversible.

"Globalization has played a role, but much of the U.S.'s descent in the past decade stems for policy mistakes, basically policies that didn't and don't work. The nation cut taxes before it went to war, creating a large budget deficit. A lack of a forward-looking energy policy helped balloon the trade deficit. And inadequate investment in infrastructure, education, and basic research is depressing economic growth below what it should be," Felson said. "The latter resulted in far fewer jobs begin created in the decade than what's required, leading to all sorts of problems, including the housing sector's implosion. The result has been a weaker U.S. economy with more structural problems, and an inability to project economic power. Meanwhile, the economic power of China, Russia, India, and Brazil has increased. I don't think that's what policy makers intended at the start of the decade, but that's been the result."

Vehicle sales in China have started to slow. In August, they were actually down almost 7% compared to the same month a year ago. That is especially tough news for General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Ford (NYSE: F) that hoped that hyper-growth in the cars sales market in the world's most populated country would make up for poor sales at home.

GM and Ford have suffered billions of dollars of losses every quarter in their North American operations. Sales in Europe and Japan are also anemic due to tough economic conditions. Which leaves Latin America, China and Russia as the "salvation markets." They have enough size and potential to support millions of new car sales a year.

But matters are getting worse for the car companies as they push off-shore. According to the FT, referring to Russia, "Analysts who cover the sector are revisiting bullish sales estimates for a country that bought 2.5m cars last year and will soon replace Germany as Europe's largest car market."

Gasoline prices are high in Russia as they are in most other countries around the world.

Late last week, GM took down $3.5 billion on its line of credit. Analysts are worried that this is a sign the nation's largest car company is headed toward a cash crisis. That could become particularly acute early next year if Congress does not offer Detroit $25 billion in loan guarantees to build new factories. With hundred of billions going to the bank bailout package, legislators have to wonder how much money is available to save other sectors of the economy.

The news about Detroit is supposed to be getting better. With sales slowing in emerging markets and the possibility of no government aid, that has radically changed.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Bloomberg News reports that the U.S. is not the only financial market in trouble. Russia's markets closed trading since emergency measures did not stop the tumble in its shares. Russia's Micex stock exchange fell 17% yesterday. And this was after efforts to halt the plunge -- such as a $20 billion central bank cash injection -- failed to stop the sell-off.

Meanwhile, Russia's Finance Ministry attempted to inject $44 billion into Russia's three biggest banks to get them lending to each other. This is after a big Russian brokerage, KIT Finance, is seeking a buyer because it failed to meet overnight repo obligations. Moreover, Russia's bond market is "effectively closed," according to Bloomberg.

So take heart comrades! Russia is joining us in this global financial market catastrophe. There's no telling whether anyone's money will be left standing when it's all over. Not being a financial advisor, I can't give advice on such topics, but I am thinking that it would be a good idea to consider finding a highly profitable bank and putting your money in one of its accounts -- in amounts under $100,000.

In 1998, it was a freeze up in Russian markets that precipitated the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management. But this is not history repeating itself. Although it does seem to be rhyming.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

I am the Global Editor at MoneyShow.com and each week I interview an investing expert. This week, I spoke with Sam Hopkins, editor of Energy and Capital, who despite the recent sell-off in energy, sees potential in energy.

Q. Sam, in a recent piece on the Russia/Georgia conflict, you cautioned your subscribers to watch their Russian shares closely, but to hold onto their energy shares. Would you expand on that advice?

A. Well, we see a mix of geopolitical risk and opportunity in the flare-up between Russia and Georgia. Ironically, the opportunity for energy investors comes from the risk itself. It's hard to put your finger on exactly how much the "risk premium" in a barrel of oil is (meaning, what dollar amount is priced in to accommodate for pipeline leaks, theft, war, or other factors that can affect supply). But what we do know is that in Russia's case, as one of the world's top producers of hydrocarbons, national oil and gas companies stand to gain when futures prices rise. In this way, Russian energy stocks like Gazprom (OTC: OGZPY) and Rosneft (OTC: RNGZY), both of which trade in London and here on the Pink Sheets, may gain even while the broader Moscow market turns downward.

Q. Many investors may view this conflict as an example of why international markets may be too risky for their money. After all, the Russian stock market - the RTS - has fallen about 20% in the past month. Will you share your thoughts on why investors need to diversify abroad?

With oil prices falling, some members of OPEC would like to see price cuts to put upward pressure on crude. That would make sense. It would bring members of the cartel more money and stretch out the pace at which they need to ship their current reserves.

Venezuela, where the head of state Hugo Chavez seems to have no love for the U.S., has lobbied fellow OPEC members hard to dial back oil shipments. The Arab states may not be so eager. According to Bloomberg, "Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest producer and de facto leader of the 13-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait may reject calls from Venezuela and Iran to trim supplies at its Sept. 9 meeting in Vienna."

Increased cash flowing into the Middle East is feeding sharp increases in inflation, but that may only be a small part of the reason behind the motivation to do nothing with fuel supplies.

Saudi Arabia and its neighbors know that extremism continues to grow in the region. They are also not geographically far removed from the trouble in Georgia. The nation, which is at "war" with Russia, is close to the norther border of Iran. In other words, there is more than one threat to stability in the region.

The United States keeps a tremendous military force in and around Saudi Arabia. The kingdom may not want to go any further than it has to alienate America.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

There are times when you need an archive of information and evidence to make an argument.

Then there are times when one simple fact or incident makes the case by itself. (Which, incidentally, may very well be the genesis of the adage "A picture says a thousand words.")

Evidence item of consequence: a lunch that global trade consultant Edward Goldberg, a colleague of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, had with a Russian trade attaché.

The Russian trade attaché, Friedman relates, years ago was delighted to hear from Goldberg that the Bush administration wanted to drill for oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The reason? The amount of oil derived would be negligible in terms of the U.S.'s needs, and it signaled that the Bush Administration was not planning to do anything to establish an alternative energy program, "which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia."

"While watching the Olympics, I couldn't thinking about the investment opportunities of the various countries participating in the games," says exchange-traded fund expert Carl Delfeld.

Recognizing that this is not a "scientific" approach nor a primary basis for seriously determining one's asset allocation the editor of Around the World with ETFs speculates, "While it is admittedly a stretch, let's consider what an ETF porfolio of the top ten countries in the Beijing Olympics medal count would look like."

"I hope that while watching the Olympic games many investors were also reminded at how the world is changing and why they need a global portfolio to capture value and growth around the world.

"The U.S. did remarkably well across the board underscoring its role as the world's leading investment destination. China surged to win the most gold and reach the symbolic level of 100 medals.

"Quite an achievement that punctuates China's growing heft. With the Shanghai Composite down 55% this year, it has come down to earth and is interesting from a valuation perspective.

"Next comes Russia with a performance fueled by a strong Olympian tradition and petro dollars but perhaps a bit overshadowed by the Georgian fiasco. I will take a pass on this one even though it is off 36% since just May.

The Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) iPhone is supposed to be the hottest handset on the planet, but in some parts of the world it has very little appeal at all.

The market in India is teaching Apple a lesson or two. The first is that price is an issue. No matter how much people love the product, there is a point at which the cost is simply too high.

According to MarketWatch reports from India, "The princely sum of 31,000 rupees ($720) for the 8-gigabyte iPhone and 36,100 rupees ($840) for the 16 GB version was too high for even such a cool gizmo." If Apple is going to make any progress in one of the world's largest markets, it is going to have to solve that problem. Otherwise, more reasonably priced products from other phone makers such as market leader Nokia (NYSE: NOK) are going to continue to rule the roost.

The other issue in India is that it has very little 3G infrastructure. That makes the new version of the iPhone less appealing. Apple can do very little to solve this problem, but it does say that there are some limits that even the most popular product can't overcome.

Apple is about to launch the iPhone is Russia and sales are expected to be good there, but the company's goal of getting a quick start in every important market may be thwarted.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.