Solitario Resources Corporation is an AMEX listed security that has been trading in a range between $2.70 and $5.32 over the past year. With 29,606,990 shares outstanding, a recent price of $4.85 gives a total market capitalization of $144,482,115. While there are certainly larger companies, Solitario Resources Corporation has definitely earned its place in the pack. Last year, Solitario Resources Corporation created $-0.08 in earnings for every share outstanding.
Solitario Resources Corporation is currently priced by the market at 0.00 times last year’s earnings. Many trading multiples around the world are quite attractive these days, but don’t be fooled. A Price to Earnings ratio of 0 simply means that the security didn’t make any money last year.
With a share price under $50 a share and earnings per share below $1 a share, Solitario Resources Corporation is unlikely to be an interesting value proposition.
Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
The Labor Market Effects of Immigration
Immigration in the world today is largely an economic phenomenon. Despite the numerous differences in the structure and function of governments throughout the western world, the world's people are overwhelmingly migrating to the United States, Canada, and Western Europe at the expense of Mexico, Central and South America, Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa. Indeed, looking at world immigration flows on a purely national basis paints a picture of migrants that move unerringly straight toward the largest concentration of wealth in their immediate proximity. The United States is the destination for well over 95% of Mexican migrants and Western Europe has a similar monopoly on Eastern Europeans.
Given the obvious economic incentives for the immigrants themselves to go wherever their lives will be most quickly improved, the only worthwhile area of study is on the populations already in the destination country and those remaining behind.
For those communities that send a significant portion of their population abroad, immigration is a mixed blessing. The local economy is likely to swell dramatically with remittances from abroad, but the workforce will be decimated by the loss of many of the best workers who receive the greatest potential benefit from moving away. So-called "brain drain" is a very real possibility, but wildly overpopulated countries like China or India are likely to receive competing benefits that overwhelm that force.
Communities that welcome numerous migrants, either explicitly willingly or not, are likely to feel a palpable sense of anger toward those migrants when they add to the labor market and drive down prevailing wages. But immigrants don't join the workforce solely as a source of cheap labor. If the immigrants have any degree of higher education, they are significantly more likely than the native population to start their own small businesses. In a modern service economy, of the type that dominates many of the world's immigration magnets, small businesses that employ fewer than 100 workers are actually one of the greatest sources of job creation. While most immigrants will not likely immediately start a new business upon their arrival, over the course of their lifetimes they are more likely than the general population to choose this path.
The ultimate labor market influence of immigration is likely to be a steep decline in the value of the goods and services that immigrants can produce, and a concomitant rise in the living standards of everyone else in society that is only a consumer of those goods and services.
Given the obvious economic incentives for the immigrants themselves to go wherever their lives will be most quickly improved, the only worthwhile area of study is on the populations already in the destination country and those remaining behind.
For those communities that send a significant portion of their population abroad, immigration is a mixed blessing. The local economy is likely to swell dramatically with remittances from abroad, but the workforce will be decimated by the loss of many of the best workers who receive the greatest potential benefit from moving away. So-called "brain drain" is a very real possibility, but wildly overpopulated countries like China or India are likely to receive competing benefits that overwhelm that force.
Communities that welcome numerous migrants, either explicitly willingly or not, are likely to feel a palpable sense of anger toward those migrants when they add to the labor market and drive down prevailing wages. But immigrants don't join the workforce solely as a source of cheap labor. If the immigrants have any degree of higher education, they are significantly more likely than the native population to start their own small businesses. In a modern service economy, of the type that dominates many of the world's immigration magnets, small businesses that employ fewer than 100 workers are actually one of the greatest sources of job creation. While most immigrants will not likely immediately start a new business upon their arrival, over the course of their lifetimes they are more likely than the general population to choose this path.
The ultimate labor market influence of immigration is likely to be a steep decline in the value of the goods and services that immigrants can produce, and a concomitant rise in the living standards of everyone else in society that is only a consumer of those goods and services.
What does American Poverty Look Like?
Poverty will always be with us. But today's poor look surprisingly different than their brethren from just a generation ago. In relative terms, every wealth distribution is going to have someone who is poorer than average, although that person might be quite wealthy in absolute terms. For example, a millionaire in a room full of billionaires might be a wealth lightweight in his immediate community, but the case for calling him or her truly poor seems pretty weak.
The average person below the poverty line in the United States today owns a microwave, a color television, gets cable, and a car. None of these assets are going to be top of the line, but when they break they will get replaced - and possibly long before then.
There are actually more obese Americans living in poverty today than in the general population. Some might consider this a triumph of food distribution, but others consider it just the absence of affordable gym access. Healthy food does cost more than junk food, but a cheaper way to avoid getting fat is to simply eat less junk food.
The plight of the poor is always highlighted around the holidays, but very rarely is it contrasted with the plight of the rich in poor countries. Consider the average Latin American. Would he or she rather have more wealth than 90% of the population in his or her country or be poorer than 90% of Americans? The answer may surprise you. In terms of absolute wealth measured by purchasing power parity, the two amounts aren't even close. The poor in America are significantly wealthier than not just the vast majority of people who have ever lived, they are much better off than the relatively wealthy in poor countries.
For lots of reasons, it is always going to be difficult to be at the bottom of the ladder. Yet for poor Americans today, being poor has never been better - and the future looks fine.
The average person below the poverty line in the United States today owns a microwave, a color television, gets cable, and a car. None of these assets are going to be top of the line, but when they break they will get replaced - and possibly long before then.
There are actually more obese Americans living in poverty today than in the general population. Some might consider this a triumph of food distribution, but others consider it just the absence of affordable gym access. Healthy food does cost more than junk food, but a cheaper way to avoid getting fat is to simply eat less junk food.
The plight of the poor is always highlighted around the holidays, but very rarely is it contrasted with the plight of the rich in poor countries. Consider the average Latin American. Would he or she rather have more wealth than 90% of the population in his or her country or be poorer than 90% of Americans? The answer may surprise you. In terms of absolute wealth measured by purchasing power parity, the two amounts aren't even close. The poor in America are significantly wealthier than not just the vast majority of people who have ever lived, they are much better off than the relatively wealthy in poor countries.
For lots of reasons, it is always going to be difficult to be at the bottom of the ladder. Yet for poor Americans today, being poor has never been better - and the future looks fine.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
The Asian and Russian Economic Crises Smashed Latin America
The so-called "Asian Contagion" and the precipitous decline in the Russian ruble had poisonous repercussions for the economies of Latin America. The loss of confidence the international financial community felt in the Asian Tigers was indiscriminately extended to the region and huge capital outflows resulted. Interest rates soared and Latin American goods lost their competitiveness against even cheaper Asian goods.
Brazil in particular was hard hit, moving to a floating currency, abandoning its Real plan which was devised in 1994 to fight against inflation, and suffering a disastrous devaluation of the currency.
The main lessons learned from this horrific disaster were that an unsustainable current account balance can rapidly spin the economy out of control, that short-term capital is by its very nature prone to excess volatility, and that an inflexible exchange rate can compel a government to choose between a lingering financial death and immediate collapse.
Brazil in particular was hard hit, moving to a floating currency, abandoning its Real plan which was devised in 1994 to fight against inflation, and suffering a disastrous devaluation of the currency.
The main lessons learned from this horrific disaster were that an unsustainable current account balance can rapidly spin the economy out of control, that short-term capital is by its very nature prone to excess volatility, and that an inflexible exchange rate can compel a government to choose between a lingering financial death and immediate collapse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
