Perspectives on the global economic changes

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 01 Nov 2015 13:54



panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby panduranghari » 03 Nov 2015 19:04

“What do we stand for as a publishing business?” they asked. “Who are we? How are we different from anyone else? What do we think that others don’t?”

We are not the only publishers to offer opinions. And not the only ones with alternative points of view. So, to answer these questions, let’s look first at the range of opinions on offer…

First, there is “the authorities must know what they are doing… besides, I have more important things to think about” camp. This is by far the largest group: hoi polloi. The masses. The lumpenproletariat. There may be some grumbling and kvetching. But most people count on the feds to manage the economy, foreign policy, the future, and the government. They expect mistakes from time to time. But they also believe the system can be trusted to produce an acceptable, although perhaps not always ideal, outcome.

And if not, God help them. Because the difference between the outcome if they bothered to think about it and the outcome if they didn’t is the same. They have no ability to influence public policy… and not much room to maneuver in their private lives.

They get salaries, pensions, Social Security. They need jobs, mortgages, student loans, and medical insurance. They have little capital to invest or protect. They depend so heavily on “the system” that they can’t afford to believe there is something deeply wrong with it. They go along. They get along.

Image

At the other end of the idea spectrum, there are the edgy, malcontent, and extremely marginal opinions. A man, sitting in his double-wide watching TV can come to hold all sorts of wacky views. There is an entire infotainment industry that provides screwball opinions.

You want to believe Obama is a Muslim? You want to believe the Bilderbergers, the Rothschilds, or the Rockefellers run the world? You want to know about GM’s perpetual-motion engine that – if the secret got out – would put the entire auto industry out of business?

Image

But it is the far-out world of money, economics, and finance that interests us. We try to figure it out. We try to understand. We try to see what’s coming before it arrives. And we try to be serious about it.

Apart from the mainstream view – that the authorities have things under control – almost all serious analysts see a terminal problem developing. The current situation (with zero and even negative interest rates… and debt expanding much faster than GDP) can’t go on.

It had a beginning, in the early 1980s. It must also have an end. Most of the guesswork is now focused on when and how that end comes.

Image

Deflation Camp

Harry Dent is in line with the Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Money printing causes financial bubbles, distorts the economy, and is therefore counterproductive. Like Bob Prechter (I don’t follow him closely, but his argumentation sounds similar), Dent bets on deflation and depression.

Fighting debt deleveraging and demographics is like putting yourself in front of a tsunami. In such an environment, the U.S. dollar would gain purchasing power, and gold would underperform significantly. (Harry sees it back to $700 in 2018-19.) Cash/T-bills/short-term Treasurys are the place to be. Rates will stay low for very long.

Inflation Camp

Jim Rickards’ thesis – “inflate debt away via a massive issuance of SDRs after China has joined the club” – is also very credible. World currencies are massively diluted via issuance of SDRs, which serve only the powers that be. Rather than a new gold standard, this is the solution to Triffin’s dilemma (more flexibility for the elite).

[Triffin’s dilemma describes the constant need for the global reserve currency issuer – in this case, the U.S. – to supply the world with reserve currency by way of a long-term trade deficit. Eventually, argued Yale economist Robert Triffin, this would lead to a loss of confidence in the reserve currency.]

Citizens are excluded/not allowed to own SDRs. Their purchasing power shrinks. They don’t know who to blame. The IMF does not consist of elected officials, and the majority of the population doesn’t even know it plays a role in creating inflation. And they can pretend that they have to save the world, too. (Remember the Greek bailout?)

Hyperinflation Camp

Shadow Stats’ John Williams is having a really hard time fighting for his ideas. He is right about the “CPI-CP Lie” and the current true state of the economy. But whoever invests along his ideas is running out of capital to stay in the game.

Peter Schiff and Mike Maloney are on a similar line. The problem with them is that they have a conflict of interest with their businesses. But I have no doubt about their integrity: They do/live what they say.



Deflation to Hyperinflation Camp

I recall an interview with Nassim Taleb on Bloomberg TV in 2009 when he said, “We will go from deflation to hyperinflation without seeing inflation.”


Our view is that Taleb will be proved right. Back in 2009, we predicted “Tokyo… then Buenos Aires” – a Japan-like deflation, followed by Argentine-like hyperinflation. Most likely, there will be no stop in between for moderate levels of inflation. Inflation, as economist Milton Friedman observed, is “always and everywhere” a monetary phenomenon.

But hyperinflation is a political phenomenon. It is caused by those same authorities the masses think they can trust. When they are threatened, they will protect themselves by printing money on a scale we haven’t seen since the War Between the States (consumer prices in Richmond, Virginia, had risen 6,700% by the end of the war).
There are times when printing money seems like the best course of action – especially for the people running the printing press. It may not do the common man any good, but it gets the feds out of a jam. But that is a long story… and one for the future.

We’re still in a Japan-like long, slow slump. And it looks as though we’re going to be there a while longer. Tomorrow, we’ll look at China – and more reasons why we are in a deflationary trend right now. So stay tuned…


What next: Deflation, Inflation or Hyperinflation

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 04 Nov 2015 08:45

Washington Times: $20 trillion man: National debt nearly doubles during Obama presidency

When President Obama signs into law the new two-year budget deal Monday, his action will bring into sharper focus a part of his legacy that he doesn’t like to talk about: He is the $20 trillion man.

Mr. Obama’s spending agreement with Congress will suspend the nation’s debt limit and allow the Treasury to borrow another $1.5 trillion or so by the end of his presidency in 2017. Added to the current total national debt of more than $18.15 trillion, the red ink will likely be crowding the $20 trillion mark right around the time Mr. Obama leaves the White House.

When Mr. Obama took over in January 2009, the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. That means the debt will have very nearly doubled during his eight years in office, and there is much more debt ahead with the abandonment of “sequestration” spending caps enacted in 2011.

“Congress and the president have just agreed to undo one of the only successful fiscal restraint mechanisms in a generation,” said Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union. “The progress on reducing spending and the deficit has just become much more problematic.”

Some budget analysts scoff at the claim made by the administration and by House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, that the budget agreement’s $112 billion in spending increases is fully funded by cuts elsewhere. Mr. Boehner left Congress last week.

“The Boehner-Obama spending agreement would allow for unlimited borrowing by the Treasury until March 2017,” said Paul Winfree, director of economic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation. “This deal piles on billions of dollars to the national debt by increasing spending over the next three years and then not paying for it for a decade — with half of the offsets not occurring until 2025.”

The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that only about half of the increased spending in the budget deal is paid for. Rather than a spending increase of $80 billion over two years, the nonprofit group said, the actual spending hike is $154 billion when interest costs and budget gimmicks are factored into the equation.

“Of this $154 billion, about $78 billion is paid for honestly” through Medicare reforms, reductions in farm subsidies, asset sales and other measures, the group said. “The remaining $56 billion of the legislation — mostly the war spending increase and interest costs — is not paid for at all.”

Of course, Congress bears equal responsibility for the high level of debt. A prime reason that Mr. Boehner left office was conservatives’ displeasure with his accommodation of the president’s budget requests, aside from three years of “sequestration” spending caps that helped limit annual deficits.

“We will be raising the debt ceiling in an unlimited fashion,” said Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who tried to filibuster the budget deal before the Senate approved it in the wee hours of Friday. “We will be giving President Obama a free pass to borrow as much money as he can borrow in the last year of his office. No limit, no dollar limit. Here you go, President Obama. Spend what you want.”

Ever-expanding debt

The president said Friday that the agreement “is paid for in a responsible, balanced way.”

“This agreement will strengthen the middle class by investing in education, job training, and basic research,” Mr. Obama said. “It will keep us safe by investing in our national security. It protects our seniors by avoiding harmful cuts to Medicare and Social Security. It locks in two years of funding and should help break the cycle of shutdowns and manufactured crises that have harmed our economy.”

When Mr. Obama talks about fiscal matters, he usually takes credit for cutting the deficit by two-thirds. He also is correct that annual budget deficits have fallen from $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009, in the depths of the recession, to $439 billion in fiscal 2015.

But the president rarely, if ever, mentions the accumulation of those annual deficits and what the rising national debt means for the country, for the presidents who will follow him and for the nation’s ability to pay for its priorities.

“Debt service will continue to consume a larger portion of the federal budget, and we’ll be looking at gross interest payments on the national debt of close to $1 trillion [annually] by the time another decade passes,” Mr. Sepp said.

Annual net interest payments on the national debt are projected to rise from around $220 billion currently to $755 billion in 10 years. Policymakers in Washington have been fortunate to date because interest rates have been at historic lows for several years.

“Debt payments comprise 6 percent of all spending now, but will more than double to 13 percent in 2025,” said Demian Brady, The National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s director of research. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office “cites two main causal factors: an expected eventual rise in interest rates, and the continuing expansion of the federal debt.”

Supporters of the budget agreement point to structural reforms in entitlement programs, including a deal that will prevent a 20 percent across-the-board cut in Social Security Disability Insurance benefits for 11 million people next year.

But Mr. Sepp said it’s not clear whether the provision represents meaningful reform or another budget gimmick.

“The infusion of cash from the retirement portion of the [Social Security] program will carry disability insurance for several years before any of the major reforms to the program fully kick in,” he said. “Lawmakers are claiming that they stopped kicking the can down the road on [Social Security Disability Insurance] when they’ve really just kicked the can into another lane of the road.”

Fiscal conservatives say it doesn’t seem to matter which party controls the White House or Congress when it comes to spending increases.

“When I ran for office in 2010, the debt was an enormous issue and the debt was $10 trillion,” Mr. Paul said Friday on the Senate floor. “Some of us in the tea party were concerned because it had doubled in the [previous] eight years. It doubled from five [trillion dollars] to 10 under a Republican administration. And many of us were adamant that Republicans needed to do a better job. We had added new entitlement programs, we had added new spending, and the deficit got worse under Republicans. Now we’re under a Democrat president, and it’s set to double again.”

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 04 Nov 2015 22:26

Looking back

Peter Schiff Mortgage Bankers Speech Nov/13/06


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 05 Nov 2015 21:12

Ep. 116: The Great Rate Hike Hoax


chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1410
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby chanakyaa » 06 Nov 2015 06:50

Fed would consider negative rates if economy soured - Yellen

If it wasn't for paper money (which can cause bank runs), rates would have been negative long time ago. Real rates have been negative for a while.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 06 Nov 2015 10:48

udaym wrote:Fed would consider negative rates if economy soured - Yellen

If it wasn't for paper money (which can cause bank runs), rates would have been negative long time ago. Real rates have been negative for a while.


What are the implications of Negative Interest rates , I believe some banks in Europe already do that ?

Panduranghari , How will this impact Gold prices specially in India ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 06 Nov 2015 15:45

Grant: Market Danger


panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby panduranghari » 06 Nov 2015 16:46

udaym wrote:Fed would consider negative rates if economy soured - Yellen

If it wasn't for paper money (which can cause bank runs), rates would have been negative long time ago. Real rates have been negative for a while.

A German called Silvio Gessell or something similar wanted to impose negative rates i.e. tax on holding cash. Keynes so loved the idea, that he wanted it to be a part of Bretton Woods. But then at that time electronic money was not in existence except for trans-national sovereign level.

What would be the consequence of this? IMO the velocity of money could in theory increase. More people will want to dispose of money and buy things. I dont think people holding cash will essentially dispose it. I think this policy is to target the large financial institutions who are sitting in cash on the sidelines. The fed wants to make this money move.

The main reason why FI are not in the market is because its very toppy. Both bonds and stocks. Only game in the town is US government debt or cash.The 10 year or 30 year UST is paying about 3 %. and a 3 year is paying 2.28% I think. Why would you park money in 30 year bond when 3 year is not bad comparatively.

This might be the spark which sets everything alight.

Austin,
Gold prices are ripe for a epic fall in dollar terms. I do not think it would budge rupee valuations except if you are a big buyer from Zhaveri Bazaar. Gold prices - I assume you are asking the COMEX prices. There has to be eventual divergence between the paper and physical prices. TIFWIW.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby panduranghari » 06 Nov 2015 22:56

Where will 2016 global growth come from?

Image

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby panduranghari » 06 Nov 2015 22:59

Austin wrote: How will this impact Gold prices specially in India ?


According to Rajan, watching tractor sales in India is the good way to know the direction of gold price in India.

https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_ViewB ... x?Id=15833

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby panduranghari » 06 Nov 2015 23:31

The Wrong War for Central Banking
by Stephen S. Roach, former Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia and the firm's chief economist, is a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute of Global Affairs and a senior lecturer at Yale's School of Management.

The consequences have been problematic, to say the least. Over the same 15-year period, financial markets have become unhinged, with a profusion of asset and credit bubbles leading to a series of crises that almost pushed the world economy into the abyss in 2008-2009. But rather than recognize, let alone respond to, pre-crisis excesses, the Fed has remained agnostic about them, pointing out that bubble-spotting is, at best, an imperfect science.

That is hardly a convincing reason for central banks to remain fixated on inflation targeting. Not only have they failed repeatedly to get the inflation forecast right; they now risk fueling renewed financial instability and sparking another crisis. Just as a few of us warned of impending crisis in the 2003-2006 period, some – including the Bank of International Settlements and the IMF– are sounding the alarm today, but to no avail.

To be sure, inflation targeting was once essential to limit runaway price growth. In today’s inflationless world, however, it is counterproductive. Yet the inflation targeters who dominate today’s major central banks insist on fighting yesterday’s war.

In this sense, modern central bankers resemble the British army in the Battle of Singapore in 1942. Convinced that the Japanese would attack from the sea, the British defenses were encased in impenetrable concrete bunkers, with fixed artillery that could fire only to the south. So when the Japanese emerged from the jungle and mangrove swamps of the Malay Peninsula in the north, the British were powerless to stop them. Singapore quickly fell, in what is widely considered Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s most ignominious military defeat.

Central bankers, like the British army in Singapore, are aiming their weapons in the wrong direction. It is time for them to turn their policy arsenal toward today’s enemy: financial instability. On that basis alone, the case for monetary-policy normalization has never been more compelling.


No wonder we have been in so much trouble.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 07 Nov 2015 08:29


Austin,
Gold prices are ripe for a epic fall in dollar terms. I do not think it would budge rupee valuations except if you are a big buyer from Zhaveri Bazaar. Gold prices - I assume you are asking the COMEX prices. There has to be eventual divergence between the paper and physical prices. TIFWIW.


You mean due to negative interest rate physical gold price will fall while paper gold gold fund etc will rise ?

What is down side of negative interest ? I would think it's good for economy of India China etc as they would want to invest more money to earn more profit compared to near zero interest rates ?


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 07 Nov 2015 10:39

Smart ways to accumulate gold

http://freefincal.com/smart-ways-to-acc ... -marriage/

First, some basic ideas associated with gold.

Investing in gold is different from accumulating it. Mixing the two is a common mistake, thanks to some smart marketing.
Gold is not a depreciating asset.
Gold is not a fixed income asset.
Long-term from investing in gold has given about 8% return before tax. Therefore investing in gold is not a hedge for inflation. Accumulating gold is.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby panduranghari » 07 Nov 2015 14:01

Austin wrote:
You mean due to negative interest rate physical gold price will fall while paper gold gold fund etc will rise ?

What is down side of negative interest ? I would think it's good for economy of India China etc as they would want to invest more money to earn more profit compared to near zero interest rates ?


Now this is all speculation.

No one would buy a bond which states, you give me 100 $ today and next year I will give you 95$. However if you know next year the USD is going to rise by 10%, you will perhaps risk the deal of buying a UST bond as you are expecting to get 110$.

What the federal reserve calls its 'rates' are nominal rates. At the moment the rates are running at 0.5%. The real rates account for inflation also. The government claims there is no inflation. :mrgreen:

so Real rates= nominal rates - inflation

When fed reduces nominal rates to below zero, the inflation should be running even lower as you will be loosing money.

You might have heard of a term called liquidity trap where people hoard cash as people believe the investments will all dry up. The people just keep hoarding cash. Sine QE1 in US, the big banks have been hoarding cash. And now the financial institutions and sheeple are hoarding it too. And the fed does not like that. They want the cash to move.

If the nominal rates do go negative, the people will be forced to seek returns instead of loosing money.

This graph is very pertinent.

Image

You will hear - its argentina. it wont ever happen in USA. the problem is mathematics works in both US and Argentina.

As of now we are in the deflationary head fake. If rates rise, we wills stay in the deflationary head fake longer. If rates go negative, the velocity of money will rise. As I said, this is speculation.

When rates go negative, money will move into 'assets'. Gold is as an asset. Interest rate fall will cause the price of all assets to fall, except IMVVHO us treasury bond. As gold price is determined by COMEX market, expect prices to fall anyway.

There is no profit in speculation for sovereign nations. If you are saying undertake Gold open market actions - it will further depress the price of gold. Besides who will sell gold to the sovereign nations? IMF? TIFWIW.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Gyan » 07 Nov 2015 19:12

I have still not understood the concept which demands that Govt keep fiscal deficit low while QE high. I don't think this concept has worked anywhere in the world. High QE only funds speculative positions of parasites errr banks. If one wants inflation, why not pump up fiscal deficit (especially infrastructure spend)?

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby TSJones » 07 Nov 2015 21:54

Gyan wrote:I have still not understood the concept which demands that Govt keep fiscal deficit low while QE high. I don't think this concept has worked anywhere in the world. High QE only funds speculative positions of parasites errr banks. If one wants inflation, why not pump up fiscal deficit (especially infrastructure spend)?


because the central bank or whoever prints the money, has to increase the money supply in order for the government to pay for the increased projects/services rendered.

1. the government may issue bonds to get the money.
or

2. raise taxes
or

3. the government can create a special account with the central bank/money printer and be credited with the money by fiat.

either way the central bank/money printer has to pump up the jam.

unless you want everybody to be slaves and provide goods and services for free to the government.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 07 Nov 2015 22:22

Over-Hyped Oct. Jobs Report Does Not Assure Dec. Rate Hike.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 08 Nov 2015 19:20

Check this interview to bloomberg

Grant: Does BOE Know If It'll Rain Week From Thursday?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/20 ... -thursday-

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Gyan » 09 Nov 2015 12:10

TSJones wrote:
Gyan wrote:I have still not understood the concept which demands that Govt keep fiscal deficit low while QE high. I don't think this concept has worked anywhere in the world. High QE only funds speculative positions of parasites errr banks. If one wants inflation, why not pump up fiscal deficit (especially infrastructure spend)?


because the central bank or whoever prints the money, has to increase the money supply in order for the government to pay for the increased projects/services rendered.

1. the government may issue bonds to get the money.
or

2. raise taxes
or

3. the government can create a special account with the central bank/money printer and be credited with the money by fiat.

either way the central bank/money printer has to pump up the jam.

unless you want everybody to be slaves and provide goods and services for free to the government.


I am proposing that "high lighted" portion (which is fiscal deficit?) is better than giving money to parasites/banks. Off course, even Govt has to use the money properly.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 09 Nov 2015 12:24

Austin wrote:Check this interview to bloomberg

Grant: Does BOE Know If It'll Rain Week From Thursday?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/20 ... -thursday-


The chart in that discussion shows UK Pound getting stronger while inflation is on the negitive side of things , Looks like UKistan is in Deflation

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby TSJones » 09 Nov 2015 13:40

Gyan wrote:
I am proposing that "high lighted" portion (which is fiscal deficit?) is better than giving money to parasites/banks. Off course, even Govt has to use the money properly.


no, there is no government deficit created in scheme number 3 above.

the money is merely made cheaper or "inflated".

making the government raise money w/o issuing bonds or raising taxes is a very dangerous thing and can lead to a Zimbabwe melt down.

when a central bank does QE to its member banks as the fed did previously it is a different matter.

the member banks are held accountable for the money and it must be paid back due to the purchased financial instruments that the central bank now owns. the central bank can then slowly redeem the instruments at its leisure as the economy improves. At least that is the theory. member banks are captive clients in this regard. member banks must hold their reserves in government bonds as required by the central bank. the central bank can increase this requirement(sell bonds to the member banks) or reduce the requirement(buy bonds from the member banks) as the central bank sees fit.

under the Zimbabwe solution, the government is not accountable and the money may never come back after it is spent on infrastructure. unless the government raises taxes or issues bonds. however, this almost never works out.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 09 Nov 2015 21:51

Big banks could be forced to raise $1.1tn to avoid Lehman scenario
The G20 wants the world’s largest banks to raise as much as $1.1 trillion by 2022 in debt or other securities to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, according to the Financial Stability Board (FSB).

The regulator which was created by the G20 countries in the aftermath of the crisis, on Monday published its plan for tackling banks seen as “too big to fail”.

"As a consequence, the financing capacity to the real economy is being rebuilt and significant retrenchment from international activity has been avoided," Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said in a letter to G20 leaders ahead of their summit next week.

The FSB’s new rules will apply to the world’s top 30 banks, such as HSBC, JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank. FSB called those banks the most systemically important lenders.

Under the new rules, banking giants will have by January 2019 to hold a financial cushion of at least 16 percent of their risk-weighted assets in equity and debt that can be written off. The minimum total loss absorption capacity (TLAC) requirement will gradually increase; it will reach 18 percent of assets weighted by risk by January 2022.

Last November the regulator was suggesting the minimum TLAC requirement should be as high as 20 percent. A leverage ratio requirement will also be imposed, rising from six percent initially to 6.75 percent.

The measures are said to allow big banks to fail without collapsing markets as was the case with Lehman Brothers in 2008. In the worst case scenario, the banks would have to issue a total of $1.18 trillion in bonds.

“TLAC is crucial,” said US Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs Nathan Sheets. “It’s a very important step forward toward addressing concerns about too big to fail, giving large financial institutions additional buffers that can be drawn on in extremis to protect the taxpayer from having to bail out these institutions.”

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby TSJones » 09 Nov 2015 22:55

IOWs, the banks are being told to raise their reserve levels. this also reduces the money supply.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby panduranghari » 10 Nov 2015 00:55

Gyan wrote:I have still not understood the concept which demands that Govt keep fiscal deficit low while QE high. I don't think this concept has worked anywhere in the world. High QE only funds speculative positions of parasites errr banks. If one wants inflation, why not pump up fiscal deficit (especially infrastructure spend)?


Gyan saar,

Please listen to this very enlightening lecture delivered by Shri Duvvuri Subbarao. Its wonderful to enter the mind of a central banker who speaks with understanding and authority and who has experience of practical implementation of all these complications.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/video ... px?id=1824

member_29247
BRFite
Posts: 287
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby member_29247 » 10 Nov 2015 03:43

Part of Besel III for Capital, Reserves and Risk. Mitigation ( more stringent models, and stress test)

At present about 1/4 % of point increase in reserve ratio will make top 8 banks of the world fail

iIRc under Besel Ii it is 4% in Basel III it will increase to 6% and with better valuation of assets and reserves

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2015 12:03

Ex-GAO head: US debt is three times more than you think
By Bradford Richardson
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -you-think
The former U.S. comptroller general says the real U.S. debt is closer to about $65 trillion than the oft-cited figure of $18 trillion.

Dave Walker, who headed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said when you add up all of the nation’s unfunded liabilities, the national debt is more than three times the number generally advertised.

“If you end up adding to that $18.5 trillion the unfunded civilian and military pensions and retiree healthcare, the additional underfunding for Social Security, the additional underfunding for Medicare, various commitments and contingencies that the federal government has, the real number is about $65 trillion rather than $18 trillion, and it’s growing automatically absent reforms,” Walker told host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970 in an interview airing Sunday.

The former comptroller general, who is in charge of ensuring federal spending is fiscally responsible, said a burgeoning national debt hampers the ability of government to carry out both domestic and foreign policy initiatives.

“If you don’t keep your economy strong, and that means to be able to generate more jobs and opportunities, you’re not going to be strong internationally with regard to foreign policy, you’re not going to be able to invest what you need to invest in national defense and homeland security, and ultimately you’re not going to be able to provide the kind of social safety net that we need in this country,” he said.

He said Americans have “lost touch with reality” when it comes to spending.

Walker called for Democrats and Republicans to put aside partisan politics to come together to fix the problem.

“You can be a Democrat, you can be a Republican, you can be unaffiliated, you can be whatever you want, but your duty of loyalty needs to be to country rather than to party, and we need to solve some of the large, known, and growing problems that we have,” he said.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 11 Nov 2015 15:30

Good Interview

Political Prisoners, Economic Delusions, and Escaping the Next Crisis


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 12 Nov 2015 22:35

Rate Hike or No, Dec. Fed Meeting Will Be Bullish for Gold


TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby TSJones » 12 Nov 2015 23:31

Austin wrote:Over-Hyped Oct. Jobs Report Does Not Assure Dec. Rate Hike.



geez, the guy sure changed his mind didn't he?

he's more full of cr*p than a Christmas turkey.

I do love his videos. Highly amusing. Whut happened to QE?

please Austinji, keep up the good work. :)

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 13 Nov 2015 21:21

^^ Will do :rotfl:

meanwhile CNN says

Americans are buying tons of gold

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby TSJones » 14 Nov 2015 00:12

Austin wrote:^^ Will do :rotfl:

meanwhile CNN says

Americans are buying tons of gold


Yes, my son is having record sales. He now has over 30 thirty salesmen. He is having trouble finding enough US gold eagle coins to sell. I hope it lasts. He is finding enough "bullion coins" but the collectibles in perfect condition are getting tough to find in the volume he needs.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 15 Nov 2015 09:24

Peter Schiff in his new podcast says US never recovered from 2008 recession and going into a new one



Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Satya_anveshi » 15 Nov 2015 23:18

That's because it has seen the light:
We Want Our Markka Back! 50,000 Finns Sign Petition to Leave Eurozone
A petition for Finland to leave the Eurozone has reached more than 50,000 signatures, triggering a compulsory parliamentary debate.


The signatures are currently being verified by Finland's Population Register Center, which will then forward the initiative to parliament

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby Austin » 18 Nov 2015 22:11

panduranghari check this interview


panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Perspectives on the global economic changes

Postby panduranghari » 18 Nov 2015 23:06

Reagan truly had a great team. Stockman, Volcker, Paul Craig Roberts among few. Well Stockman was an insider and he is telling us as it is. US private and public debt is $58 trillion today. The unwinding is going to be bad for most.

Another chap on Reagan's team was George Gelder.

Listen to this one; You will like it.



Money = time,
knowledge = wealth,
learning = growth
-A million dollars in 1913 is now only $20,000 today!
-Velocity (of money) is the freedom to choose to spend or save

Have you read Mass Capitalism ? Its quite good.


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests