Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 2010)

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Singha »

I like your points (a), (d) and (g). without a strong return to manufacturing low end goods, most of the neo poor will never find any long running and with-benefits employment.

coming down is always hard, but the currently young in american society have to accept on the avg their living stds while good might not be as
good as their parents. lot of rona dhona and denial accompanies such mental readjustments.....from "essentials" like a 55" TV to a perfectly adequate 32", from a bloated uber expensive leather clad recliner shod in the skin of a poor calf to a fabric upholstered normal sofa.

its basically a comedown from XL-everything to L/M-everything.

also buying a new iThing every one year is not a american constitutional birthright, though the howling mob outside the Temple of the Keeper of the Light might claim otherwise :rotfl:
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1674
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by nandakumar »

McKinsey survey
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Econom ... sults_2672
Access to the full content require prior registration. Key findings are these:
1. The survey claims that 51 per cent of thee xecutives that they had polled claimed that the global economy is on a recovery mode.
2. But the catch here is that fewer people now believe this to be the case than the number that did a year ago.
3. The decline in confidence is sharper in the last one month or so.
4. In a perspective that should worry Mr Obama, most respondents do not expect any permanent change in their companies' workforce size or their geographical location.
ShivaS
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 14:23

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by ShivaS »

Ramana ji said hari Seldon, Has anyone looked at capital accumulation advantage between trading nations with difference in wage structure? I mean suppose a $10/hr wage nation trades with a $1/hr wage nation how does the baalnce of money flows work out over time?
hari Seldon, Has anyone looked at capital accumulation advantage between trading nations with difference in wage structure? I mean suppose a $10/hr wage nation trades with a $1/hr wage nation how does the baalnce of money flows work out over time?

The near anology is Afghan war of US.

The trade between US and PRC is assymetric warfare....

Therefore the model can not be fit into any economic model in which one country basically is free market (nearly) while other is command & control under dictotorial regime.

Imagine the mirror image of US productivity with slave labor of 18 &19th century or the productivity (costs and inputs of Nazi regime with Jewish labor for war economy), that is what is the productivity of PRC labor.

In the 17th century the people of China were (forced) addicted to opium the 21 century Americans were driven to cheap money addiction by GOTUS and Federal reserve, It all started with short term containment of USSR with PRC (from the fountain head of Nixon I am not a crook but Kissinger is) :rotfl:

What you sow so you reap....
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16271
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by SwamyG »

Hari Seldon wrote: (e) print a coupla trillion more and disburse directly to all US households some $50k types to pay down their costliest debt (student, credit card, mortgage) and start anew,
Nice to note that even my "non-economic" view of the government giving the money directly to people instead of the corporations has a variation. Patting myself on the back onlee :-)
ShivaS
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 14:23

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by ShivaS »

SwamyG wrote:
Hari Seldon wrote: (e) print a coupla trillion more and disburse directly to all US households some $50k types to pay down their costliest debt (student, credit card, mortgage) and start anew,
Nice to note that even my "non-economic" view of the government giving the money directly to people instead of the corporations has a variation. Patting myself on the back onlee :-)
Like Charity Economic begins at home (of a married man)
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16271
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by SwamyG »

Hari Seldon wrote:US workers’ poverty reaches 50-year high (FT)
There it is. Read it all.
Reads almost like a western screed lamenting desi <$2 poverty, but with more H&D and less opinion thrown in for a change. IMO, the tempo is building towards some serious policy action. Watch for whether this drip drip drip of media articles to drown into a drumbeat level din clamoring for tough policy action. What next? Bomb Iran?
Here is poverty guidelines for USA:http://www.atdn.org/access/poverty.html
I think the people BPL in USA have it better than their counterparts in India.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16271
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by SwamyG »

ShivaS wrote: Like Charity Economic begins at home (of a married man)
So how much is the overall bail out money? Just around or over a trillion dollars, no? Instead of bailing out the banks or corporations ONLY, they could have sent checks to human beings. Some would have paid their credit card debts, mortgage payments, deposited in the banks, or even spend it on coca colas and potato fries. There is no way, in hell, that when money is given to millions that all of them would hide it on their eazy-chair or bury it in their backyard. Which was different in the case of banks, they did not trust each other. There are about 110 million household or so in America. 50K or 100k to each household would have put the money in people's pockets and ultimately back into the economy.

The banks should have been given just enough to keep the economic system from totally melting and/or hemorrhaging our system. At the most some sort of balance could have been achieved.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Neshant »

Hari Seldon wrote: (b) get marginal tax rates on the top 2% of US earners back upto 80% plus (yup twas there in the 60s and growth and wage growth for the median seemed fine then),
(c) capital controls to prevent capital flight following the tax rates hikes,
(e) print a coupla trillion more and disburse directly to all US households some $50k types to pay down their costliest debt (student, credit card, mortgage) and start anew,
What's needed is a massive slimming down of spending & government - like a 65% reduction. Right now its moving like an unstoppable freight train the other way. Taxing people is going to lead to capital flight along with businesses & innovators fleeing the country.

This tyrannical money printing racket called keynesian economics needs to be given a burial soon before it burys all remaining people who are solvent.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Neshant »

SwamyG wrote:Instead of bailing out the banks or corporations ONLY, they could have sent checks to human beings. Some would have paid their credit card debts, mortgage payments, deposited in the banks, or even spend it on coca colas and potato fries.
What the economy needs are a whole lot less bankers with slly theories, and a whole lot more R&D of products that can be sold domestically and abroad. Now unless someone has a plan for moving ahead with producing something profitably (by which I don't mean banking & financing scams), this ship is beginning to sink.

Printing money, taxing, bailouting, going further into debt are roads to ruin.

I suggest a 50% export rule on importers. i.e. If Walmart is going to import a sh&tload of stuff from China, then under this law they have to balance that off by exporting at least 50% of the value they import back to China. They can export anything but the onus is on them to balance the trade.

Actually I don't like such govt intervention but until this keynesian economic system is buried and honest money comes into being, I see this as the only stop gap measure.
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Hari Seldon »

Our Best Minds Are Failing Us (Newsweek)

Nice, easy read. Nothing really new or anything.

Heck, might as well excerpt the meaty parts....nice quotes peppered throughout the piece, btw.
Finance was once a means to an end: the growth of the real economy. Banking once served industry and services. Now finance has become the end, and the real economy is subservient to financial services (it’s no surprise that after the crisis, over-the-counter derivatives trading quickly climbed back up to more than $600 trillion). “At some point in our recent past, finance lost contact with its raison d’être,”

European Central Bank chief Jean Claude Trichet said earlier this year. “Finance developed a life of its own…Finance became self-referential.” As long as this pathological state of affairs persists, questions of global growth and social welfare will continue to depend on Wall Street and the enduring fallacies of free-market finance.
But one problem is that the economics profession “has gotten much more intolerant of divergence from orthodoxy,” says Philip Mirowski, an economic historian at Notre Dame.
“The range in which dissent happens is so narrow. In a sense they still cannot imagine the system can operate to undermine itself. That is not a position that is allowed anywhere in the economics profession. The field got rid of methodological self-criticism. This Great Moderation stuff was just arrogance, hubris.

Indeed, the joke on economists, says one of them, Rob Johnson, is that they create simplistic models that depend on people behaving as rational actors motivated by self-interest, yet “they have a blind spot regarding themselves.” The way they squabble mulishly to defend now-indefensible positions is itself evidence of how flawed those rational-actor models are.
Amen. Sad but true.

So the systems being dealt with here are complex systems. I get that. So where are the gurus of chao-complexity, the Santa Fe boys, in all this? Not far, as it turns out.....
New thinkers say they are still having trouble breaking in. Among the new NSF grant awardees is J. Doyne Farmer, a physicist at the Santa Fe Institute who is trying to bring the idea of complexity back into economics by making use of advanced computing power to map human economic behavior the way weather or climate change is tracked. But Farmer says he got his $450,000 grant for a three-year study of systemic risks in markets only after a sympathetic NSF case officer overruled negative assessments by “neoclassical economists” who reject any model that doesn’t tend toward general equilibrium. “
{Utter insanity! The general equilibrium model itself banks on axioms - by definitions assertions that can neither be proved nor disproved - but which just got disproved by reality!!!}
The established view just holds this stuff back,” Farmer says.
“One of the dangerous cultural patterns that economics has fallen into is an excessive emphasis on theorem proof for its own sake rather than what gives you scientific results. That’s led to a disdain for computer simulation.”
{Aha. A simulation expert pushing simulation, eh? Where's all that grand talk of conflicted incentives now, eh? Just kiddin'. It shouldn't only be the finance bigwigs and the neta class that gets to talk its book all the time.}
Johnson, who is director of the new Institute for New Economic Thinking funded by George Soros, says: “You do see some new thinking, but it doesn’t get traction in terms of policy. It’s a symptom of how far right society has gone.”
More divisiveness. The right-left dichotomy itself is shown as falsified. The solutions involve plucking truth outta both the libertarian and the socialist playbooks, IMHO. But never the twain shall meet 'cept in hell, seems like.

But surely, the ivory tower types are hopeless anyways. Surely, the political admin must be closer to voter pulse and economic reality?? Sadly, no, it turns out...
The great names in the profession have not necessarily helped. The top economists in the Obama administration—Summers; Christina Romer, the just-departed chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; and her replacement, Austan Goolsbee—are all part of the orthodoxy. ...
As a Harvard professor, Summers wrote after the 1987 stock-market crash that it was impossible to believe any longer that prices moved in rational response to fundamentals. He even cautiously advocated a tax on financial transactions. Yet Summers, one of the world’s most astute economists, later abandoned these positions in favor of Greenspan’s view that markets will take care of themselves.
Naked sellout-giri if I've seen any. Heck, INC psycho-fancy pales in front of what's standard in the khanian khanomic tradition, seems like.
In 1983, a young Stanford economist named Ben Bernanke published the first of a series of papers on the causes of the Great Depression. The financial system, Bernanke said, was not unlike the nation’s electrical grid. One malfunctioning transformer can bring down the whole system. “I’ve never had a laissez-faire view of the financial markets,” Bernanke told me, “because they’re prone to failure.”

Even Friedrich Hayek, the godfather of 20th-century laissez-faire thinking, believed that financial markets were more subject “to bouts of instability,” :eek: says one of his biographers, Bruce Caldwell of Duke University, a self-described libertarian scholar.
Oh, read it all. read it all only.
Last edited by Hari Seldon on 19 Sep 2010 05:18, edited 1 time in total.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by svinayak »

Why free trade is a fraud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List
Friedrich List
Birth August 6, 1789
Death November 30, 1846 (aged 57)
Nationality Württemberg
Field Economics

Georg Friedrich List (August 6, 1789 – November 30, 1846) was a leading 19th century German economist who developed the "National System" or what some[2] would call today the National System of Innovation. He was a forefather of the German historical school of economics,[3] and considered the original European unity theorist[4] whose ideas were the basis for the European Economic Community.[5]


Though List's practical conclusions were different from those of Adam Müller (1779–1829), he was largely influenced by Alexander Hamilton and the American School rooted in Hamilton's economic principles, including Daniel Raymond,[1] but also by the general mode of thinking of America's first Treasury Secretary, and by his strictures on the doctrine of Adam Smith. He opposed the cosmopolitan principle in the contemporary economical system and the absolute doctrine of free trade which was in harmony with that principle, and instead developed the infant industry argument, to which he had been exposed by Hamilton and Raymond.[1] He gave prominence to the national idea and insisted on the special requirements of each nation according to its circumstances and especially to the degree of its development. He famously doubted the sincerity of calls to free trade from developed nations, in particular Britain:


Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth.[8]
His influence among developing nations has been considerable. Japan has followed his model.[16] It has also been argued that Deng Xiaoping's post-Mao policies were inspired by List.[17]

As Marx was not interested in the survival of the capitalist system, he was not really concerned with economic policy, except in so far as the labour movement was involved. There, his argument was concentrated on measures to limit the length of the working day, and to strengthen trade union bargaining power. His analysis was also largely confined to the situation in the leading capitalist country of his day—the UK—and he did not consider the policy problems of other Western countries in catching up with the lead country (as Friedrich List did). In so far as Marx was concerned with other countries, it was mainly with poor countries which were victims of Western imperialism in the merchant capitalist era.[18]

These days, especially heterodox economists, such as Ha-Joon Chang and Erik Reinert, refer to List often explicitly when writing about suitable economic policies for developing countries.

Friedrich List was jailed for his exposure of the fraud of Britain promoting free trade. Every nation that developed successfully did so following the guidelines laid down in his classic written in 1841, rhetoric that they developed under Adam Smith free trade notwithstanding. The same fraud is being imposed upon the world today.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by svinayak »

Britain imposed Adam Smith free trade upon the world even though she developed under protection . So long as the undeveloped world could be made to believe in and follow Adam Smith’s free trade philosophy (as interpreted by neo-mercantilists), they would unwittingly hand their wealth to Britain of their own free will.

The old imperial nations broke themselves battling over the world’s wealth (World Wars I and II) and America took over the job of imposing Adam Smith free trade upon the world. Of course the mighty American military is there to force back in line any who would not accept that philosophy
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Hari Seldon »

^^^ Good points, acharya san.

That old snake oil ain't selling too well anymore for sure. The so-called 'Washington consensus' that promoted hard-resource drain towards the west from the turd world (and let's admit it wasn't quite as bad as naked imperial/colonial exploitation) is now facing serious and perhaps enduring challenge from the so-called 'Beijing model'. Naked mercantilism only. World trade as we know it will never be the same again. Barriers will go up, things will get awry mighty soon, I have been predicting for a while now. Let's see where this goes.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Neshant »

I got a low opinion of Niall Ferguson. The guy was pumping bank bailouts and green shoots, now he's talking collapse. The guy wants to keep his name in the headlines and sell books & documentaries.

None of these guys predicted the blowup so why bother with their foresights now?
Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Carl_T »

Maybe because you cannot predict blowups.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Neshant »

I don't listen to him so it hardly applies to me.

At the very least, I did not lose any money in 2008 nor am I in debt or have a mortgage round my neck. Which is more than can be said of all the lieing financial advisors who led their flock to ruin and charged a fee for their 'expertise' along the way. Expertise in what one wonders.

Only a few people predicted the blow up - Peter Schiff, Nassem Talib, Nouriel Roubini and G. Edward Griffin. There might be a few more but that's about it.

My prediction is that the federal reserve will be shut down in the next 5 years and the money printing fiat racket will come to an end.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Sanjay M »

It's okay to be in debt, if you owe USD-denominated debt invested in foreign holdings. That's why USD-carry-trade is doing so strongly.

It seems like USD-carry-trade is the only sure thing to bet on. This is because US can't revive its competitiveness suddenly overnight, and will either be forced to keep its lending rates low, or else devalue the USD. Either way, the USD-carry-trader wins.

It's a win if the US lending rates stay low, because the carry-trader faces reduced capital costs.
It's a win if the USD devalues, because then amount to pay back falls with it.

Are there any funds invested into the carry trade? Which ones?
Last edited by Sanjay M on 19 Sep 2010 11:39, edited 1 time in total.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1869
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Lisa »

X-Posting from PRC Economy and Industry: News and Discussions
Lisa wrote:
DavidD wrote: And what happens to the U.S. when China comes calling for the debt? The same that happens to anyone who owes a ton of money and has to pay it back? Not quite, right? I think your view is a bit too simplistic.
Simplistic, probably yes but practical. How exactly will China come calling
for the debt. I would be grateful if you could go through the modalities so I
could better understand.

If supply and demand was allowed to take their normal course, China's
RMB would have naturally revalued itself and relative to it US Dollar would
have devalued itself. China for purposes of 'competitiveness' manipulated
the system by artificially supporting the Dollars value and then had the
stupidity to buy the very asset they were artificially supporting!

Now they are in a bind, sell the Dollar and devalue the majority of the
assets they have worked so hard for or carry on supporting an asset which
everyone including them knows full well is not really worth its current value.

I have watched this for some 5-7 years and constantly asked myself 'how
can this carry on'. For those better informed then myself, what would have
been the effect of a free market where RMB revalued itself and Dollar
depreciated to compensate for US excesses and uncompetitiveness. I
think US rates would have risen curtailing both easy credit and the
excesses that we recently saw. Who knows probably a simplistic thought.
kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by kmkraoind »

If no one takes on China, currency wars still loom
As a matter of fact, given weak growth prospects, all the major economic players – the EU, the U.S., Japan, and China – want to have a competitive edge through their currencies.

That used to work as long as U.S. consumption fed by credit could mop up production from the rest of the world. But that’s not happening any more.

And China remains the 10-pound gorilla in the story. The U.S., the E.U. and other nations, we’re told, are afraid of confronting China on their own for fear of losing precious business deals. In the meantime, jobs are being lost everywhere.

Absent individual nations taking on China through tariffs, the Group of 20 major economies meeting next month in South Korea should take a common hard line to put pressure on Beijing.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15178
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Suraj »

And China remains the 10-pound gorilla in the story.
Excellent slip of the tongue in that article :rotfl:
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16271
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by SwamyG »

Neshant wrote:Actually I don't like such govt intervention but until this keynesian economic system is buried and honest money comes into being, I see this as the only stop gap measure.
Jab tak Suraj Chaand rahega, tab tak govt. intervention rahega. Expecting anything else is naive.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by svinayak »

Hari Seldon wrote:^^^ Good points, acharya san.

That old snake oil ain't selling too well anymore for sure. The so-called 'Washington consensus' that promoted hard-resource drain towards the west from the turd world (and let's admit it wasn't quite as bad as naked imperial/colonial exploitation) is now facing serious and perhaps enduring challenge from the so-called 'Beijing model'. Naked mercantilism only. World trade as we know it will never be the same again. Barriers will go up, things will get awry mighty soon, I have been predicting for a while now. Let's see where this goes.
Read this book. I have uploaded for you

Read the few chapters of this book

http://ifile.it/n8lxp9v/why.pdf

http://ifile.it/n8lxp9v

WHY? The Deeper History Behind the September 11th Terrorist Attack
On America 3rd Edition
J.W. Smith
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by svinayak »

Image


The census report gives something of a historical dimension to the fluctuations in the poverty rate in the United States. The 2009 total of 43.6 million is the highest figure since the Census Bureau first began estimating poverty in 1959, arriving at a total of 40 million. The number living in poverty fell to 30 million by 1965, as economic conditions improved during the postwar boom. The “War on Poverty” launched by Lyndon Johnson in that year had some success, cutting the number of poor to a low of 23 million just before the 1974-75 recession. The number living in poverty rose sharply in the 1980s, reaching 40 million 1993, then fell significantly to 31 million in 1999. It has increased steadily since then, a process that accelerated dramatically with the onset of the slump.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/sep20 ... -s17.shtml
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16271
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by SwamyG »

Acharya wrote:Of course the mighty American military is there to force back in line any who would not accept that philosophy
America's Empire of Bases
According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and HAS another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Satya_anveshi »

SwamyG, a more authoritative version is to watch "Speeking Freely" volumes by Chalmers Johnson. They are available on Netflix (at least the Vol 4 is there for free)
Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Chinmayanand »

Acharya wrote: Read this book. I have uploaded for you

Read the few chapters of this book

http://ifile.it/n8lxp9v/why.pdf

http://ifile.it/n8lxp9v

WHY? The Deeper History Behind the September 11th Terrorist Attack
On America 3rd Edition
J.W. Smith
Thanks for sharing the good book.
Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Carl_T »

:lol: This is like buying a put option on your marriage. This might be a good idea, maybe they can package these and sell "divorce insurance" backed securities. An untapped market.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Singha »

well surely a opening packing lots of sub prime marriages into tradeable instruments and selling the risk to investors! for that matter why not securities based on risk of power cuts in california or floods in mumbai or terrorist attacks in peshawar?
where does investing end and gambling begin? or is investing just gambling in posh clothing?
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Hari Seldon »

^^^ Thx for the book upload, acharya san. Interesting perspective, if there were one. Only.

Re that 'Divorce insurance' scheme, the first thing that went off in my head while reading the headline was, unsurprisingly, 'adverse selection'. The scheme will attract packee-lites in droves only.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4856
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Neshant »

More suckers are desparately needed by banking crooks to offload their losses. So expect more printing overtly and covertly.

Plus public sector unions need suckers from the private sector to finance their gold plated retirement pensions.

Dishonest money, central banking, printing and other crooked schemes puts everyone in the habit of expecting others to eat their losses.

------------

New Supply Floods U.S. Housing Market

Written by Jeff Nielson
Thursday, 16 September 2010 11:09

To the surprise of no one (who was paying attention), the U.S. housing market is once again flooded with excess supply – and worse still, the situation is guaranteed to get much, much worse in the months (and years) ahead.

The situation is very simple: there are no buyers and more “homeowners” than at any time in history are incapable of servicing their mortgages (in other words, they aren’t really home-owners). This means that inventories will go straight up, and prices should go straight down. Of course, as I pointed out in a previous commentary, massive U.S. mortgage-fraud (which is greater today than at the heart of the first U.S. housing-bubble) means that even price-data from the U.S. housing market is hopelessly flawed.

To be specific, fraudulent transactions reporting supposed “price gains” of 1000% and more have totally poisoned this data. As a result, no one is capable of saying exactly how fast U.S. house prices are really falling. Using fraud to lie to Americans is nothing new for the U.S. government – and undoubtedly it considers itself very clever to use mortgage-fraud to feign price-gains in the U.S. housing market.

However, all that is being accomplished is that instead of an horrific crash – which finally results in an equilibrium price-level, the U.S. government continues to delay the real, necessary correction in prices. Instead of this crash being spread over merely five to ten years, the U.S. government is ensuring a full generation of slow, steady decay.

As I remind readers regularly, the U.S. “pension crisis” and $70 trillion in “unfunded liabilities” mean that the pensions and social programs which are supposed to support retiring baby-boomers are grossly and hopelessly under-funded. Recipients (with rare exceptions) will only be receiving pennies on the dollar with respect to these benefits.

Holding no assets other than real estate, retiring baby-boomers have a choice between radically reducing their spending (and standards of living) – which will destroy the U.S. consumer-economy – or, they can dump trillions of dollars of real estate onto the market (i.e. at least 10 million more homes).

Meanwhile, even at propaganda-outlets like Bloomberg, they are predicting anywhere from 8 to 12 million more foreclosures/repossessions which are going to be dumped onto the U.S. market over the next few years. By itself, this is several years of supply. In other words, if U.S. homebuilders didn’t build even one house, and U.S. homeowners didn’t sell one home, it would still take more than two years just to clear away all this additional, bank-owned supply.

In the real world, however, U.S. home-builders continue to flood this over-supplied market with new units. U.S. homeowners continue to sell their homes – with large numbers of them being so desperate that they are forced into “short-sales”. And U.S. baby-boomers are just about to start dumping millions of homes, themselves.

There are several things which make this next collapse of the U.S. housing market so much worse than the first. To begin with, price-disparity between different regions/markets in the U.S. has disappeared. Unlike the first U.S. housing-crash – which only really impacted about 1/3 of U.S. homeowners, this next crash will hurt everyone.

Secondly, the government has already done everything it could (after the first crash). Interet rates are literally as low as they can possibly go. The home-buyers subsidy has already lured any Americans who still have any purchasing-power into this market – meaning that there is no reservoir of buying-capital to pull this market out of the next collapse.

The average wages of Americans have been falling (in real dollars) since 1970, making 1970 house-prices a reasonable point-in-time to look at as a possible, long-term equilibrium point for prices. That implies that U.S. house-prices will fall another 75% from current prices. Indeed, with the average American now earning (in real dollars) what their great-grandparents earned during the Great Depression, 1970-prices suddenly look much less far-fetched.

Having fattened-up on 0% “loans” from the government, and their “trading profits” from rigged, U.S. equity-markets, apparently the banksters are finally able to absorb some of the massive write-downs which they must take (on each and every foreclosure/repossession). “Home seizures” by U.S. banks hit a record in August – for the third time in five months. However, with 8 to 12 million homes (at least) to dump onto the market, we should expect these home seizure rates to at least double over the next year.

Even at double the rate of seizures, it would still take more than 4 years just to get all of this excess supply onto the market. And by that time, the house-dumping by cash-strapped, retiring baby-boomers should be just starting to accelerate.

With permanently depressed wages, massive unemployment, the most over-supplied market in history, no personal savings, and an economy in the early stages of a Greater Depression, there is no “light at the end of the tunnel” here – not in five years; not in ten years.

If this nightmare already sounds as bad as it could possibly get, you’re wrong. I (and other commentators) have said for years that reckless U.S. money-printing by the Federal Reserve, and even more reckless fiscal policy from the U.S. government has made U.S. hyperinflation inevitable.

With the entire U.S. economy drowning in $60 trillion in total public/private debt (plus an additional $70 trillion in “unfunded liabilities”), there is no way to even service this mountain of debt with the U.S.’s (relatively) tiny $13-trillion economy. The U.S. government must drive the U.S. dollar down to near-zero – so that all these U.S. dollar-denominated debts “evaporate” with inflation. However, what also evaporates is the wealth of all Americans (or at least all wealth which has not previously been converted into gold and silver).

For Americans desperate to escape out from under crippling, “under-water” mortgages, there is no hope at all for such people when the only potential buyers for their property have currency which will be (literally) worth no more than “Monopoly” money. This is what makes the current disinformation from the U.S. government so despicable. By convincing Americans to delay bailing-out of this dying market, all that the U.S. government is doing is making the financial destruction of these households 100% wipe-outs.

Americans need to escape from their under-water mortgages now – at any/all costs – and convert their wealth to precious metals (the only, real "money"), so that when U.S. hyperinflation hits, their own wealth is 100% “insured”. For those in these financial death-traps, you only have a matter of months (and possibly even weeks) in which to avoid financial catastrophe.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that it willbe some sort of "deflationary crisis" or fears of an imminent debt-default which will LEAD to U.S. hyperinflation. In other words, in REACTION to some deflationary shock, the Fed will engage in "the straw that breaks the camel's back" - a new round of money-printing which causes FOREIGN holders of U.S. dollars to dump all U.S. dollar-denominated assets. It is ultimately NON-Americans who will decide when U.S. hyperinflation begins.

http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/index ... Itemid=132
ShivaS
BRFite
Posts: 701
Joined: 16 Jul 2010 14:23

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by ShivaS »

In other words the cheapest option for a home owner is to walk away from the home and save the money he has now

As I said (I hate this phrase but just wish to draw your attention)
I said there will be deflation, followed by stagflation and then Hyperinflation.

It’s a catch 22 situation.

In a hyperinflation the commodity prices go up by the second, if that is so then its better to hold an asset called home which will also inflate but the problem is the house (or homes) will become like Kohinoor (rock) It valuation is high but there wont be buyers….

Capital flight will occur faster than Zimbabwe style, I shudder at that thought
Well any way

In God we trust in the long run but in the short run trust the fed!
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1674
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by nandakumar »

Singha wrote:well surely a opening packing lots of sub prime marriages into tradeable instruments and selling the risk to investors! for that matter why not securities based on risk of power cuts in california or floods in mumbai or terrorist attacks in peshawar?
where does investing end and gambling begin? or is investing just gambling in posh clothing?
singha
As i understand it, if you are already exposed to some risk and whatever you do that has the effect of mitigating it either fully or partially then you are behaving in a rational manner. On the other hand, when you are not exposed to any particular risk but you do something that results in your loading up that risk upon yourself then you are behaving in a reckless manner. An act of gamble results in precisely that- adding to the sum total of risks that you are exposed to already. Let us say you had no particular concern whether a particular horse wins the Indian Turf Invitation Cup or not. Your risk on the outcome is zero. But you wager a thousand rupees on the outcome and if the horse that you backed didn't emerge the winner then you are out of money by Rs 1000. In other words, by your action of wagering on a horse race you have added to the sum total of risk that you were exposed to, at that point of time. Take the case of investing. This implies that you have some loose spare cash. At that point of time, you run the risk of the surplus losing some value should you simply keep the money buried in some mud pot at home. The white ants may get at it. Even if they didn't you would have lost some purchasing power thanks to inflation. The point therefore is, investing is an act of mitigating risk. Of course not all acts need result in mitigation of the initial risk. You could do worse than keeping it in the mud pot at home by investing in the next multi-star cast mega blco buster movie ADAG Group's Bigflicks or whatever company that he manages. But the point is gambling should be distinguished from investing by net change in the sum total of risks. You had also mentioned about betting on power cuts in California. Now if you run a business that requires power supplied by the local utility and a power cut results in the customer cancelling the order and worse slap you with a liquidated damages for loss of his profits, your act of buying a futures contract for 'x' untis of power at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange may be one way of mitigating the risk of order cancellation and payment of liquidated damages. But sitting in Bangalore and investing in a futures contract at the CME using your NRI dollars to do the same would be gambling. More so, if the RBI realises that you hadn't been permitted to keep them in the first place!
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Hari Seldon »

nandkumar garu,

Interesting comments. Contribution appreciated. Kindly break your commentary into multiple paras for better structuring and easier readability, though. Here's a tip - even random para breaks are fine. Looking fwd to more from you.
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Hari Seldon »

The Stagnating Labor Market (pdf)

A Roosevelt institute paper on 'root causes' of the current structurally high unemployment scenario. Conclusions reached seem almost obvious bit academic and empirical rigor provide citable references for further arguments down this road, at least.
Why is unemployment so bad in this recession? There are two theories at work. The first is a story of aggregate demand. The second theory is one of a mismatch in skills.
...
There’s been a recent series of influential papers that argues that structural unemployment doesn’t happen at the sector level but instead at the occupational level.

Workers, after all, don’t work sectors; they work occupations. One can be a maintenance worker or an accountant for a manufacturing firm or for a high-tech start up. If the demand for skills moves between maintenance workers and accountants, you could see problems in all sectors, even though it’s still a change in the demand for occupational specific human capital.

Looking at this too we see the same exact pattern: every one of the nine occupations we obtained data on had a doubling, at least, of underemployment. Services employees are twice as likely to be working part-time for economic reasons as they were before the recession began, for instance.
Conclusion:
Everywhere we look, across occupations and sectors, people with the skills to work their jobs are more likely to be working part-time for economic reasons in 2010 than they were before the recession. This is a story of aggregate demand, not a story of skills mismatch.
Policy Prescription:
In light of the political climate and the impending elections, government officials may be loath to address this problem frontally. Such an approach, while politically expedient may be disastrous for the economy and for social welfare.

If the issues of long term unemployment and the large number of people dropping out of the labor force are not addressed soon then what is an aggregate demand problem can become a structural problem through hysteresis effects.
{Meaning the rubber of unemployment stays stretched even after the stressful khanomic conditions doing the stretching are later removed}
Officials need to act in a bold and imaginative manner to repair the labor markets dysfunctions-much as Roosevelt did-or risk entrenching the social misery that engulfs many Americans today.
Good read, IMO.
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Hari Seldon »

The Anger of the Rich

Seldom have I agreed with Paul Krugman, especially of late. But this piece I find myself more agreeing with than disagreeing with.

Read it all only. No point excerpting or anything. Would kill sri Krugman's polemical style, I guess.
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1674
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by nandakumar »

Hari Seldon wrote:nandkumar garu,

Interesting comments. Contribution appreciated. Kindly break your commentary into multiple paras for better structuring and easier readability, though. Here's a tip - even random para breaks are fine. Looking fwd to more from you.
Dear Hari Seldon
Thanks for the comment. Yes, will break it into smaller paras in future.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Sanjay M »

Hari Seldon wrote:The Anger of the Rich

Seldom have I agreed with Paul Krugman, especially of late. But this piece I find myself more agreeing with than disagreeing with.

Read it all only. No point excerpting or anything. Would kill sri Krugman's polemical style, I guess.
Obama and Krugman would like to play Santa Claus with other peoples' money, building roads and bridges to nowhere.

I agree with Steve Forbes' call for a flat tax. That's a sign of an advanced economy. Even Russia now has it.
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4955
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Perspectives on the global economic meltdown (Jan 26 201

Post by Tanaji »

ShivaS wrote:In other words the cheapest option for a home owner is to walk away from the home and save the money he has now

As I said (I hate this phrase but just wish to draw your attention)
I said there will be deflation, followed by stagflation and then Hyperinflation.

It’s a catch 22 situation.

In a hyperinflation the commodity prices go up by the second, if that is so then its better to hold an asset called home which will also inflate but the problem is the house (or homes) will become like Kohinoor (rock) It valuation is high but there wont be buyers….

Capital flight will occur faster than Zimbabwe style, I shudder at that thought
Well any way

In God we trust in the long run but in the short run trust the fed!
Genuinely confused . I thought demand and supply determines the market prices. If there are no buyers, why would the market valuation be high?
Locked