Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Minderbinder

Members
  • Posts

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Minderbinder

  1. Generally, Krugman's objectives (as its his article we're posting about) are: restoring a stable economy with full employment. Of the many who disagree with his prescriptions I imagine the majority are less concerned than he is about full employment. Also, he reckons near full-employment is part of the Fed's remit and just as important an objective as their others. He's largely critising people (Fed, Obama, Republicans, whoever) for either not doing what's required(*) to restore full employment or for not caring about it. * Of course, many may argue about whether or not his prescriptions will restore full-employment, but I reckon that's a secondary issue.
  2. zerohedge Dexia's midnight runners? I'll get me coat.
  3. It's just been published and it's 400 pages long. I'll get back to you in a month or two.
  4. "Extreme QE" is being considered because government bond prices have risen.
  5. In an innoucuous sounding article, 'Are UK and US turning Japanese?' pesto drops this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14589325
  6. Another well-known left-wing economist, Robert Reich agrees with you: http://robertreich.org/post/1344561814 http://robertreich.org/post/1224694203
  7. For a mere 12.73 quid Howard Davies, director of the London School of Economics and founding chairman of the Financial Services Authority will tell you the answers: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Financial-Crisis-Who-blame/dp/074565164X Apparently there were 38 causes. Nod to Peston for pointing this out: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/09/cause_39_of_the_banking_crisis.html
  8. He's suggesting the BoE's QE program as the best route away from deflation so for; a better approach than US, Japan etc efforts at QE. It'll be interesting to see if he can reverse Hull's deflationary spiral when the season starts.
  9. Interesting post from Krugman who is now strongly advocating protectionism against China: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/capital-export-elasticity-pessimism-and-the-renminbi-wonkish/
  10. As of the middle of last year, Stephanie Flanders was of the opinion that the BoE were money stock proponents: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/07/does_size_matter.html
  11. Good thread. I've been thinking along fairly similar lines lately, but with a slightly less dark and conspiratorial perspective. I found my way to this via Dr Bubb at the other place: http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2005/1003.html The relevent bit is the diagram of 'Greenspan's money machine'. No doubt this basic mechanism is well known and well documented. But its obvious what's wrong: the west grows its debt as China grows its reserves. Or China gets richer at the west's expense. But otherwise its a virtuous circle. Employment increases in China, living standards improve there; the west benefits from re-investment from China as well as lower priced manufactured goods produced there - so living standards increase on both sides. The trouble is it looks unsustainable. Surely the west's debt can only grow so far (i.e. slightly beyond its ability to repay) before something breaks? I still think so, but now I'm not so sure. I wonder if it just doesn't work that way any more. If near-zero interest rates can be maintained for a long, long time then it could go on for a long, long time? If in the west can just continue to pile on the debt because we only have to be able to service it and roll it over, and with ZIRP that's easy. And the big game in reality is improved living standards on both sides. No doubt it breaks down eventually, but when? 200 years from now? It just has to keep going until living standards are equivalent all over.
  12. I'm ready to buy in a hurry if the economic landscape changes suddenly, or defer for longer if it looks like heavy house price falls will continue longer than most expect. But I think I'll most likely buy around 18 months from now.
  13. ParticleMan (an FX dealer, I think) has suggested on other threads that it is extremely risky to put your savings into another currency, and it is an uneccessary risk. I'll post a link when I can find it.
  14. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home So the US government is openly admitting that their massive intervention is only an attempt to keep the unemployment rate in single figures. Yikes.
  15. But there is no whiff of inflation. They see a deflating economy. So they buy goverment bonds for safety. Until we return to an inflationary environment. In a deflationary environment there is nowhere else for them to put there money and get a decent return. Its all too risky. They will stick with government bonds. They will continue to buy a government's bonds unless they decide that particular government is in imminent danger of default.
  16. Interesting snippet from acrossthecurve: http://acrossthecurve.com/?p=3048
  17. But far more people lived in abject poverty, without healthcare, infant mortality was high and life expectancy low. Randomly googled article: http://www.geocities.com/victorianmedicine/healthtrends.html
  18. Pesto's reporting that Jamie Dimon at Davos argued against a central clearing system for inter-bank transactions http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ro...onsibility.html I don't get it. I thought the point of a central clearing system was that it would have a complete picture of who was exposed to who, and so would be more able to see risks? Individual banks can't see what other exposures their counter-parties have so can't do that, i.e. the can "think long and hard about who they're lending to and why" but can't come up with the right answer. Am I talking b***ocks? Or is Dimon's argument b***ocks? Or is the article b***ocks?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.