CokeSnortingTory

No it's funded by the savings of Asian factory workers and the imaginary returns from future "growth".

As I have pointed out elsewhere, a hung parliament means a coalition government, which means much more severe cuts as the ruling parties can share/dissipate the blame, just as has happened in Ireland. Clear election victories (for any party, even one led by Thatcher) have never seen severe public spending cuts in the past, and they won't do in the future. Once more, the market reveals its deep stupidity by misunderstanding which scenario is most likely to lead to its desired outcome.

I think this is correct. What many people forget is that, for all the hype about Wall Street, the US is a fundamentally legal society - it was after all founded by a cabal of dissatisfied British lawyers. I think what we may be seeing here is an example of the legal correction mechanisms within the USA cranking into action - revealing that ultimately the lawyers are more powerful than the financiers.

The size of the cuts and job losses will depend on whether or not we get a hung parliament and coalition government. The cuts/job losses will obviously be greater if we do get a coalition government, simply because coalition parties can more easily share/deflect the blame with one another whereas a single party can't. It's notable that Ireland has a coalition gov't. Obviously the "markets", being irrational and stupid, think the opposite is the case.

Don't see any recent historical evidence that the Chinese are particularly smart - quite the opposite. I don't think that they're any more in control of this process than the Americans. It will be interesting to see if the Americans will be willing to allow the Chinese to buy real US assets. I suspect not - which will result in accusations of currency manipulations followed by trade protectionism. (Then war).

Don't let it keep you from ploughing your lonely furrow, oh wise one.

Professor Yaffle in the ah-ree-ahhhhh.

I think RK is suggesting that the USD may hold value, which is the contrarian bet at the moment.

Loving the HPC punditocracy in action. http://www.online-betting-guide.co.uk/horse_racing.php

It's the debt repudiation that will probably trigger the war.

The SEC are the least of Goldman's problems. The real danger they and their allies face is from Neil Barofsky, the Inspector General of the Treasury Department, who has spent the last year investigating the misappropriation of TARP funds. He's already stated that he's uncovered clear evidence of fraud and is promising that there will be handcuffs being used. He and Cuomo (who is following a totally different trail) are much more potent enemies than the SEC. I think if GS fail, it will be a death of a thousand cuts - they are too big to take down in one go, but a miring in legal action with a consequent draining of "credibility" will eventually do for them.

Financial modelling = climate modelling = worthless nonsense.

When base rates are at or near 0%, its safest to assume that all assets are in a bubble.

It would only have the same effect if the extra Euro's given to the Germans were confiscated beforehand from the Greeks, Portuguese etc. Otherwise you're just QE-ing.

Oil protectionism would certainly be a good thing for the Arabs, which is why the US has a military presence in the ME encouraging them not to.

They won't reciprocate because they were never stupid enough to sell their utilities and most strategically important industries to foreigners in the first place. Which is why you don't get UK companies owning French or German or Italian etc. energy, water or heavy manufacturing companies. Our great leadership are slowly (painfully slowly) coming round to the realisation that we were the only country in the world stupid enough to practice by-the-book free trade, while all our competitors ("partners" rofl) have been sniggering behind their hands at us. This proposal is an obvious example of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. What they should be doing is assessing which strategically important companies have fallen into foreign ownership due to excessive leverage (I would suggest they start with Pilkington Glass) and look at introducing a law to bring them back into UK ownership. And bugger what our "partners" think.

I keep saying this, but you really are better off putting your money on the horses. Until Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan announce a tie-up with William Hill etc.

I can't help thinking that your answer's there.

He's just guessing / offering a post-hoc rationalisation as to why it hasn't cranked back up to its 2007 highs. Methinks he's never head of Goldman Sachs.

Yes, the countries that don't default are going to appear awfully stupid after the runs of defaulting start. I think the USA is definitely going to default (because who's going to tell them that they can't?), so it's best to follow them.

Is the correct answer. Amazing how long HPC threads can go before somebody who actually understands what's going on turns up.

I think what you are saying is that the opposition between "the state" and "the market" is a false binary, which is true, in that both are the wholly unnatural results of a certain complex level of social development beyond the egalitarian norm. Egalitarianism predates the market. There is no ontological connection between the two.

Prechter's analysis is right, but his timing is completely wrong. Which of course makes him the perfect HPC icon.

This isn't my "argument" - I speculated that increasing complexity (with regard to trade amongst other things) tended to lead to the formation of specialised groups to facilitate and/or regulate the various activities within that complexity, and that these groups would tend to coagulate into a state. Didn't say anything about it being overpowering though. ******in' 'ell. Metaphysical economics.

Eh?