The Markets

[switters]

I'm sick of hearing about how the Markets "didn't like this", or the Markets "rallied to that news".

I dont know where these scumbags live, but they have an unhealthy hold on our politicians. It seems to me that whatever the politicos do it's to keep these Market people happy.

They're holding us to ransom, and whoever i talk to have no idea who they are, or where they get their money from. The only thing that is clear is that the Market people love money, and printing money. Our money.

Is there a Marketogonia, or a Marketland? If so can we just invade them and take over their supply of money?

That way instead of our financial security being at the mercy of the Markets, it can be back in our hands again.

Edited December 3, 2011 by switters

[Bear Monger]

I'm sick of hearing about how the Markets "didn't like this", or the Markets "rallied to that news".

I dont know where these scumbags live, but they have an unhealthy hold on our politicians. It seems to me that whatever the politicos do it's to keep these Market people happy.

They're holding us to ransom, and whoever i talk to have no idea who they are, or where they get their money from. The only thing that is clear is that the Market people love money, and printing money. Our money.

Is there a Marketogonia, or a Marketland? If so can we just invade them and take over their supply of money?

That way instead of our financial security being at the mercy of the Markets, it can be back in our hands again.

I think you seriously misunderstand the way things work. I have heard this opinion a few times even in the mainstream and I'm always gobsmacked at the complete lack of understanding. The markets aren't some third party completely unrelated to everything. The markets are you. They are your pensions and your investments. They are just a way of allocating capital in a supposedly efficient way. The markets should be the will of the people to finance projects and businesses that improve standards of living. Unfortunately, they are dysfunctional at the moment but the point still stands.

[Killer Bunny]

No, in short term Goldman and JPM decide.

[justthisbloke]

It sure appears that countries policies are being dictated by the markets.

To a degree, that's how it should be.

If a country is proposing to do things like print huge amounts of money or run an unsustainable deficit then I'm not going to buy their bonds except at a commensurate interest rate. Fear of not being able to borrow cheaply keeps the governments on the straight and narrow relatively.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

I'm sick of hearing about how the Markets "didn't like this", or the Markets "rallied to that news".

I dont know where these scumbags live, but they have an unhealthy hold on our politicians. It seems to me that whatever the politicos do it's to keep these Market people happy.

They're holding us to ransom, and whoever i talk to have no idea who they are, or where they get their money from. The only thing that is clear is that the Market people love money, and printing money. Our money.

Is there a Marketogonia, or a Marketland? If so can we just invade them and take over their supply of money?

That way instead of our financial security being at the mercy of the Markets, it can be back in our hands again.

There's a market down the road from me every Tuesday. Probably one near you as well. They sell fruit and veg and handbags. You should go and let them know how you feel.

[Pent Up]

The makers are me, you and everyone else. It's just some have more power in the makers than others.

[dothemaths]

I think you seriously misunderstand the way things work. I have heard this opinion a few times even in the mainstream and I'm always gobsmacked at the complete lack of understanding. The markets aren't some third party completely unrelated to everything. The markets are you. They are your pensions and your investments. They are just a way of allocating capital in a supposedly efficient way. The markets should be the will of the people to finance projects and businesses that improve standards of living. Unfortunately, they are dysfunctional at the moment but the point still stands.

I have seen this kind of misleading statement again and again in the media

This is a blatant attempt to obfuscate by telling people they are too stupid to understand how the world works using pedantic put downs about imprecise use of language by non-experts.

Actually it is very simple and most people (in the mainstream media or otherwise) understand it.

That is why there is so much rage around from the tea party to the occupy movement.

Most people know that the markets are dominated by large organisations (pension funds etc) which are supposed to allocate

OUR money in an efficient way for OUR benefit (a comfortable retirement, etc) .

What is clear to everyone but the most intellectually challenged is that this HAS NOT BEEN HAPPENING for a VERY LONG while.

No amount of pedantic obfuscation can stop that.

The financial system (let's call it the markets) has increasingly been working for the benefit of a few extremely unscrupulous and wealthy individuals and the detriment of everyone else for several decades.

So when people b***h about the markets, they are actually (in sometimes inarticulate ways) complaining about the state of the financial system AND THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !!!

Of course the world has always been and always will be unequal so the system will always be skewed towards the interests of the wealthy. The problems start when this becomes so extreme that there is no upside at all for the majority.

This is where we are today in the UK and most wealthy countries. It ain't going to be pretty ....

[Sour Mash]

I'm sick of hearing about how the Markets "didn't like this", or the Markets "rallied to that news".

+1

The 'approval' of 'the markets' is apparently what matters these days. Strangely, on the BBC at least 'the markets' always seem to approve things that the government wants to push through that might possibly be unpopular with the public. "We had to do it, it's what the Markets wanted".

[mfp123]

+1

The 'approval' of 'the markets' is apparently what matters these days. Strangely, on the BBC at least 'the markets' always seem to approve things that the government wants to push through that might possibly be unpopular with the public. "We had to do it, it's what the Markets wanted".

because they are important - its your money their investing. everything is a matter of opinion, do you value the opinion of a few people or from millions of people all around the world.

if the cost of debt for something is 6% its because they feel that there is a 6% risk on that money.

risk is a matter of opinion. but the more opinions you have the more accurate the information tends to be.

what is the risk of italy defaulting? how do you assess the risk of a company let alone an entire nation - there are so many variables involved, no one can possibly know all that information. and even if you had all possible information, everyone interprets it differently. there is no correct answer.

one person might say its x another says its y another says its x.1, another will say x.5, the market is just the sum total of everyones opinions.

Edited December 3, 2011 by mfp123

[kilroy]

+1

The 'approval' of 'the markets' is apparently what matters these days. Strangely, on the BBC at least 'the markets' always seem to approve things that the government wants to push through that might possibly be unpopular with the public. "We had to do it, it's what the Markets wanted".

Gordon the fool made us beholden to the debt markets (our creditors), and we will be beholden until we no longer need debt

[Game_Over]

I have seen this kind of misleading statement again and again in the media

This is a blatant attempt to obfuscate by telling people they are too stupid to understand how the world works using pedantic put downs about imprecise use of language by non-experts.

Actually it is very simple and most people (in the mainstream media or otherwise) understand it.

That is why there is so much rage around from the tea party to the occupy movement.

Most people know that the markets are dominated by large organisations (pension funds etc) which are supposed to allocate

OUR money in an efficient way for OUR benefit (a comfortable retirement, etc) .

What is clear to everyone but the most intellectually challenged is that this HAS NOT BEEN HAPPENING for a VERY LONG while.

No amount of pedantic obfuscation can stop that.

The financial system (let's call it the markets) has increasingly been working for the benefit of a few extremely unscrupulous and wealthy individuals and the detriment of everyone else for several decades.

So when people b***h about the markets, they are actually (in sometimes inarticulate ways) complaining about the state of the financial system AND THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !!!

Of course the world has always been and always will be unequal so the system will always be skewed towards the interests of the wealthy. The problems start when this becomes so extreme that there is no upside at all for the majority.

This is where we are today in the UK and most wealthy countries. It ain't going to be pretty ....

The reason this is an even greater crisis than the 1930's is that this is a sovereign debt crisis

GOVERNMENTS in most countries have spent money they haven't got for decades

and to say the rich got all this money is ridiculous

In the UK there are 8 million people who are economically inactive

That is double the population of Ireland who the Government are paying to do nothing

And the cost of this alone dwarfs bankers bonuses

This is why countries are bankrupt.

In the whole of previous history there have always been rich people but never before in history have societies paid poor people more than they could earn to do nothing.

[porca misèria]

Markets are many things. There's a market in town, and a supermarket on the fringe of it.

When the news reports on markets, they're commonly talking about equity and debt. That matters to us all because it's how companies and governments raise money. The government debt markets matter, for reasons certain southern European countries are finding out the hard way. Equity and corporate debt markets matter because if they sicken then companies have to tighten the pursestrings, meaning less investment, less employment, less taxes paid.

[LuckyOne]

I'm sick of hearing about how the Markets "didn't like this", or the Markets "rallied to that news".

I dont know where these scumbags live, but they have an unhealthy hold on our politicians. It seems to me that whatever the politicos do it's to keep these Market people happy.

They're holding us to ransom, and whoever i talk to have no idea who they are, or where they get their money from. The only thing that is clear is that the Market people love money, and printing money. Our money.

Is there a Marketogonia, or a Marketland? If so can we just invade them and take over their supply of money?

That way instead of our financial security being at the mercy of the Markets, it can be back in our hands again.

The reality is that you and I, as well as everyone around us, are the market.

Some of the actions that you take individually (to borrow money and the terms that you choose, how much petrol to use, to change your shopping habits, to change the way that you contribute to your pension, to contribute to a pension at all, whether to save or spend, the policies of the political party that you vote for, your individual investment decisions etc) all help determine what the "market thinks".

Some actions are taken on your behalf (to increase or decrease government spending in absolute terms as well as in specific sectors, possibly the investment choices by any funded pension scheme / endowment policy etc that you might be involved with etc) also help determine what the "market thinks".

People like Goldman and JP Morgan are very good at collating the actions of individuals and organisations and front run these actions in their market making. They anticipate the trends (effectively using their information advantage to front run the market) but don't set them.

[Guest tbatst2000]

Most people know that the markets are dominated by large organisations (pension funds etc) which are supposed to allocate

OUR money in an efficient way for OUR benefit (a comfortable retirement, etc) .

Right, so you'd like them to stick it all in Greek, Portugese and Irish sovereign debt then?

[Game_Over]

Are you saying the 1930's did not involve a sovereign debt crisis?

EDIT: Some help....finally peaked in the 1940's.

http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/cr1.pdf

My understanding is the Stock Market crash precipitated the Great Depression

And that Germany's problems were caused by reparations

Although we had a banking crisis in 2007 the bigger crisis we are now facing is due to the failure of the European Big State Social Welfare model.

And the fact that the US has gone a long way down the road of copying this model.

[porca misèria]

My understanding is the Stock Market crash precipitated the Great Depression

Chicken-and-egg there. The stock market crashed because it had bubbled.

And that Germany's problems were caused by reparations

Reparations (directly equivalent to debt - money they had to pay out) were an element of it, but far from the whole story. The real damage happened when they printed money: their economy looked better for a while before hyperinflation set in.

Although we had a banking crisis in 2007 the bigger crisis we are now facing is due to the failure of the European Big State Social Welfare model.

Not as such. The direct cause is debt: absolute levels (Italy), rate of growth (UK), and indeed both (Greece). Social welfare is just one cause of that debt: HPI and consumption are other major factors. Underlying it all, the politics of kicking a can down the road.

And the fact that the US has gone a long way down the road of copying this model.

The US has a severe case of broken politics!

[Game_Over]

Read my sig.

Read the link I provided.

????????

[Game_Over]

Chicken-and-egg there. The stock market crashed because it had bubbled.

Reparations (directly equivalent to debt - money they had to pay out) were an element of it, but far from the whole story. The real damage happened when they printed money: their economy looked better for a while before hyperinflation set in.

Not as such. The direct cause is debt: absolute levels (Italy), rate of growth (UK), and indeed both (Greece). Social welfare is just one cause of that debt: HPI and consumption are other major factors. Underlying it all, the politics of kicking a can down the road.

The US has a severe case of broken politics!

The bubble was caused by speculation, I think what caused the problems in 2007 was China deciding to spend some of the Trillions of Dollars it had accumulated in the previous 10 years.

And printing money in Germany was the symptom of the problem - not the cause surely?

Also the problem is not debt - the problem is what caused the debt - which is Governments spending more money than they could ever raise in taxation or save in cuts to social welfare programmes.

[porca misèria]

The bubble was caused by speculation, I think what caused the problems in 2007 was China deciding to spend some of the Trillions of Dollars it had accumulated in the previous 10 years.

Of course 2000-2008 was about speculation. Property speculation! Aided by complex and obscure financial instruments.

And printing money in Germany was the symptom of the problem - not the cause surely?

It was a stage in their problem. It provided relief for a while (as happened in 2009), then came the wheelbarrow phase a couple of years later.

Also the problem is not debt - the problem is what caused the debt - which is Governments spending more money than they could ever raise in taxation or save in cuts to social welfare programmes.

As I said, kicking the can down the road for their successors to deal with. Different patterns in different countries. Bear in mind that the demographics of retiring boomers mean that we've been lined up for a crisis for a very long time[1]. The NuLab feelgood since Gordon divorced Prudence in about 2000 of course made it far worse, but

[1] I anticipated a pensions crisis within my working lifetime as far back as the 1980s, when that working life started. An older person with a bit of insight should've seen it at least as far back as when Barbara Castle made the basic state pension an ever-growing ponzi[2].

[2] Thatcher defused that one somewhat, but gave us another round of unrealistic expectations in private pensions.

[catmandu]

I think you seriously misunderstand the way things work. I have heard this opinion a few times even in the mainstream and I'm always gobsmacked at the complete lack of understanding. The markets aren't some third party completely unrelated to everything. The markets are you. They are your pensions and your investments. They are just a way of allocating capital in a supposedly efficient way. The markets should be the will of the people to finance projects and businesses that improve standards of living. Unfortunately, they are dysfunctional at the moment but the point still stands.

Most people know that the markets are dominated by large organisations (pension funds etc) which are supposed to allocate

OUR money in an efficient way for OUR benefit (a comfortable retirement, etc) .

What is clear to everyone but the most intellectually challenged is that this HAS NOT BEEN HAPPENING for a VERY LONG while.

No amount of pedantic obfuscation can stop that.

The financial system (let's call it the markets) has increasingly been working for the benefit of a few extremely unscrupulous and wealthy individuals and the detriment of everyone else for several decades.

So when people b***h about the markets, they are actually (in sometimes inarticulate ways) complaining about the state of the financial system AND THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !!!

Really liked both these posts - both true in their own way.

I also get fed up hearing about what the market wants, and politicians making policies based on keeping the markets happy.

To an extent however it is inevitable. People or countries who try to ignore the real market will feel it's power sooner or later - the issues happening now are caused by people ignoring economic reality. The problem is that the market can take a long time (years!) to react and by that time the damage is often done. Also politicians often simply cannot make some policies unless there is a really serious crisis. As an example, look at the concessions France are making to Germany regarding the Euro. Think how impossible it would be to expect European countries to agree to allow Europe to approve their national budgets. Yet now that's exactly what's being discussed in order to keep the market happy (read:return to economic reality).

I despise the way the market allowed all the manipulation over the last decade, but the one thing you can be sure of is that you will be punished eventually if you ignore the market.

[KingBingo]

I'm sick of hearing about how the Markets "didn't like this", or the Markets "rallied to that news".

I dont know where these scumbags live, but they have an unhealthy hold on our politicians. It seems to me that whatever the politicos do it's to keep these Market people happy.

They're holding us to ransom, and whoever i talk to have no idea who they are, or where they get their money from. The only thing that is clear is that the Market people love money, and printing money. Our money.

Is there a Marketogonia, or a Marketland? If so can we just invade them and take over their supply of money?

That way instead of our financial security being at the mercy of the Markets, it can be back in our hands again.

Always amusing that those who dislike the 'markets' the most are also the ones most keen to borrow money of them.

[Game_Over]

Of course 2000-2008 was about speculation. Property speculation! Aided by complex and obscure financial instruments.

It was a stage in their problem. It provided relief for a while (as happened in 2009), then came the wheelbarrow phase a couple of years later.

As I said, kicking the can down the road for their successors to deal with. Different patterns in different countries. Bear in mind that the demographics of retiring boomers mean that we've been lined up for a crisis for a very long time[1]. The NuLab feelgood since Gordon divorced Prudence in about 2000 of course made it far worse, but

[1] I anticipated a pensions crisis within my working lifetime as far back as the 1980s, when that working life started. An older person with a bit of insight should've seen it at least as far back as when Barbara Castle made the basic state pension an ever-growing ponzi[2].

[2] Thatcher defused that one somewhat, but gave us another round of unrealistic expectations in private pensions.

Personally I think credit was eased in order to cover the fact that the State was taking an unsustainable share of GDP. People did not feel the effect of this because their standard of living increased - funded by debt.

Now people refuse to keep spending by getting further into debt the amount the state is taking from people means that they have nothing left to drive an economic recovery.

So IMO the culprit is the Big State model and the only sustainable solution is a much reduced State and huge reductions is social welfare spending.

And this outcome is inevitable whether it is done in a planned way or the way it is happening in Greece etc.

[Parkwell]

The markets should be the will of the people to finance projects and businesses that improve standards of living. Unfortunately, they are dysfunctional at the moment but the point still stands.

The markets are systemically dysfunctional. It's just no one notices when the stats are going up. Dothemaths is right to say the markets no longer benefit the majority in the UK. We need massive reform.

[porca misèria]

The markets are systemically dysfunctional.

Well then, that creates an opportunity for anyone who can do better to make big money. Only a perfectly optimal market leaves no scope for arbitrage if you can outguess someone else.

Sometimes that really works. When governments interfere, it can produce distortions that are very profitable if you have the flexibility to exploit them. Hence I made a good profit on banking shares in 2008/2009 when the government of the day distorted that market.

['Bart']

The markets are you.

Nahhh, I'm not that fickle or easily swayed.