Global financial system implosion begins
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Here's a quick one - no one fucking knows. Not cynicus, not Mervyn King, not BHO, not Warren Buffet, not Jessie Dog. NO-ONE.
So you might as well get a decade long calendar poster and throw a dart at it and say 'That's when the recession will end/housing market bottom out' because it's about as likely to be right as anyone elses guess.
So you might as well get a decade long calendar poster and throw a dart at it and say 'That's when the recession will end/housing market bottom out' because it's about as likely to be right as anyone elses guess.
gosub
~#
Concure, but think interest rates will rise and steeply to counter CPI based inflation caused by low £ and rising oil prices.
This ^
Although I think cynicus is right about one thing; that it won't be any time particularly soon.
Indeed.
Thread over then?
Or even hire a barrelfull of blindfolded monkeys (on expenses, of course,) to throw darts for you.
Or you could even give an opinion based upon an in-depth reading and assessment of (or even a complete ignorance of,) the best data available that you've been able to garner, thus far, from a fairly a diverse array of global sources.
Do you think that there will really be a return to 3.5% growth in UK GDP in 2010 as the UK govt. predicts, and a return to the good-old-days of recent property prices, as soon as "credit is flowing again" and the first-time-buyers get their shit together?
I don't.
Woof
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
No to both, altho my expectation would be that growth will be about 2% and the housing market will have bottomed out overall, with specific property types holding and increasing in value - for example, I've noticed locally that ground floor 2 bed flats/2 bed houses/ flats with communual gardens haven't dropped for about 4 months now and aren't hanging around too long in the agency windows.
As for the rest of the world...who knows? The OECD published it's CLI report today that indicates that France, UK, Italy are looking like they've bottomed out in terms of negative growth; then again another group will probably report that things have never looked worse - altho both come with the caveat that a group like the OECD have a generalised interest in talking the economy up, others especially banks who are making money on falling markets have an interest in talking things down.
All I know is that predictions are pointless (much like this thread, you're right) because you just end up with confirmation bias of what you think/want to happen.
As for the rest of the world...who knows? The OECD published it's CLI report today that indicates that France, UK, Italy are looking like they've bottomed out in terms of negative growth; then again another group will probably report that things have never looked worse - altho both come with the caveat that a group like the OECD have a generalised interest in talking the economy up, others especially banks who are making money on falling markets have an interest in talking things down.
All I know is that predictions are pointless (much like this thread, you're right) because you just end up with confirmation bias of what you think/want to happen.
Thread over then.
Oh well.
*goes off to look at some midget/doggie/gaping/hairy/ebony/grandpa/cup pr0n*
Ahhhh.
That's better.
Woof
Could be. I vaguely remember reading something in the press from two different experts predicting that this year would look like an inverse square root sign.
If I remember the correctly the shape of a square root sign, would be a small rise, followed by a further steep fall.
Official unemployment figures has went up about 200,000 to around 2.2million. And that's a very narrow measure, which doesn't include all sorts of other technically unemployed. Someone was telling me that they thought it could up to 4 million. Even 3 million would translate into a massive drop in demand.
Was thinking yesterday about how the rise of unemployment could be reduced, and in fact new jobs could be created, by introducing controls on the over-work culture of OVER-employment (people working in excess of 35/40 hours a week in a combination of 1 or more jobs). Companies that are in the habit of having staff week in week out working overtime, could create new jobs by actually consolidating that regular overtime into fresh vacancies.
It would be unpopular though in situations where underpaid and low paid workers are backed against a wall into working overtime to supplement low wages.
I agree with you kyser_soze. The biggest geopolitical shift since 1989. Where it goes nobody knows.
Often inaccurate but not pointless. There's more to it than that.
A massive increase in the minimum wage would stimulate demand. Little chance of that happening though.
One thing that I recently read that blows my mind, is that 48% of all UK employees derive their salary from the state (through taxpayers).
I guess this includes government funded NGO's and charities, various quangos and other taxpayer funded activity, etc.
I'm a socialist and I live in a relatively socialised society/region - 51% of households live in social housing, our healthcare system is paid for through general taxation, is at least as good as/probably better than the NHS and (on top of tax,) at the point of delivery, costs GBP 4:00 per GP visit including all prescribed medicine, GBP 7:00 per specialist visit including all tests, scans, whatever and all medicine, and GBP 11:50 per night for hospital in-care including all tests, scans, scopes, operations, medicine, specialist care, etc. etc. Accident and emergency care costs GBP 7:00.
Repeat prescriptions (of multiple drugs - as many as needed and for as long as six months at a time,) cost GBP 1:10.
If any resident of the region (7,000,000 people) is unable to pay.......all this care is free of charge.
60% of working people pay no income tax at all.
A family of four needs to earn over US$ 50,000 a year before they hit the LOWEST income tax band of 2%. Thereafter, salaries are taxed increasingly (on the excess only, obviously,) up to a maximum of 20%. But the maximum anyone will, overall, pay in salaries tax is 15% of their income.
And yet, our total public expenditure is consistantly less than 20% of GDP and, taken in total, our politicians, our executive, our (relatively hardworking and efficient,) civil service, our quangos, our government sponsered bodies, etc. etc. - in terms of salaries, amount to about 12% of our working people being paid through the public purse.
We have recently (over the last decade or so,) entered a period of debate as to whether our health service will be sustainable over the long term if funded through such a narrow-base of general taxation and are, generally, willing to pay more at the point of delivery, as long as, and only as long as, those residents unable to afford the neccessary care are still allowed to avail themselves of the system FREE of charge.
We don't have the best welfare system and are far from being an equal society (possibly the highest Gini Coefficient in the world, approaching 0.54), and yet, those 50%+ of familes in public housing (mostly on social welfare and with at least 50,000 poor immigrants a year adding to this "burden" of welfare,) recieve free housing, healthcare, education for their kids, and cash for their needs - not perfect, but we have NO homeless and NO street sleepers (other than the few-dozen local "characters" who are well known and provided for).
And, in the meantime, we have no internal or external debt.
NONE!
Think about it.
We owe not a penny to anyone. No Gilts. No Savings Bonds. No Treasuries. No borrowings. No Quantitative Easing. No Printing money.
No debt for our citizens (or their children,) to repay. None!
And this is despite our engaging in a massive, ongoing, ANNUAL, socialist-splurge of taxpayers money on "infrastructure projects" that create a few thousand, low-paying construction jobs and, meanwhile, also line the pockets of the few, family-owned, immensly-wealthy, property developers that have run this city for decades (the cunts - we have an unholy trinity of the Govt. the Banks and the Property Developers).
And yet we still have the equivalent of, about, US$ 130,000,000,000 (US$ 130 billion,) sitting in (effectively,) cash in the bank.
And, while I appreciate that this kind of apples-and-oranges comparision will never cut the mustard in any academic sense, these numbers simply make no sense to me.
So, while I remain a socialist, I simply cannot see that any society will be sustainable if it tries to follow the idea that nearly 50% (as opposed to @ 10%,) of workers will be paid for by taxation in a society where the government has already acknowledged that they will rack up new debts getting towards GBP 1,000,000,000,000 (yup, a trillion of GBP,) within less than a half decade.
Frankly, it's bollocks!
As I've mentioned previously, the world is changing.
I'm changing the last of my total wordly wealth (which equals about a thousand quid - other than me ragged clothes and mongrel dogs, of course,) into Yuan (Remnembi,) tomorrow. The Yuan has appreciated against the dollar by over 20% in the last five years and is just begging to become the new global reserve currency within the next five to ten years.
The massive, macroeconomic imbalances that have been caused by the capitalists' push for "globalisation" are about to begin to unwind. And when the unwinding of the spring spirals into a whiplash, the consequences for those indebted nations and individuals that are unprepared, will be harsh.
Very harsh!
I'll be poor - and then dead, long dead - before this one pans out.
Blessings one and all......
May you live in interesting times
Woof
I guess this includes government funded NGO's and charities, various quangos and other taxpayer funded activity, etc.
I'm a socialist and I live in a relatively socialised society/region - 51% of households live in social housing, our healthcare system is paid for through general taxation, is at least as good as/probably better than the NHS and (on top of tax,) at the point of delivery, costs GBP 4:00 per GP visit including all prescribed medicine, GBP 7:00 per specialist visit including all tests, scans, whatever and all medicine, and GBP 11:50 per night for hospital in-care including all tests, scans, scopes, operations, medicine, specialist care, etc. etc. Accident and emergency care costs GBP 7:00.
Repeat prescriptions (of multiple drugs - as many as needed and for as long as six months at a time,) cost GBP 1:10.
If any resident of the region (7,000,000 people) is unable to pay.......all this care is free of charge.
60% of working people pay no income tax at all.
A family of four needs to earn over US$ 50,000 a year before they hit the LOWEST income tax band of 2%. Thereafter, salaries are taxed increasingly (on the excess only, obviously,) up to a maximum of 20%. But the maximum anyone will, overall, pay in salaries tax is 15% of their income.
And yet, our total public expenditure is consistantly less than 20% of GDP and, taken in total, our politicians, our executive, our (relatively hardworking and efficient,) civil service, our quangos, our government sponsered bodies, etc. etc. - in terms of salaries, amount to about 12% of our working people being paid through the public purse.
We have recently (over the last decade or so,) entered a period of debate as to whether our health service will be sustainable over the long term if funded through such a narrow-base of general taxation and are, generally, willing to pay more at the point of delivery, as long as, and only as long as, those residents unable to afford the neccessary care are still allowed to avail themselves of the system FREE of charge.
We don't have the best welfare system and are far from being an equal society (possibly the highest Gini Coefficient in the world, approaching 0.54), and yet, those 50%+ of familes in public housing (mostly on social welfare and with at least 50,000 poor immigrants a year adding to this "burden" of welfare,) recieve free housing, healthcare, education for their kids, and cash for their needs - not perfect, but we have NO homeless and NO street sleepers (other than the few-dozen local "characters" who are well known and provided for).
And, in the meantime, we have no internal or external debt.
NONE!
Think about it.
We owe not a penny to anyone. No Gilts. No Savings Bonds. No Treasuries. No borrowings. No Quantitative Easing. No Printing money.
No debt for our citizens (or their children,) to repay. None!
And this is despite our engaging in a massive, ongoing, ANNUAL, socialist-splurge of taxpayers money on "infrastructure projects" that create a few thousand, low-paying construction jobs and, meanwhile, also line the pockets of the few, family-owned, immensly-wealthy, property developers that have run this city for decades (the cunts - we have an unholy trinity of the Govt. the Banks and the Property Developers).
And yet we still have the equivalent of, about, US$ 130,000,000,000 (US$ 130 billion,) sitting in (effectively,) cash in the bank.
And, while I appreciate that this kind of apples-and-oranges comparision will never cut the mustard in any academic sense, these numbers simply make no sense to me.
So, while I remain a socialist, I simply cannot see that any society will be sustainable if it tries to follow the idea that nearly 50% (as opposed to @ 10%,) of workers will be paid for by taxation in a society where the government has already acknowledged that they will rack up new debts getting towards GBP 1,000,000,000,000 (yup, a trillion of GBP,) within less than a half decade.
Frankly, it's bollocks!
As I've mentioned previously, the world is changing.
I'm changing the last of my total wordly wealth (which equals about a thousand quid - other than me ragged clothes and mongrel dogs, of course,) into Yuan (Remnembi,) tomorrow. The Yuan has appreciated against the dollar by over 20% in the last five years and is just begging to become the new global reserve currency within the next five to ten years.
The massive, macroeconomic imbalances that have been caused by the capitalists' push for "globalisation" are about to begin to unwind. And when the unwinding of the spring spirals into a whiplash, the consequences for those indebted nations and individuals that are unprepared, will be harsh.
Very harsh!
I'll be poor - and then dead, long dead - before this one pans out.
Blessings one and all......
May you live in interesting times
Woof
Too fuckin' right!
I've been trying to make sense of it since 1973.
But the numbers still don't fucking add up.
Woof
xes
F.O.A.D
Pah, that's what you reckons, any fule knows that the financial implosion ends this year, but then 2012 mass die out, will be caused by...
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
UK outlook revised from stable to negative by S&P rating agency 
elbows
Well-Known Member
UK outlook revised from stable to negative by S&P rating agency
Ooh bad timing!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aiErRZYseXrU&refer=uk
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
Market's current thinking is that if the UK is downgraded then some more Euroland countries will follow, with the consequences of a US downgrade being thought through atm
g force
Affects Shatner's Basoon
Timed entirely to try and fuck over the gov't too...not actually based on any 'facts' at their disposal. OF course UK outlook is negative we're in recession so odd they've suddently chnaged it now.
Ratings Agencies are fucking idiots.
The Debt Management Office completed the biggest ever auction (by value placed) of gilts in history with far more bids than it needed. Hardly suggests a panic.
Ratings Agencies are fucking idiots.
The Debt Management Office completed the biggest ever auction (by value placed) of gilts in history with far more bids than it needed. Hardly suggests a panic.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
The question that seems obvious to me is how might the government create a system where the banks which fail can be allowed to fail while still maintaining the supply of money to their customers. The government had no real choice but to pump money into failed banks as the alternative was their customers losing all their hard earned money.
Thus the move towards the mutuals. But I would suggest that the government might nationalise the atm's and thus use them to provide money while the bank goes into liquidation and the accounts get passed to another bank.
As it is the regulatory reform will probably just be the insistence on higher deposits being held by banks - leading ironically to a reduction in the money supply and a worsening of the recession/depression...
Surely the nationalisation of the credit ratings agency should be a minimum...
Thus the move towards the mutuals. But I would suggest that the government might nationalise the atm's and thus use them to provide money while the bank goes into liquidation and the accounts get passed to another bank.
As it is the regulatory reform will probably just be the insistence on higher deposits being held by banks - leading ironically to a reduction in the money supply and a worsening of the recession/depression...
Surely the nationalisation of the credit ratings agency should be a minimum...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Ratings agencies interefering with national elections again.
I think it would have cost a lot less to allow some of the banks to fail, and just re-imburse the small depositors deposits.
If they bet all their money on stupid ill-understood financial jiggery-pokery, why should the taxpayer bear the cost of bailing them out?
If a couple of "High Street" banks had been allowed to fail it would have made the remaining ones more careful to stick to what they should be doing - taking people's deposits and making prudent loans.
They could have turned the disused bank offices into new branches of Ladbrokes - you would probably be making less risky investments in there.
Giles..
If they bet all their money on stupid ill-understood financial jiggery-pokery, why should the taxpayer bear the cost of bailing them out?
If a couple of "High Street" banks had been allowed to fail it would have made the remaining ones more careful to stick to what they should be doing - taking people's deposits and making prudent loans.
They could have turned the disused bank offices into new branches of Ladbrokes - you would probably be making less risky investments in there.
Giles..
A Dashing Blade
Takes horses to water but can't make donkeys drink
Those people whose wages were in transit between employer's (failed) bank and there personal acounts?
Those small/medium/large business whose accounts were with that bank?
+ how many peeps would be queuing to remove all money at a good bank?
This is why it's always been inconceivable that a UK retail bank (Lloyds, HSBC, Barclays, NatWest/RBS) would ever be allowed to go under
I think that they should be allowed to fail. What would have happened would be that a competitor would have taken over the basic banking services "as is". The shareholders and other companies that they had bought and sold dodgy mortgage backed securities and stuff would have lost out.
Its good for people to lose trust in people and organisations that do not deserve that trust. Like with politicians at the moment.
Giles..
What the hell do you mean?
The rating agencies were paid damn well for those ratings (by the people issuing the debt, of course).
If somebody is now paying them enough for them to issue a potential downgrade on "UK Plc's" debt, then that's what the market decides.
Who are you to denigrate "the market"?
If the govt. can't even raise enough capital to compete in funding (obviously through intermedieies, of course,) the "correct" rating for UK Plc's debt, then it might appear that their ability to repay that debt should be subject to a review.....Oh wait.....!
Gotta love "The Market", eh?
S/he who pays, wins.
Yummy!
Woof
gosub
~#
What the hell do you mean?
The rating agencies were paid damn well for those ratings (by the people issuing the debt, of course).
If somebody is now paying them enough for them to issue a potential downgrade on "UK Plc's" debt, then that's what the market decides.
Who are you to denigrate "the market"?
If the govt. can't even raise enough capital to compete in funding (obviously through intermedieies, of course,) the "correct" rating for UK Plc's debt, then it might appear that their ability to repay that debt should be subject to a review.....Oh wait.....!
Gotta love "The Market", eh?
S/he who pays, wins.
Yummy!
Woof
You missed the freedom of speech bit of the credit agencies defense
Kanda
Diving wanker
Well, it's working for some at the moment... this months performance so far on our funds MTD: (1bill under management)
Fund 1 ( mark-to-market) TOTAL MTD May '09: +6.54%
Fund 2 : +4.72%
Fund 3: +5.65%
Fund 4: +3.60%
Fund 5: +2.29%
Fund 6: +8.99%
Fund 7: +10.35%
Fund 8: +5.31%
People are still making on it. A lot.
(Just putting some perspective on doom)
Fund 1 ( mark-to-market) TOTAL MTD May '09: +6.54%
Fund 2 : +4.72%
Fund 3: +5.65%
Fund 4: +3.60%
Fund 5: +2.29%
Fund 6: +8.99%
Fund 7: +10.35%
Fund 8: +5.31%
People are still making on it. A lot.
(Just putting some perspective on doom)
The markets have been rallying for a while now, the PMIs while are looking healthier than they did at the tail end of last year. It looks like the american recession bottomed in december according to the PMIs at least.
Yes, kanda, some people still are, aren't they - and we know who they still are, don't we?
Actually, kanda, when it comes to "doom", things are already pretty fucking bad, and getting worse, for many, many, many ordinary peeps (and are going to get much worse still for them over the coming few years).
Not those: "still making on it. A lot", though, obviously.
Woof
Similar threads
