Financial Crisis

[badge]

<BR>

<BR>Ignoring the other rather more obvious points inferred, such as spread, I pay min 10GBP max 25GBP, any size, on DMA LSE shares. So 0.0001% on $250k.<BR>

<BR>Well Badge I hope you are doing your own dealing and not letting them deal for you.<BR><BR>Because, if not, if they can convince you that GBP25 on a US$250k transaction is 0.0001%, when it is 0.01%, then they might be screwing you on the price too.<BR>

<BR><BR><BR>Is there an embarassed face? <BR><BR>Of course your right; lucky I have comm. in GBP not %! <BR><BR>It would be still be 25GBP on a $25m trade too though, so 0.0...

[Abrak]

But surely that may not be YOUR decision and I would never have faith

that your somewhat Utopian vision of Marxism would work the way you would like it to be ?

To me based on the experience in countries i listed earlier, there

seems a real conflict in believing a government that

starts applying Marxist principles would necessarily allow you to even think

of " becoming exceptionally wealthy " ?

You could never tell this to too many people or the next thing you could risk ending up

in some Gulag

Honestly Midas, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please read Gambles comment. Marx is interesting for his 'approach' and 'analysis' of the weaknesses of capitalism. Although he suggested alternatives, there is no evidence that despite its problems, anyone has come up with a better economic system than one based on capitalism. As Gambles hints at and 12D probably would like to see, the concept that some GS employees should be shot, rather than receive a plane could just as easily be justified by an inherent capitalist as some 'wealth equality' based economy. And I dont think Marx suggested shooting GS employees, he simply suggested that one day they might get shot.

And stop going on about 'gulags' and Marx. He was inherently cynical about 'human rights' because these rights largely accrued to the wealthy. Really a democracy based on a choice between another Bush and another Clinton was the equivalent to going into an Italian restaurant where you have the 'right' to choose anything off the menu which has Pizza and cheese and Pizza with cheese and tomato. Again, it is a criticism, in that he didnt think the right to vote in a capitalist system was much of a 'human right'. Midas I believe in capitalism and democracy not because they are very good but because nobody can up with anything better.

Marx actually believed in 'universal rights' which as you can see by the name is a much bigger concept than 'human rights.' (No idea about what that really is.) My point is this, Marx suggests that if you want real 'human rights' you will achieve them by becoming rich then you will have all the 'freedoms' you want. If you are poor, the human rights you have, are extremely limited and probably not worth much. If you ever come into conflict with the Thai police, they will explain this theory to you far better than I can.

However, your problem is that you are the one with the 'Utopian' view. You see that when things go 'wrong' they are 'conspiracy' theories by 'evil' people while they merely reflect the underlying weaknesses in the system.

[lannarebirth]

we all have our stories

i lost 2 times - dot com and the FC

then made it all back on one share

plus lots up upside to come

now looking at how to keep it (shhhhhhh)

Now that I have a single idea lodged in my brain - it occurs to me that that's another good way at looking at technical trading versus fundamental investing - making money versus keeping it.............

more arrows from the traders headed my way and probably from the fundamentalists as well this time too!

No arrows from me Paul. In a Bull Market, no matter the security/commodity, smart investors make more than traders, unless the trader is laying on the leverage and has no tax consequences.

[Abrak]

It would be still be 25GBP on a $25m trade too though, so 0.0...

Ok good comeback.

I do however, suspect they are dealing for you rather than you dealing yourself. I mean a US$25m trade is worth more than just commission.

[midas]

But surely that may not be YOUR decision and I would never have faith

that your somewhat Utopian vision of Marxism would work the way you would like it to be ?

To me based on the experience in countries i listed earlier, there

seems a real conflict in believing a government that

starts applying Marxist principles would necessarily allow you to even think

of " becoming exceptionally wealthy " ?

You could never tell this to too many people or the next thing you could risk ending up

in some Gulag

Honestly Midas, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please read Gambles comment. Marx is interesting for his 'approach' and 'analysis' of the weaknesses of capitalism. Although he suggested alternatives, there is no evidence that despite its problems, anyone has come up with a better economic system than one based on capitalism. As Gambles hints at and 12D probably would like to see, the concept that some GS employees should be shot, rather than receive a plane could just as easily be justified by an inherent capitalist as some 'wealth equality' based economy. And I dont think Marx suggested shooting GS employees, he simply suggested that one day they might get shot.

I am wondering if it is Groucho Marx that you support because what you write doesn’t sound anything like Karl Marx the communist !

He wrote his Communist Manifesto in the middle of the 19th century “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property” – so where did it say with the exception of Abrak who would be allowed to

" become exceptionally wealthy”.?

And stop going on about 'gulags' and Marx. He was inherently cynical about 'human rights' because these rights largely accrued to the wealthy. Really a democracy based on a choice between another Bush and another Clinton was the equivalent to going into an Italian restaurant where you have the 'right' to choose anything off the menu which has Pizza and cheese and Pizza with cheese and tomato. Again, it is a criticism, in that he didnt think the right to vote in a capitalist system was much of a 'human right'. Midas I believe in capitalism and democracy not because they are very good but because nobody can up with anything better.

If he didn’t think the right to vote was a big deal, what about the right to freedom of expression, freedom of association or travel within the country or outside the persons own country ?

Marx actually believed in 'universal rights' which as you can see by the name is a much bigger concept than 'human rights.' (No idea about what that really is.) My point is this, Marx suggests that if you want real 'human rights' you will achieve them by becoming rich then you will have all the 'freedoms' you want. If you are poor, the human rights you have, are extremely limited and probably not worth much. If you ever come into conflict with the Thai police, they will explain this theory to you far better than I can.

However, your problem is that you are the one with the 'Utopian' view. You see that when things go 'wrong' they are 'conspiracy' theories by 'evil' people while they merely reflect the underlying weaknesses in the system.

Feel free to call me a 'conspiracy' theorist if you want but was Ronald Regan also a conspiracy theorist when he called the USSR the “ evil empire “ for a good reason?

[Abrak]

Now that I have a single idea lodged in my brain - it occurs to me that that's another good way at looking at technical trading versus fundamental investing - making money versus keeping it.............

more arrows from the traders headed my way and probably from the fundamentalists as well this time too!

You know what my opinion is. You can have pretty well any investment strategy and so long as you stick to it in a 'disciplined' manner, it will tend to outperform in the long term. Most 'consumer' investors are gamblers, most professional investors are hampered by cash inflows and outflows to buy at the top and sell at the bottom. Which was why Gambles mention the majors not performing well because funds had to sell 'minors' at totally ridiculous prices to raise cash.

Actually I do think there is an element that you can combine technicals with fundamentals and should. A fundamentalist uses technicals like a drunk uses a lampost for support rather than illumination.

As for Lanna's comment surely it is an 'axiom' (in principle) rather than a theory. Isnt it a bit like saying 'dollar cost averaging will underperform if the stock rises over time'

[Abrak]

But surely that may not be YOUR decision and I would never have faith

that your somewhat Utopian vision of Marxism would work the way you would like it to be ?

To me based on the experience in countries i listed earlier, there

seems a real conflict in believing a government that

starts applying Marxist principles would necessarily allow you to even think

of " becoming exceptionally wealthy " ?

You could never tell this to too many people or the next thing you could risk ending up

in some Gulag

Honestly Midas, I have no idea what you are talking about. Please read Gambles comment. Marx is interesting for his 'approach' and 'analysis' of the weaknesses of capitalism. Although he suggested alternatives, there is no evidence that despite its problems, anyone has come up with a better economic system than one based on capitalism. As Gambles hints at and 12D probably would like to see, the concept that some GS employees should be shot, rather than receive a plane could just as easily be justified by an inherent capitalist as some 'wealth equality' based economy. And I dont think Marx suggested shooting GS employees, he simply suggested that one day they might get shot.

I am wondering if it is Groucho Marx that you support because what you write doesn’t sound anything like Karl Marx the communist !

He wrote his Communist Manifesto in the middle of the 19th century “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property” – so where did it say with the exception of Abrak who would be allowed to

" become exceptionally wealthy”.?

And stop going on about 'gulags' and Marx. He was inherently cynical about 'human rights' because these rights largely accrued to the wealthy. Really a democracy based on a choice between another Bush and another Clinton was the equivalent to going into an Italian restaurant where you have the 'right' to choose anything off the menu which has Pizza and cheese and Pizza with cheese and tomato. Again, it is a criticism, in that he didnt think the right to vote in a capitalist system was much of a 'human right'. Midas I believe in capitalism and democracy not because they are very good but because nobody can up with anything better.

If he didn’t think the right to vote was a big deal, what about the right to freedom of expression, freedom of association or travel within the country or outside the persons own country ?

Marx actually believed in 'universal rights' which as you can see by the name is a much bigger concept than 'human rights.' (No idea about what that really is.) My point is this, Marx suggests that if you want real 'human rights' you will achieve them by becoming rich then you will have all the 'freedoms' you want. If you are poor, the human rights you have, are extremely limited and probably not worth much. If you ever come into conflict with the Thai police, they will explain this theory to you far better than I can.

However, your problem is that you are the one with the 'Utopian' view. You see that when things go 'wrong' they are 'conspiracy' theories by 'evil' people while they merely reflect the underlying weaknesses in the system.

Feel free to call me a 'conspiracy' theorist if you want but was Ronald Regan also a conspiracy theorist when he called the USSR the “ evil empire “ for a good reason?

Did you read Gambles response? The problem with being so stubborn is that 'Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging there prejudices.'

And if we are forced to start quoting Ronald Reagan about his smartest quote was 'How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.'

[Abrak]

Interesting....

I believe that Marx (and therefore Popper and Soros) had a much better understanding of capitalism than GS does. It was just communism where Marx was way off course. Ironically, GS will ultimately probably do far more, unwittingly, to damage capitalism than Herr Naam's compatriot...

100% correct although I think you might have missed something. The 'macro stuff' 'reflexity' disequilibriums, co-dependent decision making etc he was even before Popper. But I believe that Marx essentially implied that Goldman Sachs would exist and be destructive to capitalism.

His theory of 'fictional capital' etc and that capital will be created to make returns on capital are pure Goldmans. As the easiest example take 'derivatives'. They were introduced to reduce risk and hedge. What Marx pointed out is that such capital creation can be used to destabilize and increase risk. That the very essence of huge capital creation must increase risk through leverage and lower returns on productive capital (as well as encourage abuse of labour.)

There are US$600trn of derivatives on US$50bn of global GDP.

I made a post by Stiglitz where he stated that banks were claiming 40% of corporate profits by adding value through financial innovation. But they werent adding value because they werent affecting productivity. In fact they are destroying value. The underlying concept of a financial crisis based on a property bubble is absurd on the basis that property is a non-productive asset. It is a house. Whatever its price it is still simply the same bloody house. And then the bubble was based on all that innovation of what turned out incredibly stupid underlying instruments. My personal view is that Goldman Sachs exacerbated every element of this crisis through 'hiding' 'shuffling' 'manipulating' 'creating'. That is what they do, that is what they are good at.

Something has to be done with the banks. The two least trusted entities are the Government and GS. And although they might do the best job, noone is going to accept Naam's dogs running things. Banking is not a capitalist business because the 'underling moral hazard' of limited liability and Government 'subsidy' distorts all fundamentals.

[lannarebirth]

I made a post by Stiglitz where he stated that banks were claiming 40% of corporate profits by adding value through financial innovation. But they werent adding value because they werent affecting productivity. In fact they are destroying value. The underlying concept of a financial crisis based on a property bubble is absurd on the basis that property is a non-productive asset. It is a house. Whatever its price it is still simply the same bloody house. And then the bubble was based on all that innovation of what turned out incredibly stupid underlying instruments. My personal view is that Goldman Sachs exacerbated every element of this crisis through 'hiding' 'shuffling' 'manipulating' 'creating'. That is what they do, that is what they are good at.

Something has to be done with the banks. The two least trusted entities are the Government and GS. And although they might do the best job, noone is going to accept Naam's dogs running things. Banking is not a capitalist business because the 'underling moral hazard' of limited liability and Government 'subsidy' distorts all fundamentals.

Something's got to be done with the big accounting firms too. Supposedly the reason all this financialism fraud has lasted so long is because it all "got signed off on", by those charged with keeping the books and doing "independent outside audits", so not raising red flags with regulators. We all know the price of their getting the work is to sign off on whatever they come across. Time to make another example and turn the Big Five Four into the Big Three. edit: Actually that's the wrong way to go. It should be expanded to maybe the Big Twenty again. Too much concentation of power and lobbyist efforts as things stand now.

Edited July 5, 2010 by lannarebirth

[Abrak]

Something's got to be done with the big accounting firms too. Supposedly the reason all this financialism fraud has lasted so long is because it all "got signed off on", by those charged with keeping the books and doing "independent outside audits", so not raising red flags with regulators. We all know the price of their getting the work is to sign off on whatever they come across. Time to make another example and turn the Big Five Four into the Big Three.

I totally agree. Not totally related but I have been looking at a property acquisition in the Turks and Caicos. I have an 'independent appraisal' dated May 2010 that is over 30 pages long.

Within this appraisal May 2010 is 'we have not been asked to do a land title search at the land department and have assumed that the land title deeds given to us are correct.' The land title deeds are date 2000. Within the appraisal is the, we have based on our estimate on the average profitability over the last 3 years of available accounts which is US$610k. The accounts being 2007 to 2009. I have the 2010 accounts with year end February 2010, 3 months before the valuation, which show both and accounting and cash loss of US$650k for the year (on US$2.4m of revenues.)

They place a value of US$6.2m on a business that will be bankrupt within 4 months.

To me this is criminal. If you are given 10 year old land title deeds and asked not to do a search of the land department, how can you possibly assume the land title deeds are correct if they are 10 years old. But, 'independent appraisal' is like 'accounting' a respectable veil over inherent dishonesty. What can I do? Well simply throw it in the bin. That's all.

[midas]

Did you read Gambles response? The problem with being so stubborn is that 'Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging there prejudices.'

And if we are forced to start quoting Ronald Reagan about his smartest quote was 'How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.'

I dont think i am being stubborn but if I am i am very sorry :jap:

But I am just having difficulty reconciling your belief even in just selected parts of an

economic philosophy from a man who didnt believe in private property ( even considered it to be theft )

and yet could allow you to become exceptionally wealthy - unless of course you would aspire to be

one of the Cadre's yourself ?

These two things seem so diametrically opposed and as I keep saying there is no evidence whatsoever that

regimes ( as opposed to elected governments ) have ever been that tolerant ?

Edited July 5, 2010 by midas

[Abrak]

I dont think i am being stubborn but if I am i am very sorry :jap:

S

These two things seem so diametrically opposed and as I keep saying there is no evidence whatsoever that

regimes ( as opposed to elected governments ) have ever been that tolerant ?

Your stubborness is this. You simply shouldnt assume that as I have various Marxist beliefs, I wish to send people to the 'gulag' or he did. Given that he is generally regarded as one of the best thinkers over the past 200 years, it is likely he does have interesting things to say. The very essence of much of his philosophy is that everything accrues to the rich, human rights money power freedom domestic house servants. So to the extent I believe in some of his thinking it clear makes sense to be rich. The fact that he believes this game is unfair is trueit is the only game in town.

So Midas....

But I am just having difficulty reconciling your belief even in just selected parts of an

economic philosophy from a man who didnt believe in private property ( even considered it to be theft )

and yet could allow you to become exceptionally wealthy - unless of course you would aspire to be

one of the Cadre's yourself ?

If you dont get it fine BUT it is very simple.

Everything, human rights, freedom, pretty girls, power, large yachts, best health, best looks, best education accrues to the rich and wealthy. That is at the very core of Marxist philosophy. Wealth is created by shuffling papers, manipulating risk and abusing labor (or actually working). If you believe in this theory which clearly you dont then what is the logical thing to do. (If you think the answer is join a union, create a revolution, takeover the country and nationalize everything then fine.)

And if you dont understand this - I guess that is the whole point.

[badge]

<BR>

<BR>It would be still be 25GBP on a $25m trade too though, so 0.0... <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif"><BR>

<BR>Ok good comeback.<BR><BR>I do however, suspect they are dealing for you rather than you dealing yourself. I mean a US$25m trade is worth more than just commission.<BR>

<BR><BR><BR>What do you mean dealing for me?<BR><BR>It deal DMA; I make my own market.

[midas]

I dont think i am being stubborn but if I am i am very sorry :jap:

S

These two things seem so diametrically opposed and as I keep saying there is no evidence whatsoever that

regimes ( as opposed to elected governments ) have ever been that tolerant ?

Your stubborness is this. You simply shouldnt assume that as I have various Marxist beliefs, I wish to send people to the 'gulag' or he did. Given that he is generally regarded as one of the best thinkers over the past 200 years, it is likely he does have interesting things to say. The very essence of much of his philosophy is that everything accrues to the rich, human rights money power freedom domestic house servants. So to the extent I believe in some of his thinking it clear makes sense to be rich. The fact that he believes this game is unfair is trueit is the only game in town.

So Midas....

But I am just having difficulty reconciling your belief even in just selected parts of an

economic philosophy from a man who didnt believe in private property ( even considered it to be theft )

and yet could allow you to become exceptionally wealthy - unless of course you would aspire to be

one of the Cadre's yourself ?

If you dont get it fine BUT it is very simple.

Everything, human rights, freedom, pretty girls, power, large yachts, best health, best looks, best education accrues to the rich and wealthy. That is at the very core of Marxist philosophy. Wealth is created by shuffling papers, manipulating risk and abusing labor (or actually working). If you believe in this theory which clearly you dont then what is the logical thing to do. (If you think the answer is join a union, create a revolution, takeover the country and nationalize everything then fine.)

And if you dont understand this - I guess that is the whole point.

Abrak I never said or assumed that you wish to send people to the 'gulag' but equally you cant possibly say for certain what Karl Marx wanted in this regard unless you were working with him at the time ?

My point is that based on history people have not often democratically elected governments with “ less conventional views “ e.g . Castro, Kim Jong Il ,( Hugo Chavez is the only one i can think of ) and so how can you possibly know in advance how that government will turn out eventually ?

Maybe where I am stubborn is if this kind of government takes over, unlike you I have no trust or faith whatsoever regarding the predictability of the eventual behaviour of that government and whether it remains altruistic and the same about the integrity of the statistics and “ information “ it disseminates to the people– right or left of the political spectrum .

Edited July 5, 2010 by midas

[Abrak]

Maybe where I am stubborn is if this kind of government takes over, unlike you I have no trust or faith whatsoever regarding the predictability of the eventual behaviour of that government and whether it remains altruistic and the same about the integrity of the statistics and “ information “ it disseminates to the people– right or left of the political spectrum .

Midas, do you actually read my posts who shall I put it in capital letters.

MARX THOUGHT CAPITALISM WAS UNFAIR AND UNEQUAL AND I HAPPEN TO AGREE. MARX THOUGHT THAT ECONOMIES SHOULD BE FAIR AND CAPITALIST ABUSE WOULD LEAD TO CHANGE VIA CONFLICT. I THINK THAT GOVERNMENTS BASED ON FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY ARE INHERENT EVIL! IMPRACTICAL, AGAINST HUMAN NATURE AND WILL LEAD TO IMPOVERISHMENT ON THE BASIS THAT ANYONE WITH CAPITAL OR INTELLIGENCE WOULD LEAVE. PEOPLE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN AMERICAN IDOL THAN REVOLUTION.

Please also note that in response to my comment 'you shouldn't assume Marx wished to send people to gulags' you replied 'you can't be certain about what he wanted in this regard unless you worked with him.'

Based on that you should realize why I couldn't live in a country whose Government's ideology was based on fairness and equality for all.

[Abrak]

<BR>

<BR>It would be still be 25GBP on a $25m trade too though, so 0.0... <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif"><BR>

<BR>Ok good comeback.<BR><BR>I do however, suspect they are dealing for you rather than you dealing yourself. I mean a US$25m trade is worth more than just commission.<BR>

<BR><BR><BR>What do you mean dealing for me?<BR><BR>It deal DMA; I make my own market.

Wow I learn about new sexy dealing stuff everyday. Wished we had the same in Thailand, it would make my life a lot easier and more profitable. We can live trade but making markets is illegal. It used to be possible using multiple accounts through multiple brokers but not for the last 3 or 4 years. You can still do it if you organize it with a few mates.

[midas]

Maybe where I am stubborn is if this kind of government takes over, unlike you I have no trust or faith whatsoever regarding the predictability of the eventual behaviour of that government and whether it remains altruistic and the same about the integrity of the statistics and “ information “ it disseminates to the people– right or left of the political spectrum .

Midas, do you actually read my posts who shall I put it in capital letters.

MARX THOUGHT CAPITALISM WAS UNFAIR AND UNEQUAL AND I HAPPEN TO AGREE. MARX THOUGHT THAT ECONOMIES SHOULD BE FAIR AND CAPITALIST ABUSE WOULD LEAD TO CHANGE VIA CONFLICT. I THINK THAT GOVERNMENTS BASED ON FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY ARE INHERENT EVIL! IMPRACTICAL, AGAINST HUMAN NATURE AND WILL LEAD TO IMPOVERISHMENT ON THE BASIS THAT ANYONE WITH CAPITAL OR INTELLIGENCE WOULD LEAVE. PEOPLE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN AMERICAN IDOL THAN REVOLUTION.

Just like you dont believe Obama is a communist - i dont believe the American people will

ultimately keep watching American Idol. They havent been squeezed by the b*lls yet but they will be

in January 2011 when taxes will go through roof to pay for Nancy Pelosi's " job creation " i.e.

extending unemployment benefits again. What a joke of a government.

And for my last comment on this whole issue in case you dont understand my origial point many posts back

when I said US CITIZENS SHOULD QUESTION EVERYTHING OBAMA AND HIS " ASSOCIATES " THINK AND DO !

You say above " ANYONE WITH CAPITAL OR INTELLIGENCE WOULD LEAVE "

- Well to that i can only say timing would have to be perfect to do that

because I am sure there must have been an Abrak type person in

Havana or Pyong Yang who said exactly the same as you at one time but today that person can only

look with envy as international visitors come and go but he cant !

Please also note that in response to my comment 'you shouldn't assume Marx wished to send people to gulags' you replied 'you can't be certain about what he wanted in this regard unless you worked with him.'

Based on that you should realize why I couldn't live in a country whose Government's ideology was based on fairness and equality for all.

Edited July 6, 2010 by midas

[badge]

<BR>

<BR>It would be still be 25GBP on a $25m trade too though, so 0.0... <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif"><BR>

<BR>Ok good comeback.<BR><BR>I do however, suspect they are dealing for you rather than you dealing yourself. I mean a US$25m trade is worth more than just commission.<BR>

<BR><BR><BR>What do you mean dealing for me?<BR><BR>It deal DMA; I make my own market.

Wow I learn about new sexy dealing stuff everyday. Wished we had the same in Thailand, it would make my life a lot easier and more profitable. We can live trade but making markets is illegal. It used to be possible using multiple accounts through multiple brokers but not for the last 3 or 4 years. You can still do it if you organize it with a few mates.

Of course any market where one has DMA means you can make your own market, but the arb strategies are'nt as easy, or ignored, as they once were even on the LSE

[BlackJack]

economic philosophy = one dart board and several darts

[Abrak]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-05/treasuries-show-12-chance-of-double-dip-to-fed-as-yields-near-record-lows.html

This story is all over the place but I dont really understand it. It states that the Fed (Cleveland) believes the yield curve indicates a 12% chance of a double dip.

I find that argument a little strange as I thought the Fed controlled monetary policy and to a large degree the shape of the yield curve.

I mean I believe the article essentially states that the current steep yield curve (2 year v 10 year) indicates growth while inverted yield curves (2 year above 10 year) presage a recession. But 'normally' recessions are partially induced by a tightening of monetary policy by the Fed to prevent overheating.

So sure if the Fed raises short term rates it will increase the chance of a double dip. I dont really understand how you can reverse the causality to indicate that strong growth is expected.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Abrak

[midas]

An exammple of how Marxist governments are unpredictable

Chavez Crackdown on Brokerage `Thieves' Leaves Traders Jobless

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez shut the unregulated currency market in May and seized about 40 brokerages, accusing them of setting artificial rates, capital flight and money laundering.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-02/broker-thieves-out-of-work-in-caracas-as-chavez-roils-financial-industry.html

[lannarebirth]

http://www.bloomberg...ecord-lows.html

This story is all over the place but I dont really understand it. It states that the Fed (Cleveland) believes the yield curve indicates a 12% chance of a double dip.

I find that argument a little strange as I thought the Fed controlled monetary policy and to a large degree the shape of the yield curve.

I mean I believe the article essentially states that the current steep yield curve (2 year v 10 year) indicates growth while inverted yield curves (2 year above 10 year) presage a recession. But 'normally' recessions are partially induced by a tightening of monetary policy by the Fed to prevent overheating.

So sure if the Fed raises short term rates it will increase the chance of a double dip. I dont really understand how you can reverse the causality to indicate that strong growth is expected.

Discussed somewhat near the end of this interview:

http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/7/3_Rick_Santelli.html

[ray23]

Try this on for size the real results of the Obama Health plan, Friend retired in the states, part of his retirement assistance on health care Has Blue Cross Blue Shield. Cost last year $64.00 This Year $1,600.00

[badge]

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adO_uI9UyRkk

July 6 (Bloomberg) -- Citigroup Inc., State Street Corp. and U.S. Bancorp are among U.S. banks whose municipal bond holdings have reached a 25-year high just as state budget deficits swell to $140 billion, the most since the start of the recession.

Commercial lenders added more than $84 billion to their holdings since 2003, according to the Federal Reserve, pushing total investments to $216.2 billion at the end of the first quarter. Bank regulators and ratings companies are ramping up scrutiny of banks most at risk of being forced to raise more capital should debt prices slide.

[12DrinkMore]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7871421/With-the-US-trapped-in-depression-this-really-is-starting-to-feel-like-1932.html

A whole list of bad news, and all of it pointing towards depression and debt deflation.

The economy is still in the gravitational pull of the Great Recession," said Robert Reich, former US labour secretary. "All the booster rockets for getting us beyond it are failing

With the BIS also joining in the cry for "AUSTERITY", it seems that the only guys left in the world talking about more "stimulus" are Tim, Ben and Bar.

And back over here in Thailand, I am sorry to see our Tarisa is being replaced by some guy called Prasarn. I know very little about him, except that he is obviously not short of the odd s'tang, a Harvard education and all that. I do hope that he will keep his testosterone under control and and keep a firm hand on the helm.

IMO businesses run better when the women are in control and the men concern themselves with the more important facets of living, such as golf, karaoke and massages.

[lannarebirth]

Who knew? Unemployment creates jobs!

[12DrinkMore]

Who knew? Unemployment creates jobs!

Much better explanation of how it all works here

Duh!

[lannarebirth]

Who knew? Unemployment creates jobs!

Much better explanation of how it all works here

Duh!

It's a Brave New World. Pass the Soma.

[BlackJack]

gold dipped i bought

same like the chinese

now what do they know

not a gold bug but hedging my bets

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gold-we-trust-special-report-gold-erste-bank

[Abrak]

And back over here in Thailand, I am sorry to see our Tarisa is being replaced by some guy called Prasarn. I know very little about him, except that he is obviously not short of the odd s'tang, a Harvard education and all that. I do hope that he will keep his testosterone under control and and keep a firm hand on the helm.[/size][/font][/color]

I very much doubt that Dr.Prasarn is a wealthy guy. He went to Harvard on a scholarship, then worked at the BoT (where they pay peanuts) for many years. Then about 6 years at the SEC, (where they pay peanuts but someone makes you a coffee in the morning) and only got a proper paying job a few years ago when he became President of KBANK (although I think his monthly income there is only about Bt300k.)