Financial Crisis

[NeverSure]

Geez. How did we grow to hate corporations? Capitalism and the pooling of money into big money is what brought us the railroads and the Airlines and television and even the internet. And it's all relatively cheap due to volume.

I'm a capitalist liberal, but I too see dangers in how *some* corporations have developed. I will maybe post more details about this later when I will have more time, but in short I am against too much corporate employment and against consumerism... so I'm against Fordism.

Regarding the big corporations, I dislike very much their ownership structures (mostly without leading actionnaires) and how they are led (mostly by employed CEOs with the wrong incentives).

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'm enjoying this.

You're against "Fordism." Wow.

Henry Ford, 100 years ago, thought up the idea of the uniform assembly line and mass production. He was the one who invented the idea that if every part for the car was standardized, then you could just have a parts bin along an assembly line, and any part in that bin would fit the next car coming down the line. Before that, each part was hand made to fit an individual car.

He was really the inventor of mass production for the masses. After he built that factory to build Fords, the production cost was so low that even the workers on the assembly line could afford to buy one.

Standardization also improved quality. He may still hold the record for the most cars of any one type ever built. If not he did for a long time. The Model T Ford. The car that created the middle class - not just the car, but the assembly line idea across industry.

These big corporations are creating jobs. If Google has 30,000 employees, those are good jobs with benefits in an industry that didn't really exist just 15 years ago. Google was "created" as an idea by college students. What a great world this is!!!

We are on the verge of being able to make clothing without human intervention. All robotics right to putting the stickers on and packaging for shipping. Think of how cheap clothes will get then! Jobs lost? Not as many as have been created in tech in the past 15 years. And the consumer benefits by cheap clothing of better quality because computerized (robotic) cutting and sewing will be more exacting than people. China will shudder, but who cares? It's a competitive world and competition drives low prices and quality.

You don't like "Fordism." Do you like "Toyotaism" Japanese style? Most of the Japanese cars and pickups sold in the US are made in the US. Same with Europe, I believe. Same with Canada.

What are we going to drive if people with a profit motive don't build us cars while competing against each other for our business with price, looks and quality?

[topt]

NeverSure - in your post today (#13,756) (or yesterday depending on where you are posting from) you said -

"The law in China is that the government must own at least 50% of every business, so when business falters so does the government"

can you explain that as I really don't think you mean "every business" in the sense most people will take it? It may be only one line but for me calls into question everything else you have said if that is what you really believe.

If nothing else it shows I have actually bothered to read all the posts.........

[NeverSure]

Thai and Chinese are borrowing for infrastructure investments wich will serve them well for next 50 to 100years or more.

While wests infrastructure is largely creaking and crumbling and all the debt and borrowing just goes to fund totally unsustainable welfare program's and dumb wars for only reasons of furthering some elites financial games.

You haven't heard of China's ghost cities. You haven't heard that China's debt is almost as much as the USA while they have about 1/2 the GDP, far less profit, and 4 times as many people to feed? It's a communist country and the government must feed and care for those 1.3 billion people.

"China's real estate investment rose 20.2 percent Q1 on a year earlier, while revenues from property sales rose 61.3 percent, adding to worries of an unsustainable house price boom." 5/22/2013 Link

Please don't drink the China Kool-Aid.

[NeverSure]

NeverSure - in your post today (#13,756) (or yesterday depending on where you are posting from) you said -

"The law in China is that the government must own at least 50% of every business, so when business falters so does the government"

can you explain that as I really don't think you mean "every business" in the sense most people will take it? It may be only one line but for me calls into question everything else you have said if that is what you really believe.

If nothing else it shows I have actually bothered to read all the posts.........

I'm perfect. I never make mistakes. I never fail to look up links for my claims, LOL.

I'm sorry, I should have looked that up. I was wrong.

Now please don't let one mistake discount everything. You'd only do that if I was totally trying to mislead.

China is a communist country and they have allowed some private ownership of businesses by investors, with approval of proper capitalization. Nevertheless don't mistake what they are.

And thank you for reading the posts. I read all of them too. This is all being done in good faith with good fun and challenge and I appreciate all of the posts.

[kblaze]

"25th may 2012"

Bit out of date mate

You are right. My apologies. I copied the wrong link. The shrinkage isn't 3.7%. It's 4%.

Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013 due to baht appreciation: Office of Industrial Economics Link

Of course they blame it on the baht. They neglect to probably even understand why the baht is too high. They also fail to realize that part of the loss of exports is their new minimum wage and part is the rice scheme losing exports and part is the difficulty of actually starting and running a business in Thailand and part of it is that their credit rating sucks while they borrow too much expensive money bringing in too many foreign dollars which have to be converted to baht.

The demand for baht is to buy bonds to finance the government at what some think is a good interest rate for the risk. Some people are going to get burned.

I don't take back anything I said about losses in China, or Thailand's high interest borrowing, it decline in tax revenues today, or the real estate bubble financed by Thai banks, the rice scheme, housing scheme and new car scheme financed by Thai banks.

Neversure, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you take things way too serious here. Really, you are going after Naam because he doesn't type page long rants about capitalism like you? I find his posts witty, informative and insightful.

See, I tend to value the words of those who don't utter many. Its supply and demand, supply too many words and people get bored and their value drops off. I find myself skipping past many of your posts simply because they are too long to read. If you made your views more concise, I would read them.

Now Im going to call you out for posting misleading info on the latest Export data. April exports surprised on the UPSIDE, rising 10.5% YoY. YTD exports are up 5.7% too. I thought you researched everything you posted? How could miss that?

http://www.livetradingnews.com/thai-exports-more-than-10-in-april-115546.htm#.UaMFhKKBnp4

[NeverSure]

"25th may 2012"

Bit out of date mate

You are right. My apologies. I copied the wrong link. The shrinkage isn't 3.7%. It's 4%.

Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013 due to baht appreciation: Office of Industrial Economics Link

Of course they blame it on the baht. They neglect to probably even understand why the baht is too high. They also fail to realize that part of the loss of exports is their new minimum wage and part is the rice scheme losing exports and part is the difficulty of actually starting and running a business in Thailand and part of it is that their credit rating sucks while they borrow too much expensive money bringing in too many foreign dollars which have to be converted to baht.

The demand for baht is to buy bonds to finance the government at what some think is a good interest rate for the risk. Some people are going to get burned.

I don't take back anything I said about losses in China, or Thailand's high interest borrowing, it decline in tax revenues today, or the real estate bubble financed by Thai banks, the rice scheme, housing scheme and new car scheme financed by Thai banks.

Neversure, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you take things way too serious here. Really, you are going after Naam because he doesn't type page long rants about capitalism like you? I find his posts witty, informative and insightful.

See, I tend to value the words of those who don't utter many. Its supply and demand, supply too many words and people get bored and their value drops off. I find myself skipping past many of your posts simply because they are too long to read. If you made your views more concise, I would read them.

Now Im going to call you out for posting misleading info on the latest Export data. April exports surprised on the UPSIDE, rising 10.5% YoY. YTD exports are up 5.7% too. I thought you researched everything you posted? How could miss that?

http://www.livetradingnews.com/thai-exports-more-than-10-in-april-115546.htm#.UaMFhKKBnp4

With all due respect, Naam likes to call me names so he doesn't get a pass. He also doesn't know anything about macroeconomics.

About your link. It's for April. The article I posted was for the first quarter which doesn't include April. I do make errors and they should be pointed out. I don't mind that. But when you make an error while trying to play "gotcha" then you're stuck with it.

We should be having fun. We shouldn't be nitpicking.

What do you have to offer about the economy? Any predictions, or do you just want to criticize other people who mean you no harm?

Never mind. I'm putting you on ignore. You don't know how to have fun.

[kblaze]

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

[Naam]

With all due respect, Naam likes to call me names so he doesn't get a pass. He also doesn't know anything about macroeconomics.

if i called you names provide a link. but what does one call an absolute ignorant who... (read!)

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/632450-do-you-consider-bitcoin-to-be-a-serious-hedging-option/page-6#entry6443451

[mccw]

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

I thought I'd read exports and the economy generally were doing well this year and continuing the upwards trend from the low brought on by the flooding; but I was too lazy too find any links, so thanks for that.

I hold no animosity for never sure (or any one else) but do find that often he seems to have a negative bias on Thailand and a positive on USA; both of which are opposite to the current growth, unemployment and debt pictures; but I'm still happy to hear alternative views when they are at least explain through some rational reasoning.

[mccw]

Thai and Chinese are borrowing for infrastructure investments wich will serve them well for next 50 to 100years or more.

While wests infrastructure is largely creaking and crumbling and all the debt and borrowing just goes to fund totally unsustainable welfare program's and dumb wars for only reasons of furthering some elites financial games.

You haven't heard of China's ghost cities. You haven't heard that China's debt is almost as much as the USA while they have about 1/2 the GDP, far less profit, and 4 times as many people to feed? It's a communist country and the government must feed and care for those 1.3 billion people.

"China's real estate investment rose 20.2 percent Q1 on a year earlier, while revenues from property sales rose 61.3 percent, adding to worries of an unsustainable house price boom." 5/22/2013 Link

Please don't drink the China Kool-Aid.

There maybe a bit of over building but as you say they have a very big population; communist country, maybe the government will sponsor to fill these units with the poor. Who knows; but for sure these few bits of over building are dwarfed by the achievements like the massive high speed train network; the super high ways; the industry, the modern mega cities with mordern mass transit and facilities. Space and satalite program's. They have all these things and are still roling in cash and are building physical reserves of commodities in addition to the "worthless" dollars.

They built most of this in just a decade really. Compare to Australia talking about its one high speed rail line on the south coast being ready maybe in 2036! Or UK HSR1 taking a similarly long time- for just one line; which will undoubtably be delayed in the endless rounds of consultations and reviews. Here lies the problem. Weak western government paralysed by beaurocracy and regulation.

The money wich should be building the useful assets of the nation is squandered on paper pushing. Mega projects in China or Thailand even with a corruption skim still get built twice or trice as fast and cost half the money or more than what it would in the west.

Spending on actual building is far more useful than bailing out failed banks or foreign wars.

Thailand and china do not have the benefits culture and system to send them in to bankruptcy like west does. So your comment "billion people to look after" doesn't really apply. EU and US welfare states will ruin them. Can you show me mathematically how its at all possibly sustainable as it is now?

Your point about ford and the assembly line workers being able to afford cars- where did it all go wrong then? Why can't people afford the same now with out taking out big loans and credit for everything?

[mccw]

Thai and Chinese are borrowing for infrastructure investments wich will serve them well for next 50 to 100years or more.

While wests infrastructure is largely creaking and crumbling and all the debt and borrowing just goes to fund totally unsustainable welfare program's and dumb wars for only reasons of furthering some elites financial games.

You haven't heard of China's ghost cities. You haven't heard that China's debt is almost as much as the USA while they have about 1/2 the GDP, far less profit, and 4 times as many people to feed? It's a communist country and the government must feed and care for those 1.3 billion people.

"China's real estate investment rose 20.2 percent Q1 on a year earlier, while revenues from property sales rose 61.3 percent, adding to worries of an unsustainable house price boom." 5/22/2013 Link

Please don't drink the China Kool-Aid.

There maybe a bit of over building but as you say they have a very big population; communist country, maybe the government will sponsor to fill these units with the poor. Who knows; but for sure these few bits of over building are dwarfed by the achievements like the massive high speed train network; the super high ways; the industry, the modern mega cities with mordern mass transit and facilities. Space and satalite program's. They have all these things and are still roling in cash and are building physical reserves of commodities in addition to the "worthless" dollars.

They built most of this in just a decade really. Compare to Australia talking about its one high speed rail line on the south coast being ready maybe in 2036! Or UK HSR1 taking a similarly long time- for just one line; which will undoubtably be delayed in the endless rounds of consultations and reviews. Here lies the problem. Weak western government paralysed by beaurocracy and regulation.

The money wich should be building the useful assets of the nation is squandered on paper pushing. Mega projects in China or Thailand even with a corruption skim still get built twice or trice as fast and cost half the money or more than what it would in the west.

Spending on actual building is far more useful than bailing out failed banks or foreign wars.

Thailand and china do not have the benefits culture and system to send them in to bankruptcy like west does. So your comment "billion people to look after" doesn't really apply. EU and US welfare states will ruin them. Can you show me mathematically how its at all possibly sustainable as it is now?

Your point about ford and the assembly line workers being able to afford cars- where did it all go wrong then? Why can't people afford the same now with out taking out big loans and credit for everything?

The world keep evolving but I'm not convinced its always for the best

[Naam]

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

I thought I'd read exports and the economy generally were doing well this year and continuing the upwards trend from the low brought on by the flooding; but I was too lazy too find any links, so thanks for that.

I hold no animosity for never sure (or any one else) but do find that often he seems to have a negative bias on Thailand and a positive on USA; both of which are opposite to the current growth, unemployment and debt pictures; but I'm still happy to hear alternative views when they are at least explain through some rational reasoning.

i suggest you read the daily articles on "macro views" (seekingalpha.com) where you can take your pick reading contradicting views not only "with some rational reasoning" but with pages each on at least a dozen different topics... and all from "renowned gurus" who predicted correctly <insert facts from thin air> something that happened or might not have happened <insert year>.

the internet is full with views and predictions. my banks are bombarding me daily with tons of research (mostly) views and predictions from highly paid "@nals". some (very few) of the latter i read with interest but most of them i process with the "delete" button.

predictions and views are a dime a dozen. hard evidence is never provided except when it pertains the past.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Naam

[kblaze]

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

I thought I'd read exports and the economy generally were doing well this year and continuing the upwards trend from the low brought on by the flooding; but I was too lazy too find any links, so thanks for that.

I hold no animosity for never sure (or any one else) but do find that often he seems to have a negative bias on Thailand and a positive on USA; both of which are opposite to the current growth, unemployment and debt pictures; but I'm still happy to hear alternative views when they are at least explain through some rational reasoning.

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

I thought I'd read exports and the economy generally were doing well this year and continuing the upwards trend from the low brought on by the flooding; but I was too lazy too find any links, so thanks for that.

I hold no animosity for never sure (or any one else) but do find that often he seems to have a negative bias on Thailand and a positive on USA; both of which are opposite to the current growth, unemployment and debt pictures; but I'm still happy to hear alternative views when they are at least explain through some rational reasoning.

Right-on. Yeah, like I said, I actually agree with much of NS' views on things, but he does go a little overboard on some issues and he isn't exempt from fact-checking by nerds like myself

[NeverSure]

There maybe a bit of over building but as you say they have a very big population; communist country, maybe the government will sponsor to fill these units with the poor.

These are much more massive and incomprehensible that many know. They are for the wealthy and they are privately owned by various investors who jumped at the chance to own real estate for the first time in a long time. The money for these is owed to China owned banks but they are empty. Please don't underestimate the size or opulence or the bare lack of people. This isn't something the private investor would give to the poor. The problem is that the communist owned banks need to be paid back but the developments are a flop. This is huge with lots of these. Link

Who knows; but for sure these few bits of over building are dwarfed by the achievements like the massive high speed train network; the super high ways; the industry, the modern mega cities with mordern mass transit and facilities. Space and satalite program's. They have all these things and are still roling in cash and are building physical reserves of commodities in addition to the "worthless" dollars.

That's a common misconception. China borrowed heavily for the high speed rail. Where have we heard "stimulus" before and why would China need to borrow lots of money for it?

"China's rail reform skirts big question: Who pays?

China's massive high-speed rail expansion is likely to cost over $100 billion a year. The funding for it has been pure folly.

China's massive rail expansion is good for the economy. Burying it under $420 billion of debt isn't." Link

They built most of this in just a decade really. Compare to Australia talking about its one high speed rail line on the south coast being ready maybe in 2036! Or UK HSR1 takmccw, on 26 May 2013 - 12:25, said:ing a similarly long time- for just one line; which will undoubtably be delayed in the endless rounds of consultations and reviews. Here lies the problem. Weak western government paralysed by beaurocracy and regulation.
The money wich should be building the useful assets of the nation is squandered on paper pushing. Mega projects in China or Thailand even with a corruption skim still get built twice or trice as fast and cost half the money or more than what it would in the west.

Spending on actual building is far more useful than bailing out failed banks or foreign wars.

But China will still need to bail out its failed banks due to the massive ghost cities if nothing else.

Thailand and china do not have the benefits culture and system to send them in to bankruptcy like west does. So your comment "billion people to look after" doesn't really apply. EU and US welfare states will ruin them. Can you show me mathematically how its at all possibly sustainable as it is now?

We are discussing China's unsustainable growing debt. Thailand has it too.

I can't show you how the EU sustains it, but I can show you how the US sustains it. They have completely different approaches to tech development, and the US has massive natural resource which belong to the government to tap.

Your point about ford and the assembly line workers being able to afford cars- where did it all go wrong then? Why can't people afford the same now with out taking out big loans and credit for everything?

Unions got greedy and drove the cost of labor up. Let's not argue about unions. Ford was paying good money and then the workers and management became adversaries. Government regulation on cars and in the workplace drove prices up.

[NeverSure]

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

I thought I'd read exports and the economy generally were doing well this year and continuing the upwards trend from the low brought on by the flooding; but I was too lazy too find any links, so thanks for that.

I hold no animosity for never sure (or any one else) but do find that often he seems to have a negative bias on Thailand and a positive on USA; both of which are opposite to the current growth, unemployment and debt pictures; but I'm still happy to hear alternative views when they are at least explain through some rational reasoning.

i suggest you read the daily articles on "macro views" (seekingalpha.com) where you can take your pick reading contradicting views not only "with some rational reasoning" but with pages each on at least a dozen different topics... and all from "renowned gurus" who predicted correctly <insert facts from thin air> something that happened or might not have happened <insert year>.

the internet is full with views and predictions. my banks are bombarding me daily with tons of research (mostly) views and predictions from highly paid "@nals". some (very few) of the latter i read with interest but most of them i process with the "delete" button.

predictions and views are a dime a dozen. hard evidence is never provided except when it pertains the past.

Yes, but don't you find it fun to post your own non-binding predictions? If you don't, that's OK. I'm just doing my best to bring out some contrarian views, and sometimes I make mistakes. I still find it interesting.

[NeverSure]

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

I thought I'd read exports and the economy generally were doing well this year and continuing the upwards trend from the low brought on by the flooding; but I was too lazy too find any links, so thanks for that.

I hold no animosity for never sure (or any one else) but do find that often he seems to have a negative bias on Thailand and a positive on USA; both of which are opposite to the current growth, unemployment and debt pictures; but I'm still happy to hear alternative views when they are at least explain through some rational reasoning.

See, what I'm doing is being contrarian. If "everyone" thinks Thailand and China are the next roads to Heaven, then I challenge that because I don't like to blindly follow the crowd. So I'll bring out my contrarian ideas, and hope people challenge them.

If I'm wrong, or if you're wrong, then we all learn.

It should be a collective effort without animosity, trying to find the facts or it's no fun. Just flaming someone is really no fun.

It's not an exercise that someone has to win.

[mccw]

True

[Naam]

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

I thought I'd read exports and the economy generally were doing well this year and continuing the upwards trend from the low brought on by the flooding; but I was too lazy too find any links, so thanks for that.

I hold no animosity for never sure (or any one else) but do find that often he seems to have a negative bias on Thailand and a positive on USA; both of which are opposite to the current growth, unemployment and debt pictures; but I'm still happy to hear alternative views when they are at least explain through some rational reasoning.

See, what I'm doing is being contrarian. If "everyone" thinks Thailand and China are the next roads to Heaven, then I challenge that because I don't like to blindly follow the crowd. So I'll bring out my contrarian ideas, and hope people challenge them.

If I'm wrong, or if you're wrong, then we all learn.

It should be a collective effort without animosity, trying to find the facts or it's no fun. Just flaming someone is really no fun.

It's not an exercise that someone has to win.

those of us with the proverbial 2 Satangs knowledge over and above the normal financial mortal who might seek advice in a forum have a certain responsibility. whatever views we have should be marked clearly with "view" or "opinion" instead of presenting links which again provide only views, opinions and last not least predictions. anybody predicting anything in the financial world that pertains to the future and claims his views are pure refined and unfallible wisdom is in my[not so]humble view some sort of snake oil seller. that applies to markets, commodities, currencies and you name it.

over the years i have been asked dozens of times what i think of currency X and how it will fare vs. currency Y by the end of this year or a given period or faced otherwise financial questions.

my answer was always that i wouldn't dare to predict currency or market movements of tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

even predictions based on solid analysis, available numbers and hard work can turn out to be completely wrong. not only 2008 but the billions big shots like Buffet, Soros et al have lost and still lose once in a while are hard evidence for my claim.

[yoshiwara]

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

I thought I'd read exports and the economy generally were doing well this year and continuing the upwards trend from the low brought on by the flooding; but I was too lazy too find any links, so thanks for that.

I hold no animosity for never sure (or any one else) but do find that often he seems to have a negative bias on Thailand and a positive on USA; both of which are opposite to the current growth, unemployment and debt pictures; but I'm still happy to hear alternative views when they are at least explain through some rational reasoning.

See, what I'm doing is being contrarian. If "everyone" thinks Thailand and China are the next roads to Heaven, then I challenge that because I don't like to blindly follow the crowd. So I'll bring out my contrarian ideas, and hope people challenge them.

If I'm wrong, or if you're wrong, then we all learn.

It should be a collective effort without animosity, trying to find the facts or it's no fun. Just flaming someone is really no fun.

It's not an exercise that someone has to win.

Being contrarian for the sake of it is a waste of space and taking potshots at the future 'for fun' is immature. Now taking a position on a forward projection; that has some value. Edited May 27, 2013 by yoshiwara

[mccw]

"""While European banking is suffering a deposit exodus, Russians seem to become increasingly comfortable about bringing their money to the countrys lenders.

Individuals in Russia increased their saving deposits by $16 billion during 1Q 2013, according to the Agency for Deposit Insurance. The number compares to a $3.6 billion increase a year earlier.

Longer term deposits seem to be more popular than checking accounts. The share of deposits for a period above a year increased to 60.9% between January and March, while the share of call deposits was down to 17%. And the deposits between $22,600 and $32,300 grew the fastest, as they were up by 8.1% in terms of overall volumes.

The most evident reason for such changes in deposit preferences is the high interest rate, as Kommersant daily explains. The average rate for one year rouble deposits in Russia reached 9.6% in 1Q 2013.

Its not just high inflation in Russia that has pushed the rates up, but also a traditional lack of trust among Russian lenders. Rising competition among Russian banks that seek to stay ahead of the market in terms of new deposits is also a factor, the paper explains.""""

-rt

[NeverSure]

Still wrong.

you posted;

"Thai exports shrank 4% or Bt55 billion over 1st three months of 2013"

1Q13 exports grew 4.5% YoY.

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_news.php?id=6764&a=2

I was correct in saying you were being misleading in using old data. You got caught posting an old link. You then scrambled to find a link that literally says one line about exports that is actually incorrect. You chose to omit the strong April numbers.

I thought I'd read exports and the economy generally were doing well this year and continuing the upwards trend from the low brought on by the flooding; but I was too lazy too find any links, so thanks for that.

I hold no animosity for never sure (or any one else) but do find that often he seems to have a negative bias on Thailand and a positive on USA; both of which are opposite to the current growth, unemployment and debt pictures; but I'm still happy to hear alternative views when they are at least explain through some rational reasoning.

See, what I'm doing is being contrarian. If "everyone" thinks Thailand and China are the next roads to Heaven, then I challenge that because I don't like to blindly follow the crowd. So I'll bring out my contrarian ideas, and hope people challenge them.

If I'm wrong, or if you're wrong, then we all learn.

It should be a collective effort without animosity, trying to find the facts or it's no fun. Just flaming someone is really no fun.

It's not an exercise that someone has to win.

those of us with the proverbial 2 Satangs knowledge over and above the normal financial mortal who might seek advice in a forum have a certain responsibility. whatever views we have should be marked clearly with "view" or "opinion" instead of presenting links which again provide only views, opinions and last not least predictions. anybody predicting anything in the financial world that pertains to the future and claims his views are pure refined and unfallible wisdom is in my[not so]humble view some sort of snake oil seller. that applies to markets, commodities, currencies and you name it.

over the years i have been asked dozens of times what i think of currency X and how it will fare vs. currency Y by the end of this year or a given period or faced otherwise financial questions.

my answer was always that i wouldn't dare to predict currency or market movements of tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

even predictions based on solid analysis, available numbers and hard work can turn out to be completely wrong. not only 2008 but the billions big shots like Buffet, Soros et al have lost and still lose once in a while are hard evidence for my claim.

I agree completely. But you do agree that people make predictions.

If someone asked me what I think the baht/USD will be 6 months from now I'd say I don't know. If someone asked me if he should buy a certain stock I'd say I don't know. I might say I'm buying it, though. I might say I'm completely out of stocks, too. I would say whether I'm buying gold.

I post what I see in the trajectory of an economy. I post what I see in the fundamentals. That doesn't mean I'm right.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm provoking thought. I accept opposite views. I accept it when someone points out a mistake.

So I'm just having fun being contrarian, trying to provoke thought and conversation, but each person has to make his own decisions. If I had listened to some experts 6 months ago I would have lost a lot of money.

No one should get his financial advice on an internet forum. But we do have a forum to discuss the "financial crisis" as it is named.

Post your views, I'll post mine, and no one has to lose. No one has to be right.

[manarak]

Geez. How did we grow to hate corporations? Capitalism and the pooling of money into big money is what brought us the railroads and the Airlines and television and even the internet. And it's all relatively cheap due to volume.

I'm a capitalist liberal, but I too see dangers in how *some* corporations have developed. I will maybe post more details about this later when I will have more time, but in short I am against too much corporate employment and against consumerism... so I'm against Fordism.

Regarding the big corporations, I dislike very much their ownership structures (mostly without leading actionnaires) and how they are led (mostly by employed CEOs with the wrong incentives).

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'm enjoying this.

You're against "Fordism." Wow.

Henry Ford, 100 years ago, thought up the idea of the uniform assembly line and mass production. He was the one who invented the idea that if every part for the car was standardized, then you could just have a parts bin along an assembly line, and any part in that bin would fit the next car coming down the line. Before that, each part was hand made to fit an individual car.

He was really the inventor of mass production for the masses. After he built that factory to build Fords, the production cost was so low that even the workers on the assembly line could afford to buy one.

Standardization also improved quality. He may still hold the record for the most cars of any one type ever built. If not he did for a long time. The Model T Ford. The car that created the middle class - not just the car, but the assembly line idea across industry.

These big corporations are creating jobs. If Google has 30,000 employees, those are good jobs with benefits in an industry that didn't really exist just 15 years ago. Google was "created" as an idea by college students. What a great world this is!!!

We are on the verge of being able to make clothing without human intervention. All robotics right to putting the stickers on and packaging for shipping. Think of how cheap clothes will get then! Jobs lost? Not as many as have been created in tech in the past 15 years. And the consumer benefits by cheap clothing of better quality because computerized (robotic) cutting and sewing will be more exacting than people. China will shudder, but who cares? It's a competitive world and competition drives low prices and quality.

You don't like "Fordism." Do you like "Toyotaism" Japanese style? Most of the Japanese cars and pickups sold in the US are made in the US. Same with Europe, I believe. Same with Canada.

What are we going to drive if people with a profit motive don't build us cars while competing against each other for our business with price, looks and quality?

The technical advances of mass production, assembly line and standardisation are not the part of Fordism I criticise.

I'm against some of the social consequences. Fordism has shaped the social policies in most western countries, i.e. trapping too many people in employment and debt, and trapping the economy in the same - because the dumb (90%) people are ready to trade in their property and liberty and take up debt in exchange for shiny baubles that will be worthless in 3 to 5 years (iphones, notebooks, tablets, cars, etc.) - and that is the harmless part, because at least the money sunk into those baubles does not blow up the property market, unlike the tsunami of mortgages fueled by stable employment.

I don't like Fordism, because one of the social consequences of Fordism is to reduce the number of capitalists , i.e. more employees, less employers.

[PCA]

It should be a collective effort without animosity, trying to find the facts or it's no fun. Just flaming someone is really no fun.

It's not an exercise that someone has to win.

those of us with the proverbial 2 Satangs knowledge over and above the normal financial mortal who might seek advice in a forum have a certain responsibility. whatever views we have should be marked clearly with "view" or "opinion" instead of presenting links which again provide only views, opinions and last not least predictions. anybody predicting anything in the financial world that pertains to the future and claims his views are pure refined and unfallible wisdom is in my[not so]humble view some sort of snake oil seller. that applies to markets, commodities, currencies and you name it.

over the years i have been asked dozens of times what i think of currency X and how it will fare vs. currency Y by the end of this year or a given period or faced otherwise financial questions.

my answer was always that i wouldn't dare to predict currency or market movements of tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

even predictions based on solid analysis, available numbers and hard work can turn out to be completely wrong. not only 2008 but the billions big shots like Buffet, Soros et al have lost and still lose once in a while are hard evidence for my claim.

I agree completely. But you do agree that people make predictions.

If someone asked me what I think the baht/USD will be 6 months from now I'd say I don't know. If someone asked me if he should buy a certain stock I'd say I don't know. I might say I'm buying it, though. I might say I'm completely out of stocks, too. I would say whether I'm buying gold.

I post what I see in the trajectory of an economy. I post what I see in the fundamentals. That doesn't mean I'm right.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm provoking thought. I accept opposite views. I accept it when someone points out a mistake.

So I'm just having fun being contrarian, trying to provoke thought and conversation, but each person has to make his own decisions. If I had listened to some experts 6 months ago I would have lost a lot of money.

No one should get his financial advice on an internet forum. But we do have a forum to discuss the "financial crisis" as it is named.

Post your views, I'll post mine, and no one has to lose. No one has to be right.

I'd say you have been much more often right than wrong. Right in analysing what you have read and applying your skillset according to your level of experience and education. You are biased and so are we all. The rest is noise by comparing dicks hypothetically which is silly unless we are a group of boys in the swimming pool - there is a good chance we are. Speaking is a skill and so is remaining silent .

PS: the quoting feature sucks

[NeverSure]

Geez. How did we grow to hate corporations? Capitalism and the pooling of money into big money is what brought us the railroads and the Airlines and television and even the internet. And it's all relatively cheap due to volume.

I'm a capitalist liberal, but I too see dangers in how *some* corporations have developed. I will maybe post more details about this later when I will have more time, but in short I am against too much corporate employment and against consumerism... so I'm against Fordism.

Regarding the big corporations, I dislike very much their ownership structures (mostly without leading actionnaires) and how they are led (mostly by employed CEOs with the wrong incentives).

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'm enjoying this.

You're against "Fordism." Wow.

Henry Ford, 100 years ago, thought up the idea of the uniform assembly line and mass production. He was the one who invented the idea that if every part for the car was standardized, then you could just have a parts bin along an assembly line, and any part in that bin would fit the next car coming down the line. Before that, each part was hand made to fit an individual car.

He was really the inventor of mass production for the masses. After he built that factory to build Fords, the production cost was so low that even the workers on the assembly line could afford to buy one.

Standardization also improved quality. He may still hold the record for the most cars of any one type ever built. If not he did for a long time. The Model T Ford. The car that created the middle class - not just the car, but the assembly line idea across industry.

These big corporations are creating jobs. If Google has 30,000 employees, those are good jobs with benefits in an industry that didn't really exist just 15 years ago. Google was "created" as an idea by college students. What a great world this is!!!

We are on the verge of being able to make clothing without human intervention. All robotics right to putting the stickers on and packaging for shipping. Think of how cheap clothes will get then! Jobs lost? Not as many as have been created in tech in the past 15 years. And the consumer benefits by cheap clothing of better quality because computerized (robotic) cutting and sewing will be more exacting than people. China will shudder, but who cares? It's a competitive world and competition drives low prices and quality.

You don't like "Fordism." Do you like "Toyotaism" Japanese style? Most of the Japanese cars and pickups sold in the US are made in the US. Same with Europe, I believe. Same with Canada.

What are we going to drive if people with a profit motive don't build us cars while competing against each other for our business with price, looks and quality?

The technical advances of mass production, assembly line and standardisation are not the part of Fordism I criticise.

I'm against some of the social consequences. Fordism has shaped the social policies in most western countries, i.e. trapping too many people in employment and debt, and trapping the economy in the same - because the dumb (90%) people are ready to trade in their property and liberty and take up debt in exchange for shiny baubles that will be worthless in 3 to 5 years (iphones, notebooks, tablets, cars, etc.) - and that is the harmless part, because at least the money sunk into those baubles does not blow up the property market, unlike the tsunami of mortgages fueled by stable employment.

I don't like Fordism, because one of the social consequences of Fordism is to reduce the number of capitalists , i.e. more employees, less employers.

So then if all of the auto manufacturing companies, all of whom have similar business models and a lot of capital, were to be broken up, where could you buy a new car at a price point?

Ford has to compete with every competitor. That drives all competitors to make better products that people like at the best possible price.

Do you want to go back to the stone age, or do you want a smartphone and a microwave and a computer? A huge company called IBM developed the modern personal computer that we call the PC. But Bill Gates, a non wealthy, small capitalist sold them the first workable operating system called DOS and now he's the richest man on earth after giving away about 1/3 of his money to charity. Bill Gates never even graduated from college but he outsmarted IBM by refusing to sell them DOS. He made them buy a licensed copy for every computer and he's made all of the money. IBM no longer makes person computers. The competition ate them up. Some of the competitors were start up guys like Dell.

I do think there should be laws and regulations to keep corporations honest, and to keep them from dominating society. But I love what they provide for me, like this computer and this internet connection and the software I need in order to use it.

[NeverSure]

I'd say you have been much more often right than wrong. Right in analysing what you have read and applying your skillset according to your level of experience and education. You are biased and so are we all. The rest is noise by comparing dicks hypothetically which is silly unless we are a group of boys in the swimming pool - there is a good chance we are. Speaking is a skill and so is remaining silent .

PS: the quoting feature sucks"

Yes, the quote feature sucks. I haven't figured it out.

If we remained silent there wouldn't be a forum. The topic is simply Financial Crisis.

I keep trying to say. It's a discussion. No one has to win and no one has to lose. It's just peoples' opinions and I do know what they say about opinions.

If people could keep from pointing fingers at people, and not need to make it personal, then all ideas would be welcome. The ideas could be countered or corrected without animosity.

All of ThaiVisa is hard to do that in. It's the most contentious forum I've ever belonged to. Jesus, the biggest Harley Davidson forum on the planet who you might think would be filled with azzholes isn't. It's a bunch of guys who get along well. I've never seen anything like the way people attack other people or other countries the way they do on ThaiVisa.

Why don't we lighten up and exchange ideas?

[cheeryble]

what does one call an absolute ignorant who... (read!)

My Dad used to call me an ignoramus.

Would that do?

[manarak]

So then if all of the auto manufacturing companies, all of whom have similar business models and a lot of capital, were to be broken up, where could you buy a new car at a price point?

Ford has to compete with every competitor. That drives all competitors to make better products that people like at the best possible price.

Do you want to go back to the stone age, or do you want a smartphone and a microwave and a computer? A huge company called IBM developed the modern personal computer that we call the PC. But Bill Gates, a non wealthy, small capitalist sold them the first workable operating system called DOS and now he's the richest man on earth after giving away about 1/3 of his money to charity. Bill Gates never even graduated from college but he outsmarted IBM by refusing to sell them DOS. He made them buy a licensed copy for every computer and he's made all of the money. IBM no longer makes person computers. The competition ate them up. Some of the competitors were start up guys like Dell.

I do think there should be laws and regulations to keep corporations honest, and to keep them from dominating society. But I love what they provide for me, like this computer and this internet connection and the software I need in order to use it.

Don't use sophisticated products requiring a lot of capital as examples.

These are the most legitimate "big companies".

Rather think about situations where big replaces small in markets with low product/service differentiation.

For example in farming, processed meat, fishing, retailing... but also banking,

[NeverSure]

So then if all of the auto manufacturing companies, all of whom have similar business models and a lot of capital, were to be broken up, where could you buy a new car at a price point?

Ford has to compete with every competitor. That drives all competitors to make better products that people like at the best possible price.

Do you want to go back to the stone age, or do you want a smartphone and a microwave and a computer? A huge company called IBM developed the modern personal computer that we call the PC. But Bill Gates, a non wealthy, small capitalist sold them the first workable operating system called DOS and now he's the richest man on earth after giving away about 1/3 of his money to charity. Bill Gates never even graduated from college but he outsmarted IBM by refusing to sell them DOS. He made them buy a licensed copy for every computer and he's made all of the money. IBM no longer makes person computers. The competition ate them up. Some of the competitors were start up guys like Dell.

I do think there should be laws and regulations to keep corporations honest, and to keep them from dominating society. But I love what they provide for me, like this computer and this internet connection and the software I need in order to use it.

Don't use sophisticated products requiring a lot of capital as examples.

These are the most legitimate "big companies".

Rather think about situations where big replaces small in markets with low product/service differentiation.

For example in farming, processed meat, fishing, retailing... but also banking,

We may have a completely different world view. I don't see individual Thai farmers, meat growers, fishermen or retailers making much money. Yet they are inefficient. When they buy machines and farm on a larger scale, they displace workers. It is inevitable because if bigger money with machinery can produce faster and at a lower cost, then the stoop laborer will be replaced anyway. The consumer will benefit from lower prices - that's true with higher tech too as computers get better and cheaper and robots do more of the work.

I see the answer going back to Henry Ford. He provided a lot of good jobs while making his product available to the masses. Today those workers can afford not only cars, but homes and all of the modern goodies inside that didn't exist 50 years ago.

There isn't a net loss of jobs. There are new jobs every time something new is invented. We can't stop "progress" even if we don't like it, and even if it isn't 100% good. We will replace many mail carriers with email. We will replace many birthday cards with ecards. They are simply easier and cheaper and the consumer will move to the preferred method.

We talk about the "shrinking middle class." I'm not convinced that anything more than individuals cause it. I'm not convinced that progress caused it. There is something else new in the past few decades called government handouts or "entitlements." I see a ton of people sitting on their asses, preferring a handout to a job. Thailand claims zero unemployment but I spent April touring Isaan in a rented car. What did I see mostly other than people sitting on their asses drinking beer and failing to even pick up the trash around their houses? I spent 2 days at a village school and the kids weren't required to make any effort. Everyone passes. Save face for the kids and their parents. What good does that do for the future?

Other than the physically or mentally challenged people, each person has to get off his butt and learn a trade, get an education, or do something, or he deserves to be poor and miss out on being middle class. I know the US best, and there are fields of employment - good jobs - that are crying for help but people won't make the personal effort to get qualified and apply. They prefer being poor on entitlements.

There is opportunity all around with global changes and emerging economies. Each person must make a grab at the brass ring.

[NeverSure]

I missed something else that didn't exist 50 years ago when there was a strong middle class and that is taxes. Hidden taxes and overt taxes have skyrocketed. It's one thing to have money withheld from an earnings check, but it's another to have 2/3 (or whatever) of the price of a liter of gasoline be taxes. Almost everything is highly taxed from VAT to import tax to annual assessments to registrations for vehicles.

I can't see the problem as being only about income for the would-be middle class. I see it as being partly the cost of living due to taxes.

I don't think we honestly realize just how much we are taxed to pay for today's thinking, and even then it isn't enough to keep governments from deficit spending. Who thought up these ideas? It wasn't corporations.

[manarak]

thanks for your reply, it gives me some ground to build on

We may have a completely different world view. I don't see individual Thai farmers, meat growers, fishermen or retailers making much money. Yet they are inefficient. When they buy machines and farm on a larger scale, they displace workers. It is inevitable because if bigger money with machinery can produce faster and at a lower cost, then the stoop laborer will be replaced anyway. The consumer will benefit from lower prices - that's true with higher tech too as computers get better and cheaper and robots do more of the work.

The point is not about making much money, the point is about being able to make a living independently from corporations.

Machines are able to work for cheaper than laborers because social policies have increased peoples' living costs beyond what they can earn from simple manual work. This is a first mistake. Living costs need to stay as low as possible, so that people are able to just "live off the land".

One big problem is when business gets concentrated is that the big business squeezes the juice out of the weak:

- farming corporations first eliminate smaller farmers and then squeeze out workers

- retailing corporations first eliminate smaller retailers and then squeeze out farmers and food processors, fishers

etc.

and all of them then squeeze out their workers, the salaries are so low and well remote from Ford's original concept, but the unavoidable result of the economic optimization process.

I see the answer going back to Henry Ford. He provided a lot of good jobs while making his product available to the masses. Today those workers can afford not only cars, but homes and all of the modern goodies inside that didn't exist 50 years ago.

There isn't a net loss of jobs. There are new jobs every time something new is invented. We can't stop "progress" even if we don't like it, and even if it isn't 100% good. We will replace many mail carriers with email. We will replace many birthday cards with ecards. They are simply easier and cheaper and the consumer will move to the preferred method.

I'm not against progress, innovation and free enterprise.

I'm against pressuring people into employment by raising their living costs and lowering their income, especially that which could be earned with low intensity work.

Fordism doesn't work anymore, because the wages are not high enough - today companies are squeezing their employees, especially the middle class employees. The difference in wages between a worker and higher ranks is not big enough anymore.

We talk about the "shrinking middle class." I'm not convinced that anything more than individuals cause it. I'm not convinced that progress caused it. There is something else new in the past few decades called government handouts or "entitlements." I see a ton of people sitting on their asses, preferring a handout to a job. Thailand claims zero unemployment but I spent April touring Isaan in a rented car. What did I see mostly other than people sitting on their asses drinking beer and failing to even pick up the trash around their houses? I spent 2 days at a village school and the kids weren't required to make any effort. Everyone passes. Save face for the kids and their parents. What good does that do for the future?

Other than the physically or mentally challenged people, each person has to get off his butt and learn a trade, get an education, or do something, or he deserves to be poor and miss out on being middle class. I know the US best, and there are fields of employment - good jobs - that are crying for help but people won't make the personal effort to get qualified and apply. They prefer being poor on entitlements.

There is opportunity all around with global changes and emerging economies. Each person must make a grab at the brass ring.

We are very much in agreement here.

The causes of shrinkage of the middle class are: taxes and rising living costs as well as insufficient inequality in wages (all a result of modern social policies).