Financial Crisis

[metisdead]

Some antagonizing posts have been removed:

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[midas]

And here it comes for the USA

Fed Vice Chair Fischer On U.S. Bailin "Proposals"

As part of this approach, the United
States is preparing a proposal to require systemically important banks to issue
bail-inable long-term debt that will enable insolvent banks to recapitalize
themselves in resolution without calling on government funding--this cushion is
known as a "gone concern" buffer.”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/fischer20140811a.htm?

[mccw]

In many articles; especially those out of the USA; they point at EU and say basically "a haa ; see , they did not do QE like us and there for suffering like xyz; we are 100% the best policy!"" Or words to that effect.

But then look at Japan; super QE like USA , more so even; but Japan just contracted 6.8% year on year. Way worse than the Euro Zone.

So what's going on then?

Is it that demographics and immigration have a greater effect than all these monetary levers?

UK and US being high immigration countries. Not sure how Euro Zone and Japan compare. Any info or ideas lads?

[MJP]

Press 'Start' to resume printing.

[Naam]

In many articles; especially those out of the USA; they point at EU and say basically "a haa ; see , they did not do QE like us and there for suffering like xyz; we are 100% the best policy!"" Or words to that effect.

But then look at Japan; super QE like USA , more so even; but Japan just contracted 6.8% year on year. Way worse than the Euro Zone.

So what's going on then?

Is it that demographics and immigration have a greater effect than all these monetary levers?

UK and US being high immigration countries. Not sure how Euro Zone and Japan compare. Any info or ideas lads?

but Japan just contracted 6.8% year on year

Honourable Sir MCCW, Esq.;

please have mercy and don't spread fairy tales replacing the "plus" sign with a "minus" sign. i most humbly beg of you!

Japan has revised up its growth figures for the January-to-March period, due to stronger growth in business investment.

The Cabinet Office said the economy grew 1.6% during the period, up from its initial estimate of 1.5%.

That translates into an annualised growth rate of 6.7% - up from the initial figure of 5.9%. Many analysts had expected a downward revision.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27758498

[Naam]

Press 'Start' to resume printing.

press "stop" in order to avoid BS

[mccw]

Thank you naam

Seems Sky News made a rather large error. And my fault for not checking the facts around. A good example of not taking media words at face value. Looks like they have pulled the story completely rather than correct it.

[MJP]

Press 'Start' to resume printing.

press "stop" in order to avoid BS

They need the printy cash for this global war they're all after.

[Naam]

Press 'Start' to resume printing.

press "stop" in order to avoid BS

They need the printy cash for this global war they're all after.

well, i never knew that

[mccw]

And here at Forbes it's a negative too:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/13/japans-gdp-falls-by-6-8-in-the-second-quarter-on-sales-tax-rise/

[MJP]

Press 'Start' to resume printing.

press "stop" in order to avoid BS

They need the printy cash for this global war they're all after.

well, i never knew that

Well you do now!

So there!

[Naam]

Interesting

Biz insider reporting negative like sky were too:

""

It’s a funny world when stocks can soar on a -6.8% Japanese GDP print but stumble when a Russian armored personnel carrier finds itself on the wrong end of a Ukrainian howitzer shell. That’s what you get, though, in the Golden Age of the Central Banker, as all events are filtered through the narrative of central bank control.

""

it's not funny at all reading the BS of journàrselists who cannot differentiate between a fictive (because annualised by extrapolation) percentage based on a single quarter performance.

at least the "Economist" got it right and reported correctly

THE government of Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, has put a brave face on the news that GDP shrank by 1.7% in the second quarter of this year. Akira Amari, the economy minister, blamed the fall, of an annualised 6.8%...

[Naam]

press "stop" in order to avoid BS

They need the printy cash for this global war they're all after.

well, i never knew that

Well you do now!

So there!

what's the solution? let the dogs hunt for their food? switch off aircon to save energy? fire the gardener and let the wife mow the lawn? prayers?

[mccw]

So it was a negative then after all?

Isn't the annualised the total of last 4 quarters?

Interesting

Biz insider reporting negative like sky were too:

""

It’s a funny world when stocks can soar on a -6.8% Japanese GDP print but stumble when a Russian armored personnel carrier finds itself on the wrong end of a Ukrainian howitzer shell. That’s what you get, though, in the Golden Age of the Central Banker, as all events are filtered through the narrative of central bank control.

""

it's not funny at all reading the BS of journàrselists who cannot differentiate between a fictive (because annualised by extrapolation) percentage based on a single quarter performance.

at least the "Economist" got it right and reported correctly

THE government of Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, has put a brave face on the news that GDP shrank by 1.7% in the second quarter of this year. Akira Amari, the economy minister, blamed the fall, of an annualised 6.8%...

[MJP]

^^ Naam, all of the above.

Gravel instead of turf.

Fans and high ceilings instead of air con.

The dogs? Well mine would never even eat dog food. Only freshly prepared chicken breast in a parsley and honey glaze. So dunno on that score.

I honestly think central banks will panic and hit the print button again as the last load wears off. Having done it a couple of times the will to resist is no longer there. Who knows, perahps it's the new normal?

[mccw]

I agree with MJP.

More printing and possibly a western wide simultaneous bail in at the next down turn

[Naam]

So it was a negative then after all?

Isn't the annualised the total of last 4 quarters?

i refuse to come up with an appropriate comment because it would get me banned.

[Naam]

I agree with MJP.

More printing and possibly a western wide simultaneous bail in at the next down turn

keep up the good job boys! yawnnnn....

[mccw]

Charming

'Twas u naam who proclaimed BS on me stating a minus GDP

Which now transpires was correct.

Now your trying to wiggle around to be condescending another way to make up for your first mistake.

No shame in being wrong naam. I readily admitted I / media could have been wrong at the outset. Now it's a mixed picture and I just trying to get to the bottom of it.

The initial sky article spoke as if this 6.8% was the total contraction across the whole year up to that point.

[mccw]

According to this though it is just this quarter:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth

Bizarre media ways to report things.

[midas]

Interesting

Biz insider reporting negative like sky were too:

""

It’s a funny world when stocks can soar on a -6.8% Japanese GDP print but stumble when a Russian armored personnel carrier finds itself on the wrong end of a Ukrainian howitzer shell. That’s what you get, though, in the Golden Age of the Central Banker, as all events are filtered through the narrative of central bank control.

""

it's not funny at all reading the BS of journàrselists who cannot differentiate between a fictive (because annualised by extrapolation) percentage based on a single quarter performance.

at least the "Economist" got it right and reported correctly

THE government of Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, has put a brave face on the news that GDP shrank by 1.7% in the second quarter of this year. Akira Amari, the economy minister, blamed the fall, of an annualised 6.8%...

Plus or minus - the orchestra plays on as they rearrange the deck chairs

So there is no possibility that Abenomics will result in “escape velocity” Japan style and that Japan can grow its way out of it enormous fiscal trap. Instead, nominal and real growth will remain pinned to the flatline owing to peak debt, soaring retirements, a shrinking tax base and a tax burden which will rise as far as the eye can see.

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/japans-keynesian-demise-a-cautionary-tale-for-our-times/

[Naam]

Charming

'Twas u naam who proclaimed BS on me stating a minus GDP

Which now transpires was correct.

Now your trying to wiggle around to be condescending another way to make up for your first mistake.

No shame in being wrong naam. I readily admitted I / media could have been wrong at the outset. Now it's a mixed picture and I just trying to get to the bottom of it.

The initial sky article spoke as if this 6.8% was the total contraction across the whole year up to that point.

i tried to give you a hint and the opportunity to look up facts to correct your assumption based on the wrong information from "sky". you did not check but came up with another ridiculous assumption (your interpretation of "annualised") plus blaming me for a "mistake". as you are not willing to learn even the basics... so be it.

[mccw]

Zzzz

[lannarebirth]

So it was a negative then after all?

Isn't the annualised the total of last 4 quarters?

When GDP is annualised it is a projection that extrapolates the current quarter GDP one year into the future. Example. Current qtr GDP is 1%, annualised GDP is projected to be 4%.

[Naam]

According to this though it is just this quarter:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp-growth

Bizarre media ways to report things.

i apologise because i overlooked that you did some homework and also arrived at the correct conclusion "bizarre" because the first quarter plus of 1.6% was not taken into consideration.

an experienced and fair journalist (as opposed to a journàrselist) would have calculated the annualised projection for 2014 as follows:

plus 1.6% minus 1.7% equals minus 0.1% for H1 = minus 0.2% annualised for 2014.

unfortunately this fictive but mathematically correct result is not in line with nowadays journàrselistic attempts to use sensational diction by presenting half truths which we all know are most of the time worse than blatant lies.

[mccw]

So it was a negative then after all?

Isn't the annualised the total of last 4 quarters?

When GDP is annualised it is a projection that extrapolates the current quarter GDP one year into the future. Example. Current qtr GDP is 1%, annualised GDP is projected to be 4%.

If saying "projected annualised" then yes it is obvious- because of the future context with the word "projected".

But when saying something like "last quarters GDP came in at minus 1.7%, and an annualised GDP of -6.8%" this sounds like it should be the sum of the past 4 quarters results to me.

Claiming the future as the present if

no context. I'm not an economist; but do read a fair bit of news, but it still completely threw me as these posts show- pretty crazy way to be reporting when probably 90-99% of the readers of those pieces would see it how I did I think. Almost as if the press were trying to sow fear in the retail investors level/ general public.

[Naam]

So it was a negative then after all?

Isn't the annualised the total of last 4 quarters?

When GDP is annualised it is a projection that extrapolates the current quarter GDP one year into the future. Example. Current qtr GDP is 1%, annualised GDP is projected to be 4%.

If saying "projected annualised" then yes it is obvious- because of the future context with the word "projected".

But when saying something like "last quarters GDP came in at minus 1.7%, and an annualised GDP of -6.8%" this sounds like it should be the sum of the past 4 quarters results to me.

Claiming the future as the present if

no context. I'm not an economist; but do read a fair bit of news, but it still completely threw me as these posts show- pretty crazy way to be reporting when probably 90-99% of the readers of those pieces would see it how I did I think. Almost as if the press were trying to sow fear in the retail investors level/ general public.

the expression "annualised" contains embedded the meaning "projected" not withstanding the fact that the average man on the road is not aware of it.

moreover, your assumption "as if the press..." is correct.

[lannarebirth]

So it was a negative then after all?

Isn't the annualised the total of last 4 quarters?

When GDP is annualised it is a projection that extrapolates the current quarter GDP one year into the future. Example. Current qtr GDP is 1%, annualised GDP is projected to be 4%.

If saying "projected annualised" then yes it is obvious- because of the future context with the word "projected".

But when saying something like "last quarters GDP came in at minus 1.7%, and an annualised GDP of -6.8%" this sounds like it should be the sum of the past 4 quarters results to me.

Claiming the future as the present if

no context. I'm not an economist; but do read a fair bit of news, but it still completely threw me as these posts show- pretty crazy way to be reporting when probably 90-99% of the readers of those pieces would see it how I did I think. Almost as if the press were trying to sow fear in the retail investors level/ general public.

the expression "annualised" contains embedded the meaning "projected" not withstanding the fact that the average man on the road is not aware of it.

moreover, your assumption "as if the press..." is correct.

Just as the word "growth" is embedded in the term "GDP", at least for headline purposes..

[midas]

Wow-doesn't hold back any punches in criticising the Fed.

Janet Yellen is an Insult to Americans

Janet Yellen has a serious problem: the story no longer fits. The Fed under Bernanke said in its forward guidance that it would taper if certain job market conditions were met. And now they have been, at least on paper, but Yellen knows only too well that those are not the real numbers.

She’s acutely aware of how the BLS calculates US unemployment numbers. She knows about all the millions of people who are not counted as being in the labor force anymore, all the millions who are forced to work part time jobs, all those working more than one job just to make ends meet, and all of the above who simply don’t bring home enough money at the end of the month to pay the bills.

http://www.theautomaticearth.com/debt-rattle-aug-22-2014-janet-yellen-is-an-insult-to-americans/

[mccw]

Gross (not growth) Domestic Product

No growth in that intrinsically.

It will be either positive or negative.

So it was a negative then after all?

Isn't the annualised the total of last 4 quarters?

When GDP is annualised it is a projection that extrapolates the current quarter GDP one year into the future. Example. Current qtr GDP is 1%, annualised GDP is projected to be 4%.

If saying "projected annualised" then yes it is obvious- because of the future context with the word "projected".

But when saying something like "last quarters GDP came in at minus 1.7%, and an annualised GDP of -6.8%" this sounds like it should be the sum of the past 4 quarters results to me.

Claiming the future as the present if

no context. I'm not an economist; but do read a fair bit of news, but it still completely threw me as these posts show- pretty crazy way to be reporting when probably 90-99% of the readers of those pieces would see it how I did I think. Almost as if the press were trying to sow fear in the retail investors level/ general public.

the expression "annualised" contains embedded the meaning "projected" not withstanding the fact that the average man on the road is not aware of it.

moreover, your assumption "as if the press..." is correct.

Gross

Just as the word "growth" is embedded in the term "GDP", at least for headline purposes..