Main Menu

Meltdown

Started by BachQ, September 20, 2007, 11:35:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 130 131 132 133 134 ... 242
User actions

Coopmv

#2623
May 16, 2009, 05:32:42 AM
Quote from: Dm on April 23, 2009, 10:23:19 AM
Auditors: A record 25% of US companies may not be "going concerns" in 2009 -- A research firm predicts 3,589 public companies will report that their auditors doubt they will continue as going concerns.  Grant Thornton CEO Ed Nussbaum predicts that auditors will issue "an unprecedented number of going-concern disclosures ...."

Most of these are retailers anyway.  This is a good thing since conspicuous consumptions will be PERMANENTLY reigned in and since most retailers sell imported goods anyway, this will go a long way to attack the trade deficits.

BachQ

#2624
May 17, 2009, 04:49:49 AM
Quote from: Coopmv on April 11, 2009, 04:32:46 AM
The US will probably take many countries down with it, particularly those that are overly dependent on export if it does go down.  

Coop, given data released yesterday relating to 1st Qtr 2009, it seems that you are spot on with your prediction.  For example, the Eurozone is amid its deepest recession since WW II (e.g., German GDP plunged -4%); and Russia's GDP fell a staggering 23.2% in 1st Qtr 2009. Singapore's economy (which has historically been the strongest economy in Asia on a per capita basis) has likewise severely contracted so far in 2009.

Coopmv

#2625
May 17, 2009, 05:06:30 AM
Quote from: Dm on May 17, 2009, 04:49:49 AM
Coop, given data released yesterday relating to 1st Qtr 2009, it seems that you are spot on with your prediction.  For example, the Eurozone is amid its deepest recession since WW II (e.g., German GDP plunged -4%); and Russia's GDP fell a staggering 23.2% in 1st Qtr 2009. Singapore's economy (which has historically been the strongest economy in Asia on a per capita basis) has likewise severely contracted so far in 2009.

The picture is not pretty for Germany, which sells close to 50% of its Mercedes and BMW's and a host of other high value-added goods to the US.   It probably is bad for Italy as well since it sells a lot of products to the US restaurants, whose business have gone off a cliff.  The price of crude is just about right, under $60 and perhaps should be a tad lower since the industrial demand is not there and people are driving a bit less.  A country like Venezuela needs oil price to be around $80 to order to pay all the promised social programs or Hugo Chavez is toast.  I do not know what that price point is for Russia, which is just another one-trick pony - almost 100% dependency on oil export.  It appears oil price of under $60 is not good for it either.

BachQ

#2628
May 20, 2009, 03:19:59 AM
Quote from: Coopmv on May 17, 2009, 05:06:30 AM
The price of crude is just about right, under $60 and perhaps should be a tad lower since the industrial demand is not there and people are driving a bit less.  A country like Venezuela needs oil price to be around $80 to order to pay all the promised social programs or Hugo Chavez is toast.  I do not know what that price point is for Russia, which is just another one-trick pony - almost 100% dependency on oil export.  It appears oil price of under $60 is not good for it either.

Given the long-term supply constraints, it's not clear how much longer oil will remain below $60 (it's at $60.50/bbl as I type).  If there's any hint of a recovery (with the attendant increase in demand), oil prices will once again spike.

world crude oil production (May, 2009)


click for larger image


"World oil production peaked in July 2008 at 74.82 million barrels/day (mbd) and now has fallen to about 71 mbd. It is expected that oil production will decline slowly to about December 2010 as OPEC production increases while non-OPEC production decreases. After 2010 the resulting annual production decline rate increases to 3.4% as OPEC production is unable to offset cumulative non-OPEC declines. The forecast from the IEA WEO 2008 is also shown for comparison."


Click for larger image

"As oil production declines, a possible solution is to secure long term oil supply contracts ahead of the next oil price shock (which China has doing). ... As oil remains critical for economic activity there is a high probability that some countries will act more aggressively in securing oil supplies, even to the extent of oil resource wars. In mid May 2009, Russia raised the prospect of war to enforce its claims on Arctic oil and gas riches."

Coopmv

#2629
May 20, 2009, 02:49:23 PM

drogulus

#2632
May 21, 2009, 04:48:52 PM
Quote from: Coopmv on May 21, 2009, 04:17:15 PM
 

I think the Brits have taught their fellow Europeans a valuable lesson that it can be fatal to their financial well-being by blindly following the American style financial alchemy ...

    This is curious. The tulip mania didn't begin in the U.S.

     I got this from the PBS Frontline site:

     · Tulipmania (1634-1638)

Perhaps the most famous example of a speculative bubble is the "tulipmania" that struck 17th century Holland. Known for their passionate love of flowers, the Dutch highly prized the tulip upon its introduction to Western Europe in the mid-16th century. Dutch collectors devised a hierarchy of tulip varieties based upon their species and coloring, assigning values to the various flowers. Because it was impossible to determine which variegation would bloom from a particular bulb, the tulip became an object of speculation. During their earliest years in Europe, the bulbs were primarily of interest to the wealthy, but by the mid-1630s the craze caught on with middle-class and poorer families. The increased demand caused the price of the bulbs to soar.1

The market reached its height in late 1636 and early 1637, after the bulbs had been planted to bloom the following spring. People mortgaged their homes and industries in order to buy the bulbs for resale at higher prices. Charles Mackay, in his definitive history of early financial bubbles, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841), published a list of objects (and their prices) which were exchanged for "one single root of the rare species called the Viceroy":

    * Two lasts of wheat (448 florins)
    * Four lasts of rye (558 florins)
    * Four fat oxen (480 florins)
    * Eight fat swine (240 florins)
    * Twelve fat sheep (120 florins)
    * Two Hogsheads of wine (70 florins)
    * Four tuns of beer (32 florins)
    * Two tuns of butter (192 florins)
    * One thousands lbs. of cheese (120 florins)
    * A complete bed (100 florins)
    * A suit of clothes (80 florins)
    * A silver drinking-cup (60 florins)2

In February 1637, as spring drew near and the bulbs were close to flowering, consumer confidence evaporated and the market suddenly crashed. As the price structure collapsed, Mackay reported that "hundreds who, a few months previously, had begun to doubt that there was such a thing as poverty in the land suddenly found themselves the possessors of a few bulbs, which nobody would buy, even though they offered them at one quarter of the sums they had paid for them."3 Litigation ensued, and a government commission ruled in May 1638 that tulip contracts could be annulled upon the payment of 3.5 percent of the agreed price.

· The Mississippi Bubble (1719-1720)

The Mississippi Bubble -- which derives its name from the French Mississippi Company -- grew out of France's dire economic situation in the early 18th century. By the time of Louis XIV's death in 1715, the treasury was in shambles, with the value of metallic currency fluctuating wildly. The following year, the French regent turned to a Scotsman named John Law for help. Law, a gambler who had been forced into exile in France as the result of a duel, suggested the Banque Royale take deposits and issue banknotes payable in the value of the metallic currency at the time the banknotes were issued. Law's strategy helped the French convert from metallic to paper currency, and resulted in a period of financial stability, as well as his own increased fame and power.

In August 1717, Law incorporated the Companie des Indes (commonly known as the Mississippi Company), to which the French regent gave a monopoly on trading rights with French colonies, including what was then known as "French Louisiana." In August 1719, Law devised a scheme in which the Mississippi Company subsumed the entire French national debt, and launched a plan whereby portions of the debt would be exchanged for shares in the company. Based upon the expected riches from the trading monopoly, Law promised 120 percent profit for shareholders, and there were at least 300,000 applicants for the 50,000 shares offered.4 As the demand for shares continued to rise, the Banque Royale -- which was owned by the French government but effectively controlled by Law -- continued to print paper banknotes, causing inflation to soar.

The bubble burst in May 1720 when a run on the Banque Royale forced the government to acknowledge that the amount of metallic currency in the country was not quite equal to half the total amount of paper currency in circulation.5 On May 21, the government issued an edict that would gradually depreciate Mississippi Company shares, so that by the end of the year they would be valued at half their nominal worth. The public outcry was such that one week later, on May 27, the Regent's Council issued another edict restoring the shares to their original value. On the same day, however, the Banque Royale stopped payment in specie. When the Banque Royale reopened in June, the bank runs continued. By November, shares in the Mississippi Company were worthless, the company was eventually divested of its remaining assets, and Law was forced to flee the country.

· The South Sea Bubble (1720)

During the same period that French speculators were driving up the price of shares in the Mississippi Company, English speculators were purchasing stock in the South Sea Company. Formed in 1711 by Robert Harley, the South Sea Company was created to convert £10 million of government war debt (incurred during the War of Spanish Succession) into its own shares. In exchange, the company would receive annual interest payments from the government and a monopoly on trade with the South Seas and South America. The exchange was successful and although the expected trade riches never materialized, the company continued with several other debt conversions.

In 1720, following John Law's example in France, the company proposed to take over the entire British national debt. As soon as the plan was announced to Parliament, the company's share prices began to rise as speculators gambled on the conversion plan. The House of Lords approved the plan on April 7, 1720, after government officials had been bribed with secret allocations of shares. In order to make the deal more attractive, the company inflated the value of its stock. On April 14, £2 million of South Sea Company stock was offered to the public at £300 per share and the subscription sold out within an hour. The company made several more stock offerings, all of which sold out, with the subscribers representing all social classes.

The apparent success of the South Sea Company's scheme led to the appearance of many new joint-stock companies, which became known as "bubble" companies. Charles Mackay described some of the new companies:

    One of them was for a wheel for perpetual motion -- capital one million; another was 'for encouraging the breed of horses in England, and improving of glebe and church lands, and repairing and rebuilding parsonage and vicarage houses.' ... But the most absurd and preposterous of all, and which shewed, more completely than any other, the utter madness of the people, was one started by an unknown adventurer, entitled, "A company for carrying on an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is." Were not the fact stated by scores of credible witnesses, it would be impossible to believe that any person could have been duped by such a project.6

Mackay notes that the subscription for this final company sold out, and the satisfied entrepreneur promptly disappeared to the Continent. Worried about the competition from the bubble companies and in an attempt to sustain their share price, the South Sea Company convinced the government to pass the Bubble Act in June 1720. The act prevented the establishment of new companies without government permission, and allowed existing companies only to carry out those activities that were prescribed by their charters.

The price of South Sea stock peaked at £1050 in late June of 1720, before the scheme began to fall apart. The first large drop in the market occurred in August, as foreigners and other investors began to withdraw from the market. British domestic credit was stretched to its limit and the scheme finally collapsed at the beginning of September, with the stock having fallen by 75 percent in four weeks. Parliament conducted an investigation, corrupt politicians and businessmen were imprisoned, and over £2 million was confiscated from South Sea Company directors.

· The Bull Market of the Roaring Twenties (1924-1929)

The raging U.S. stock market of the late 1920s was hailed by many as evidence of a "new era" of economic fundamentals. Proponents of this theory pointed to evidence such as the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913; Coolidge administration policies including the extension of free trade, anti-inflation measures, and the relaxation of anti-trust laws; and corporate improvements such as increased worker productivity and expanded research and development.

In reality, the driving factor behind both the inflation and the bursting of the speculative bubble was the expanding use of leverage (i.e., debt) by individuals as well as corporations. The decade was marked by an enormous expansion of consumer credit, which Americans used to finance purchases of new products such as automobiles and radios, which were created using new techniques of mass production that additionally helped to drive down prices. Consumers also used credit to purchase stocks, and as the stock market escalated, investors began to take advantage of margin loans provided by their brokers. Their primary targets were industries involving new technologies, such as the automobile, motion picture, and aircraft industries. Radio stocks boomed, rising by 400 percent in 1928 alone,7 and the stock market attracted an immense public following.

On Sept. 3, 1929, the Dow Jones reached its high for the year before the bubble began to deflate. Oct. 24, which became known as "Black Thursday," marked the beginning of the stock market's downturn, remembered as the "Crash of 1929." Almost 13 million shares were traded on that day as an unexpected panic affected the markets. Although the following Friday was quieter, the Dow fell by a record 38 points on Monday, Oct. 28, and another 30 points on the infamous "Black Tuesday," Oct. 29, when a record 16.5 million shares changed hands. Following the chaos of October, the market briefly rallied through spring 1930 before plummeting again during the early 1930s.

· The Japanese "Bubble Economy" (1984-1989)

From the 1960s to the 1980s, Japan had one of the highest economic growth rates in the world. In the 1970s, the government began to deregulate financial markets, which allowed banks to actively seek out new customers. During the mid-1980s, Japan took a loose approach to monetary policy, which caused the money supply to increase and interest rates to fall. The combination of these two actions was important to the creation of a speculative bubble: with low interest rates and easier access to credit, new actors entered the financial markets.

The stock market bubble was fueled by a Japanese corporate invention, known as "zaitech," or "financial engineering," by which speculation became an integral part of corporate earnings statements. After obtaining low-interest loans, corporations were easily able to raise funds on the markets. While these funds sometimes fueled capital investment, they often were recycled back into further speculative market activities. As the Nikkei kept zooming higher and higher, corporations were able to report their speculative profits as higher earnings. Investors would then rush to purchase their stock, driving earnings even higher and providing more funds for the company's speculative actions. At the end of the decade, speculation dominated the activities of some businesses: it is estimated that perhaps 50% percent of total reported profits from Japan's largest corporations were derived from zaitech.

Land speculation was another important part of the bubble economy. Japanese land prices were traditionally high, partly due to the mountainous island nation's small amount of available land. Because of its high value, banks often accepted property as collateral for loans, and land served as the engine of credit for the entire economy.

By 1989, Japanese government officials were growing uneasy about the skyrocketing values of the Nikkei and land valuations. In May 1989, it tightened monetary policy by raising interest rates, and ordered another hike on Dec. 25. While the Nikkei reached its all-time high on Dec. 31, stock prices began to plummet in January. The government increased interest rates five more times before August 1990, to try and halt the continued rise of property prices. But as the Nikkei kept falling, it was forced to intervene in a futile attempt to try and revive the market and stave off recession. Throughout the 1990s, Japan experienced slower growth than any other major industrial nation.

                                                                                                                * * *

    So, is the U.S. actually to blame? I would say governments are always to blame when they look the other way. Bubble psychology means everyone enjoys the ride too much to bring it to a halt. So though I suppose blaming the U.S. has a more rational basis than blaming Jews or other traditional scapegoats, the real responsibility lies with regulators in many countries.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:142.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/142.0

Mullvad 14.5.5

Coopmv

#2633
May 21, 2009, 06:58:47 PM
In a nutshell, over-deregulation of the American financial industry has been a disaster.

Coopmv

#2634
May 22, 2009, 04:46:26 AM
Considering the UK financial crisis is almost as bad as the US and UK is a much smaller country with much less resources, it is strange that the British Pound has actually risen some 12% against the USD over the past month ...   ???

Coopmv

#2635
May 22, 2009, 05:26:34 AM
Screw California.  No bailout.  It can no longer afford to give students almost free college education.  Its property tax is also the lowest among the big states.  It needs a good-sized tax increase ...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-california_22may22,0,4131420.story

mahler10th

#2636
May 22, 2009, 05:33:37 AM
QuoteDROGULOUS:   So, is the U.S. actually to blame?

Yes.
>:(

Coopmv

#2637
May 22, 2009, 05:36:19 AM
The dysfunctional political system of the US's wealthiest state represents all that remains broken in American politics[/size]

Pascal Zachary guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 May 2009 17.53 BST Article history

While the new Obama administration is commanding global attention, America's future may be written – as so many times before – in and by its largest state. Once the lodestar for American optimism and achievement, California now illustrates the difficulties confronting the US – and how much more can still go wrong domestically.

The most populous and wealthiest of America's 50 states, California has long been a beacon of opportunity for talented and enterprising people from all over the world. One in every four California residents was born in a foreign country. California's two most famous industries, Silicon Valley and Hollywood, depend on infusions of talent from abroad. Its robust agricultural sector is a massive exporter of food, benefiting from the growing appetites of consumers in developing countries.

Yet California's technological and entrepreneurial might – standing alone, the state would be the world's eighth largest economy – coexists with a dysfunctional political system that has brought it to the edge of fiscal bankruptcy. On 19 May, the state's voters, in a special election, rejected an array of tax increases and spending cuts required to balance its budget. Now, California faces either an embarrassing federal bailout or a prolonged period of rule by judges, who under California law have the power to vacate labour agreements, abrogate contracts, and generally restructure the state's financial commitments.

For President Barack Obama, California's crisis imperils his own reform agenda. Because other American states also face tough fiscal conditions, the political price of bailing out California may be bailing out dozens of other states too.

A massive state bailout, while adding enormously to pressure on Obama's government, would expose the weak link in the US system of governance. So-called "unitary" nations such as Britain, France, China, or Kenya essentially have a single set of government obligations: one national police force, one employer for all public school teachers, one overall pension system, etc. By contrast, the US has an "asymmetric" form of government, which allows many overlapping government entities – 7,000 in California alone – to incur debts, hire and fire employees, and impose taxes.

Making sense of these asymmetries is difficult. When financial markets concentrate on the fiscal health of the federal government, they miss the extent of government obligations as a whole.

The complexity of American governance threatens the benefits of Obama's decision to stimulate the economy through deficit spending. While the national government expands, state governments, such as California's, contract.

Moreover, California's crisis is more than an economic one. California is the most diverse US state; more than half of its 37 million people are non-white. For believers in the benefits of diversity, California represents the largest social experiment in human history, bringing people of different backgrounds together in a way unimaginable in, say, Germany, China, or Brazil.

California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was an immigrant (from Austria) before he was a movie star. In his six years in office he has repeatedly tried to bypass a polarised state legislature – even the annual budget requires a two-thirds majority – by appealing directly to voters. Ballot initiatives were created 100 years ago to empower ordinary citizens, but in recent decades the process has been captured by self-serving elites.

Even as California's roads fall apart and public institutions decline – the result of too little spending and public workers who are too expensive – the state continues to operate the finest set of public universities in the US. But the secret of the University of California's success is its ability to obtain ever-higher amounts of funding from private sources and the federal government.

Disengagement from the California polity also is true of the state's economic engines. Intel, the world's biggest chip maker and a Silicon Valley mainstay, hasn't built a factory in California for more than 20 years. Hollywood shoots an increasing number of films elsewhere. Agriculture relies heavily on illegal workers from Mexico, who live temporarily near the fields and take their earnings back home.

How to forge a single community out of a state so diverse remains an elusive challenge. Some influential people, including Schwarzenegger, say the state needs a new constitution that would restrict ballot initiatives and make budgets easier to pass. More radical thinkers insist that California is ungovernable and should be broken into two or even three states.

Creating more Californias would of course require the approval of the federal government in Washington, where elected representatives from California – mainly from Obama's Democratic party – have more power today than at perhaps any time in US history. Nancy Pelosi, the House majority leader, is from San Francisco. Californians run the two most powerful House committees, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor. Two of the most influential senators also come from California.

Why these Washington politicians are idle while their state slides towards ruin says much about what's broken in American politics. Schwarzenegger is a Republican, so Democrats privately wish him to fail. There's a deeper problem: politicians across the spectrum, beholden to special interests, are habituated to denying serious problems.

Obama will be forced to help craft a compromise to keep the state financially afloat. Yet as a condition, he may insist that Californians, who are already among the most heavily taxed Americans, pay more. If Californians refuse, Obama could face a widening revolt against the idea of expanded government as the chief response to what ails America at home.

Coopmv

#2638
May 22, 2009, 05:37:54 AM
Quote from: John on May 22, 2009, 05:33:37 AM
Yes.
>:(

As a fair-minded American, I totally agree.  This is a case study of deregulation that has gone amok ...

BachQ

#2639
May 22, 2009, 05:54:15 AM
Quote from: Coopmv on May 16, 2009, 05:32:42 AM
Most of these are retailers anyway.  This is a good thing since conspicuous consumptions will be PERMANENTLY reigned in and since most retailers sell imported goods anyway, this will go a long way to attack the trade deficits.

WSJ: Recession Turns Malls Into Ghost Towns

Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 130 131 132 133 134 ... 242
User actions