Submit Your Article Forum Rules

Page 55 of 68 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 677

Thread: Bailout, the $700 billion dilemma and world markets

  1. #541
    WebProWorld MVP kgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    7,999
    Quote Originally Posted by cw1865 View Post
    Well, that is true, but in a side note that is why China is actually much closer to the US in PPP terms than in nominal terms. China is one revaluation away from being at 70-80% of US GDP.
    Where do you have those numbers from? I wrote a master thesis on inflation and helped a Norwegian professor http://home.bi.no/fag87025/ with methodological issues when he wrote his papers on inflation in the Central Bank of Norway. If the source is the research department in IMF or the FED, I will ceteris paribus rely most on the source.

    Quote Originally Posted by cw1865 View Post
    Well, right now we'll see, there are inflationary pressures in China and as the article that you noted with the IMF, there is clearly a global imbalance, but if you look at the Chinese trade numbers you'll see exports at roughly $1.5 trillion and imports at $1 trillion (+/-). The question to me is really at what point China can start to rely on internal demand.
    China's consumer price index rose 4.9% in January from a year earlier, picking up from December's 4.6% rise but below the more than two-year high of 5.1% ...
    Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...15-705491.html

    That is a too high inflation rate. What is the recent rate in the USA? In Norway the Central Bank has an inflation target

    The Government has set an inflation target for monetary policy in Norway. The operational target is annual consumer price inflation of 2 ½ per cent.
    A high inflation rate is an early signal that the economy is not on a sustainable path.


    Quote Originally Posted by cw1865 View Post
    Guaranteed, kgun, the United States is going to go bankrupt.
    Was that also part of the story in the 1930's?

  2. #542
    WebProWorld MVP kgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    7,999
    Quote Originally Posted by cw1865 View Post
    Frankly, the economic fundamentals just aren't there anymore.
    1. Leave Iraq and Afghanistan almost immediately. What is now happening in the Middel East is the greatest threat to the Taliban and Al Quaida so long.
    2. Cut military spending with 75 %. You are still the strongest military power in the World.
    3. Put a 50 % tax on the richest in the USA. At least Warren Buffet has said that he will gladly pay.
    4. Replace old infrastructure.
    Last edited by kgun; 02-15-2011 at 06:20 PM.

  3. #543
    WebProWorld MVP cw1865's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by kgun View Post
    Where do you have those numbers from? I wrote a master thesis on inflation and helped a Norwegian professor http://home.bi.no/fag87025/ with methodological issues when he wrote his papers on inflation in the Central Bank of Norway. If the source is the research department in IMF or the FED, I will ceteris paribus rely most on the source.
    Not contesting inflation numbers. I am merely opining that China has a major discrepancy in its GDP numbers IN DOLLAR TERMS. I pulled this from the CIA website which is pretty good for raw economic data.

    $9.872 trillion GDP (PPP)
    $5.745 trillion GDP (nominal)

    $7,400 GDP per capita (PPP)

    agriculture: 39.5% (of labor force), this indicates to me that they have significant slack left in the engine. Compare that to any developed nation (no developed nation has a number greater than 3% (USA = .7%). Their total labor force is estimated at 819 million. That is 323 million people who, collectively are only contributing 9.6% of GDP. This shifting from agriculture to industry/services (an event EVERY developed nation went to, 40% of all Americans were farmers in 1900) is something that we should expect as China mechanizes its agriculture and when it does and it frees up millions of people (if they can reduce that number by HALF to about 20% of the labor force, that frees up a labor force greater than the entire United States). They will sail by us in PPP terms in 5-7 years at the rate they're going.

    Quote Originally Posted by kgun View Post
    That is a too high inflation rate. What is the recent rate in the USA? In Norway the Central Bank has an inflation target
    If you have a country, like China, that is exporting a significant percentage of its GDP, why wouldn't we expect inflation, literally they're drawing currency in and shipping product out, trying to tame inflation by reexporting currency by buying bonds. All they have to do to tame that inflation is to revalue, the price of their exports would increase, the price of the imports would decrease and overall the inflation rate would drop. I believe all that inflation rate is telling you is that China has been subsidizing its exports as its internal demand has increased (in my lifetime this country has gone from being a bicycle country to being the world's largest consumer, nominal of course, of automobiles)

    Quote Originally Posted by kgun View Post
    A high inflation rate is an early signal that the economy is not on a sustainable path.
    Well I would say that its clearly indicative that they're approaching the limits of what export led growth can provide.

    Quote Originally Posted by kgun View Post
    Was that also part of the story in the 1930's?
    Different circumstances, however. By the end of WWII, they were a little scared that they wouldn't be able to fund the war effort anymore. Nevertheless, in the 1930's itself, they didn't go into the Depression with a mountain of debt already. The New Deal was clearly a paradigm change, but the New Deal itself spent sums equivalent to approximately 10% of GDP (this was an increase from about 5% of GDP during the 1920s, essentially government spending doubled)

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...olor=c&local=s

    Of course, now we're running DEFICITS that are 10% of GDP and unlike the 1930s we're going into this with a much larger debt legacy:

    http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

    About half the burden then as now......
    Craig Walenta on Google+

  4. #544
    WebProWorld MVP cw1865's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by kgun View Post
    [LIST=1][*]Leave Iraq and Afghanistan almost immediately. What is now happening in the Middel East is the greatest threat to the Taliban and Al Quaida so long.[*]Cut military spending with 75 %. You are still the strongest military power in the World.
    This I agree with. I might even do more. I would define it as 1.5% of GDP and while I would prefer to take an isolationist turn myself, realistically that might not happen, I would say that we should use that as a 'navy heavy' force and be 'junior' partners in NATO/Pacific Rim and let Japan/EU take the lead on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by kgun View Post
    Put a 50 % tax on the richest in the USA. At least Warren Buffet has said that he will gladly pay.
    Happy Birthday, it already is, Kgun. Don't listen to that nonsense. They tax everything over here too. Not saying its as high as it is in Europe, but consider:

    Federal income tax (highest rate is 35%). This does NOT include Social Security (15.3%), this does not include sales tax (7% in NJ), this does not include STATE income tax (highest rate in NJ = 8%), this does NOT include property taxes (on an average 500,000 home in NJ that can be $12,000 per annum)

    Buffet says he only pays 17.6% and this is because he's paying CAPITAL GAINS. Great. Berkshire Hathaway, the corporation he's associated with pays 30%+ As a result of that tax his capital gain is clearly affected, but that is never seen.

    On INCOME PRODUCING industries, and as a business owner I can attest to this, kgun, the taxes are HIGH.....

    Quote Originally Posted by kgun View Post
    Replace old infrastructure.
    I have a slightly different take on it. Previously we had identified the recession as a DEFLATIONARY recession, correct?

    You and I agree, appropriate remedy is prime the pump, ensure that aggregate demand is kept high and to prevent the US from slipping into a liquidity trap.

    Well, they did this, they did the bailout, they did QE1 to ensure banks had sufficient liquidity, dropped the interest rates. Now, they did the $700 billion stimulus.

    $700 billion is approximately equivalent to the gross state product of the State of Florida (9 million people in its labor force). And yet we are unimpressed with the results, unemployment, previously 10% is now at 9%, for an amount of money that should've put 9 million people to work (we should be seeing 4-6% unemployment)

    We haven't.

    Why?

    Well, my theory is very simple. The government has provided a stimulus, that stimulus did filter into the economy, a worker took that money and spent it at the local grocery, spent it at the auto dealer, etc. But the problem is the SOURCE of that money. The source of that money was, naturally BORROWED money in the face of a US savings rate that was at or near ZERO percent.

    Simplistically, the American goes to Walmart, he spends a $1, that dollar goes to China, the Chinese take the $1 and buy a US Treasury bond. The US government spends the $1. The problem is that what the stimulus giveth, it taketh away (from exports).

    C+I+G+NET TRADE (E-I)

    By doing what they're doing, the government spending is effectively 'crowding out' exports {all those dollars going into treasuries sucks up dollars and in a short term sense keeps the dollar higher than it otherwise would be, our biggest export IS debt, what a LOUSY 'Dutch Disease' to give to the rest of the economy}

    When a society, such as our own, is consuming more than it is producing it has to come to grips with the fact that that cannot continue forever. The solution WILL HURT; much in the same way that a person earning 20K per annum but spending 30K per annum feels 'hurt' by reducing his consumption by 10K, but ultimately there is no other choice in the matter. The solution will hurt now, with every passing year it will just hurt that much more.....

    They understand this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/business/29trade.html

    "In promising Wednesday night to double the United States’ export growth over the next five years, President Obama set an ambitious goal for American trade policy that, he said, could create two million jobs."

    http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/...uying_all.html

    "In the two years since then [2007], U.S. Treasury debt has increased more than 50%. The chart below summarizes who bought all that new debt. Foreigners bought more than half of the net new debt issuance."
    Craig Walenta on Google+

  5. #545
    WebProWorld MVP cw1865's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    882
    http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/in...orts/19844638/

    Thought you would find this interesting, Kgun, discusses the potential understating of inflation by the CPI.....

    "As economist Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, told clients Tuesday: "I share the growing concern among the Fed's critics that the official measures of consumer price inflation may be understating actual inflation and that excluding food and energy from these measures is OK as long as you don't eat or drive."


    Craig Walenta on Google+

  6. #546
    WebProWorld MVP kgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    7,999
    I know Ed Yardeni's FED model that has been (mis)used to test whether the market is under or overvalued. I agree, a deflationary depression, crowding out of private investment and a liquidity trap is the worst case scenarios. And interest inelastic investment demand schedule is an other potential threat in a depression. Replacing the USD witht SDR as "the new world currency" should be an advantage in the long run. It should have been done years ago.

    But you have to fix the internal and the external balance, not least the problems with the strong yuan and "stealing / coping" of your digital goods. The only language some people and nations understand (aside from brute force) is economic penalties. Money and economic incentives speak.

    I am used to look at core inflation and the structural budget deficit.

    Excellent analysis and input. I have to think more before you get a more thorough answer.
    Last edited by kgun; 02-16-2011 at 03:28 PM.

  7. #547
    WebProWorld MVP kgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    7,999
    Quote Originally Posted by cw1865 View Post
    That will save us from insolvency for about, oh, I'd say, 21 days or so....of course they still have to float trillions in bonds and then next year the budget will be systemically worse and they'll find out that the 'savings' will have been eaten up by the increased interest they have to pay.
    I know that, and it is serious. Could not sleep to night, since you confirmed what a Norwegian expert on the USA told on our state Tv yesterday.

    Trillions in bonds and increased interest. The rich in your country don't need to worry as long as you privatizes profit and socializes losses and China can continue exporting its employment problems to your country via an undervalued yuan. Could there be an untold agreement / understanding between the rich in your country and the rich in China?

    Tax the rich and subsidize small labor intensive US companies in this phase of the potential deflationary depression. Necessity is the mother of invention.

  8. #548
    WebProWorld MVP kgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    7,999
    What will the

    1. short,
    2. medium and
    3. long term

    implications of the Japan earthquake be on the world economy?

    A well know Norwegian commentator mean that the activity level will be lower in Japan even in a longer perspective. The main reason is that Japan have a low unemployment, so a lot of the labour force will be shifted to rebuilding the country.

    An economist commenting on Cnn said that Japan may need a Marshall help.

    The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale economic program, 1947–1951[1], of the United States for rebuilding and creating a stronger economic foundation for the countries of Europe. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall[2] and was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan. Marshall spoke of urgent need to help the European recovery in his address at Harvard University in June 1947.[3]
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

    Japan may also need a plan to stimulate immigration and subsidize children.

  9. #549
    WebProWorld MVP cw1865's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    882
    I suppose it all depends on the radiation. Obviously the less the better. To me, that really is the danger. If that can be contained, as devastating as the tsunami was, its relative impact in light of the size of Japan itself will remain minor. You can see how Japan has responded in an orderly, non-panicked manner. Of course, that will behoove them.

    After WWII, obviously Japan was devastated by bombing. Completely different thing though, those bombers came day and night and incinerated Japan's urban centers. A tsunami only has a limited reach inland. Of course, the incidental effect of this nuclear reactor is another matter altogether.

    And look at the bright side, a massive earthquake strikes, one of the strongest EVER....damage? Yes....did Tokyo fall down? No

    I am not trying to belittle what is obviously remains a human tragedy, but I am extremely optimistic that the Japanese people are up to this challenge.....its pretty clear to me that they have made massive investments to prepare, as well as possible, for earthquakes, but these events are such that no matter how much you prepare, its still going to have an impact....
    Craig Walenta on Google+

  10. #550
    WebProWorld MVP deepsand's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    State College, PA
    Posts
    16,446

    Japan, the Persian Gulf and Energy

    Quote Originally Posted by cw1865 View Post
    I suppose it all depends on the radiation. Obviously the less the better. To me, that really is the danger. If that can be contained, as devastating as the tsunami was, its relative impact in light of the size of Japan itself will remain minor.
    Perhaps; perhaps not.

    Japan, the Persian Gulf and Energy
    March 15, 2011 | 1905 GMT

    By George Friedman

    Over the past week, everything seemed to converge on energy. The unrest in the Persian Gulf raised the specter of the disruption of oil supplies to the rest of the world, and an earthquake in Japan knocked out a string of nuclear reactors with potentially devastating effect. Japan depends on nuclear energy and it depends on the Persian Gulf, which is where it gets most of its oil. It was, therefore, a profoundly bad week for Japan, not only because of the extensive damage and human suffering but also because Japan was being shown that it can’t readily escape the realities of geography.

    Japan is the world’s third-largest economy, a bit behind China now. It is also the third-largest industrial economy, behind only the United States and China. Japan’s problem is that its enormous industrial plant is built in a country almost totally devoid of mineral resources. It must import virtually all of the metals and energy that it uses to manufacture industrial products. It maintains stockpiles, but should those stockpiles be depleted and no new imports arrive, Japan stops being an industrial power.

    The Geography of Oil

    There are multiple sources for many of the metals Japan imports, so that if supplies stop flowing from one place it can get them from other places. The geography of oil is more limited. In order to access the amount of oil Japan needs, the only place to get it is the Persian Gulf. There are other places to get some of what Japan needs, but it cannot do without the Persian Gulf for its oil.

    This past week, we saw that this was a potentially vulnerable source. The unrest that swept the western littoral of the Arabian Peninsula and the ongoing tension between the Saudis and Iranians, as well as the tension between Iran and the United States, raised the possibility of disruptions. The geography of the Persian Gulf is extraordinary. It is a narrow body of water opening into a narrow channel through the Strait of Hormuz. Any diminution of the flow from any source in the region, let alone the complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz, would have profound implications for the global economy.

    For Japan it could mean more than higher prices. It could mean being unable to secure the amount of oil needed at any price. The movement of tankers, the limits on port facilities and long-term contracts that commit oil to other places could make it impossible for Japan to physically secure the oil it needs to run its industrial plant. On an extended basis, this would draw down reserves and constrain Japan’s economy dramatically. And, obviously, when the world’s third-largest industrial plant drastically slows, the impact on the global supply chain is both dramatic and complex.

    In 1973, the Arab countries imposed an oil embargo on the world. Japan, entirely dependent on imported oil, was hit not only by high prices but also by the fact that it could not obtain enough fuel to keep going. While the embargo lasted only five months, the oil shock, as the Japanese called it, threatened Japan’s industrial capability and shocked it into remembering its vulnerability. Japan relied on the United States to guarantee its oil supplies. The realization that the United States couldn’t guarantee those supplies created a political crisis parallel to the economic one. It is one reason the Japanese are hypersensitive to events in the Persian Gulf and to the security of the supply lines running out of the region.

    Regardless of other supplies, Japan will always import nearly 100 percent of its oil from other countries. If it cuts its consumption by 90 percent, it still imports nearly 100 percent of its oil. And to the extent that the Japanese economy requires oil — which it does — it is highly vulnerable to events in the Persian Gulf.

    It is to mitigate the risk of oil dependency — which cannot be eliminated altogether by any means — that Japan employs two alternative fuels: It is the world’s largest importer of seaborne coal, and it has become the third-largest producer of electricity from nuclear reactors, ranking after the United States and France in total amount produced. One-third of its electricity production comes from nuclear power plants. Nuclear power was critical to both Japan’s industrial and national security strategy. It did not make Japan self-sufficient, since it needed to import coal and nuclear fuel, but access to these resources made it dependent on countries like Australia, which does not have choke points like Hormuz.

    It is in this context that we need to understand the Japanese prime minister’s statement that Japan was facing its worst crisis since World War II. First, the earthquake and the resulting damage to several of Japan’s nuclear reactors created a long-term regional energy shortage in Japan that, along with the other damage caused by the earthquake, would certainly affect the economy. But the events in the Persian Gulf also raised the 1973 nightmare scenario for the Japanese. Depending how events evolved, the Japanese pipeline from the Persian Gulf could be threatened in a way that it had not been since 1973. Combined with the failure of several nuclear reactors, the Japanese economy is at risk.

    The comparison with World War II was apt since it also began, in a way, with an energy crisis. The Japanese had invaded China, and after the fall of the Netherlands (which controlled today’s Indonesia) and France (which controlled Indochina), Japan was concerned about agreements with France and the Netherlands continuing to be honored. Indochina supplied Japan with tin and rubber, among other raw materials. The Netherlands East Indies supplied oil. When the Japanese invaded Indochina, the United States both cut off oil shipments from the United States and started buying up oil from the Netherlands East Indies to keep Japan from getting it. The Japanese were faced with the collapse of their economy or war with the United States. They chose Pearl Harbor.

    Today’s situation is in no way comparable to what happened in 1941 except for the core geopolitical reality. Japan is dependent on imports of raw materials and particularly oil. Anything that interferes with the flow of oil creates a crisis in Japan. Anything that risks a cutoff makes Japan uneasy. Add an earthquake destroying part of its energy-producing plant and you force Japan into a profound internal crisis. However, it is essential to understand what energy has meant to Japan historically — miscalculation about it led to national disaster and access to it remains Japan’s psychological as well as physical pivot.
    (Continued below)

Page 55 of 68 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Facebook Worth $35 Billion To $40 Billion
    By TrafficProducer in forum Syndication and Social Media Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-03-2012, 06:03 PM
  2. On a lighter note to gov bailout
    By amxfan in forum The Castle Breakroom (General: Any Topic)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 03:25 PM
  3. What is going on in the markets?
    By kgun in forum The Castle Breakroom (General: Any Topic)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-01-2007, 11:45 AM
  4. GOOG: A Billion Dollars Here, A Billion There
    By WPW_Feedbot in forum Search Engine Optimization Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2005, 05:00 PM
  5. Same site different markets.........
    By Must Not in forum Google Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2004, 08:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •