Not Sports Related But I Think That The Meltdown Has Commenced

[rocwell]

Bear market in China
Bear market in United Kingdom
Oil fall again, under $30 now
Currencies decline
Stocks down around the world

Just my opinion, but I believe that upcoming crisis will teach government a lesson and leave w/ demand to get out of the way. Next elections will be a game changer for UK and USA.

[mcHAPPY]

Bear market in China
Bear market in United Kingdom
Oil fall again, under $30 now
Currencies decline
Stocks down around the world

Just my opinion, but I believe that upcoming crisis will teach government a lesson and leave w/ demand to get out of the way. Next elections will be a game changer for UK and USA.

Don't forget the next crisis is in government, i.e. sovereign debt.

Stocks down is a fake out move. I really don't know how far it will go but the market ensures maximum pain for maximum participants.

As people move their money in to private assets, like stocks, you're going to see stocks soar - I would guess it will be the blue chip dividends, not the momo's like NFLX as is common in most euphoric bull markets.

It is going to be incredible to see the talking heads spin this. No one in our lifetime will have experienced what we are about to go through and the 'flight to safety' (government bonds) is going to be a slaughter.

[Bendit]

Lol. Wow, you truly are a hardcore leftist. My goodness.

I'll put that down to...a eye of the beholder assessment.

[rocwell]

Don't forget the next crisis is in government, i.e. sovereign debt.

Stocks down is a fake out move. I really don't know how far it will go but the market ensures maximum pain for maximum participants.

As people move their money in to private assets, like stocks, you're going to see stocks soar - I would guess it will be the blue chip dividends, not the momo's like NFLX as is common in most euphoric bull markets.

It is going to be incredible to see the talking heads spin this. No one in our lifetime will have experienced what we are about to go through and the 'flight to safety' (government bonds) is going to be a slaughter.

I never really looked at government bonds as flight to safety to be honest. Well, my econs prof., he's anti-government kinda. he used to tell me that water and power companies' bonds are the real flight to safety after physical 'cash assets'

[mcHAPPY]

I never really looked at government bonds as flight to safety to be honest. Well, my econs prof., he's anti-government kinda. he used to tell me that water and power companies' bonds are the real flight to safety after physical 'cash assets'

Fair enough.

But most look at the flight to safety being AAA government bonds.

Most bonds are merely rolled over with new debt paying the old + more new debt on top of it.

The games the central banks have been playing to distort the long end of the yield curve is going to blow up in their face.

[Bendit]

A couple of opposing viewpoints on impending doom.......I assume these guys know a bit of what they speak


Adam Posen, the Peterson Institute director who used to set UK interest rates, has also discussed the crisis with us.

He’s not desperately alarmed:

“I don’t think we are on the edge of another financial crisis. I don’t even think we are on the edge of another crash. The idea that things are as over-valued as they were last time is false.”

Posen said governments should be taking advantage of low interest rates to improve public infrastructure, called on China to boost the economy by creating a social safety net and said central banks should avoid making mistakes.

“At the margin I am not sure the Federal Reserve did the right thing by raising rates last month but I am not sure it was a big mistake. But if the Bank of England or the ECB raised rates, that would be a big mistake.”


__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

We’ve now grabbed some time with Ken Rogoff, former IMF chief economist and now economics professor at Harvard, to discuss the market turmoil, and the global economy.

Rogoff reckons the problems were concentrated in emerging markets.

Asked whether the world was on the edge of another crisis, Rogoff said:

“It feels to me that there is a panic in the markets that doesn’t necessarily translate into the real economy.”

Rogoff said that emerging markets would suffer in 2016, but that the US and Europe were “solid”. He added:

“If China goes from 7% growth to minus 2% growth then everybody will be in recession. If it goes to 3-4% growth it will probably not be enough to cause a recession in the developed world. But it is definitely a very precarious situation for emerging markets.”

Rogoff said it would help if Chinese policy makers won back the credibility they had lost by their “foolish” attempts trying to control the stock market and the exchange rate.

“It’s like trying to control the weather. They should let the exchange rate and the stock market find their own level.

This is the third leg of the debt super-cycle. First is was the US, then it was Europe, now it is China.”


http://www.theguardian.com/business/...b08d8673c97269

[Uncle_Si]

A couple of opposing viewpoints on impending doom.......I assume these guys know a bit of what they speak


Adam Posen, the Peterson Institute director who used to set UK interest rates, has also discussed the crisis with us.

He’s not desperately alarmed:

“I don’t think we are on the edge of another financial crisis. I don’t even think we are on the edge of another crash. The idea that things are as over-valued as they were last time is false.”

Posen said governments should be taking advantage of low interest rates to improve public infrastructure, called on China to boost the economy by creating a social safety net and said central banks should avoid making mistakes.

“At the margin I am not sure the Federal Reserve did the right thing by raising rates last month but I am not sure it was a big mistake. But if the Bank of England or the ECB raised rates, that would be a big mistake.”


__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

We’ve now grabbed some time with Ken Rogoff, former IMF chief economist and now economics professor at Harvard, to discuss the market turmoil, and the global economy.

Rogoff reckons the problems were concentrated in emerging markets.

Asked whether the world was on the edge of another crisis, Rogoff said:

“It feels to me that there is a panic in the markets that doesn’t necessarily translate into the real economy.”

Rogoff said that emerging markets would suffer in 2016, but that the US and Europe were “solid”. He added:

“If China goes from 7% growth to minus 2% growth then everybody will be in recession. If it goes to 3-4% growth it will probably not be enough to cause a recession in the developed world. But it is definitely a very precarious situation for emerging markets.”

Rogoff said it would help if Chinese policy makers won back the credibility they had lost by their “foolish” attempts trying to control the stock market and the exchange rate.

“It’s like trying to control the weather. They should let the exchange rate and the stock market find their own level.

This is the third leg of the debt super-cycle. First is was the US, then it was Europe, now it is China.”


http://www.theguardian.com/business/...b08d8673c97269

Lmao. spend baby spend! More debt! Never enough debt! Don't worry about when interest rates go up and don't worry about debt incurred on future generations! Just spend baby spend! Tax the rich! Regulations! Carbon tax! More welfare! Subsidize everything greeeeeennnn!!!! Wooooooo lets open borders! Mass migrations all around! Just keep spendinggggggggggggg

[Miekenstien]

Lmao. spend baby spend! More debt! Never enough debt! Don't worry about when interest rates go up and don't worry about debt incurred on future generations! Just spend baby spend! Tax the rich! Regulations! Carbon tax! More welfare! Subsidize everything greeeeeennnn!!!! Wooooooo lets open borders! Mass migrations all around! Just keep spendinggggggggggggg

lol. how did you get that from "the chinese need to realize they don't control the free market"?

i am getting killed right now.

[Uncle_Si]

lol. how did you get that from "the chinese need to realize they don't control the free market"?

i am getting killed right now.

Referring to the first part of the post.

[Bendit]

Referring to the first part of the post.

You like criticizing a lot but no suggestions on creating jobs and wealth which all can benefit from.

Any economic policy suggestions by the fiscal conservatives to correct the economic malaise?

You can give China some advice as well while you are at it. They are a large part of the global economic order so one cannot ignore them or their system.

[Uncle_Si]

You like criticizing a lot but no suggestions on creating jobs and wealth which all can benefit from.

Any economic policy suggestions by the fiscal conservatives to correct the economic malaise?

You can give China some advice as well while you are at it. They are a large part of the global economic order so one cannot ignore them or their system.

The government should deal with economic/financial crisis the way a business does - reduce spending, cut back on planned expenditures and look for additional means of generating revenue (not taxes).

Increasing debt during financial crisis is foolish! Looking at interest rates today and saying "look how low they are! We should take on debt!" Is short sighted. What happens when interest rates increase? What if those interest rates increase during financial woes? Infrastructure spending to "stimulate the economy" doesn't work. There is no net gain to be realized, it just moves money from one place to the next, there is no new wealth or growth created. The exception to this rule is if the government (or company) is in good financial standing and planned to invest during the next downturn to gain an edge once the economy recovers. Canada is not in that position.

Increasing taxes and imposing new ones (such as carbon tax) takes money out of the economy which is the exact opposite of what you want during financial trouble. It also creates uncertainty in companies plans because they don't know what the effects of the new taxes (or regulations) will be on their company, industry and what the effects of it will be for their clients/customers. You want stability during crisis not chaos. Government imposed market distortions is counter productive.

Increasing dependency on the government (such as taking on 30,000 refugees that will all require support from the government) is also ridiculous. Especially considering the influx of dependency on EI or social assistance programs when times are tough.

Looking for additional sources of revenue is accomplished by the stability I spoke about. Gathering industry leaders, taking advice from them on what they need to grow or sustain (and I'm not talking handouts). I mean gathering trade partners, strengthening existing trade partners (convincing them not to put tariffs on our goods), freezing any new regulations for X years or until gdp growth returns to normal.

[Bendit]

The government should deal with economic/financial crisis the way a business does - reduce spending, cut back on planned expenditures and look for additional means of generating revenue (not taxes).

.......I have not included the rest of the post to decrease viewing size.........

“Run the government as a business”. Have heard this solution quite often...but very seldom if any without posing answers to the very real question of “how?”.

Cutting costs and sticking to budgets are not solutions. The problem essentially lies in the objectives of the 2 entities...businesses operate quite often on quartile results and profit is the main/only objective. This motivation is so strong that often the business does not care how many errors it makes but the larger the profit the more successful it is considered.

The reason for regulation is not to impede business. It has been demonstrated over and over that the profit motive is a corrupting influence on self regulation especially when the climate is difficult...but not always as well. In a word...greed. Blame the human condition.

Government however is “in the business” of providing services to it’s population. These can range from the mundane to the fairly complex (licenses and passports to health care and national defense)....and profit is not the objective but rather how satisfied are those who avail themselves of such services. Governments can perform 99 tasks successfully but if they fail at 1 ...in an open system everyone hears about it. This is typically not the case with a business as mentioned above...no one loses their job...not if the balance sheet is in the black.

There are many studies (and history) to show why this suggestion is unworkable. It’s been tried. This of course is not to presuppose that there is no waste or mismanagement but the idea that “business” is the panacea for some of the most important institutions (developed over centuries) is a fallacy. And please do not forget that governments in a democratic state tend to be transitional as well as tend not to be disciplined about their own fiscal views. There are plenty of examples everywhere. Why? Mostly political hubris imo.
One can go on but I provide a couple of links for reading if you wish.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...rticle6968196/

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/...-then-and-now/
(This is an in depth and quite academic view of the issue incl. historic context)

Most of the concerns you raise in the rest of your post I have addressed before...I shall touch briefly once more:
The issue here is jobs. The economy needs a jolt. The worlds’ economies are slow to stagnant. We live in a global system. Wages haven’t moved. Cash is plentiful but on the sidelines. Private institutions are sitting on their cash. Why are they not investing? What is the solution? There is one institution left: Government.

You say “cut back” and in fact create more austerity. 2 major issues: How does this foster job creation? What happens to the most vulnerable in our society? The great fear of many economists is that such a policy would send the economy into a depression. So, the choice is...you want a temporary larger debt or do you want a depression where everyone gets slammed. I won’t point any fingers here about what certain govts. did when times were good and surpluses were not in fact used to lower the national debt. I would agree that here a business might at least partially lower it’s own debt level...but expansion expense is also their sword to fall upon quite often.

Btw, you make some statements (as if fact) without providing any links, examples & figs. on “infrastructure spending doesn’t work”.

Do not understand where you get your information on “carbon tax”. I shall save my self some effort here with this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle19512237/

The population of this country considers climate change and pollution to be essential matters to address. This goes to my opening remarks about how Govt. cannot be run as a business model. The ceo and board are like an oligarchy...they have no such constraints...or constituents.

Subsidies and “market distortions” are a reality in the world economies. This is practised by ALL stripes of government. Your purist view maybe commendable but their removal is probably unrealistic but should be attempted surely. I understand how these begin...mostly for start-ups and to compete on price internationally, in a new industry or agriculture and resources. The problem is exacerbated when the entity becomes profitable and can do without the subsidy (and still receives it) or international tariffs continue to exist. Again, all governments are guilty here.

Re the refugees, you know my stance on that. I hope Angela Merkel gets the Nobel prize for her stance amid all the recrimination. Compared to the wretched plight of the great majority of the refugees, we are blessed.

Re your last para...have you not followed your Prime Minister’s visit and speeches in Davos? That is exactly what he was doing. Selling Canada’s virtues and a call for removal of tariff barriers.

In closing I cannot stress enough that good modern governments serve the interests of both the business and social classes in a manner that elevates the general happiness/well being of the citizenry. Managing the economy in an inclusive manner is a must to achieve this.

Being “rich” is a perspective.

[Bendit]

A case for enforced regulation

...and a shameful lethargic response by Canada and BC governments so far.

(I was unsure about where to include this post but did so here because the issue of whether increased regulation has come up recently in the thread. This is a good and sad example).

We often tend to blame the US for affecting Canada in all manner of events including the environment. Here is a case where it is reversed and a US community feels affected and impotent about any action.

Carpeted in rain forest and braided with waterways, southeast Alaska is among the largest wild salmon producers in the world, its tourism and salmon fishing industries grossing about $2 billion a year. But today, the rivers and the salmon that create these jobs — and this particular way of life, which attracted me from Philadelphia to Sitka almost 20 years ago — are threatened by Canada’s growing mining industry along the mountainous Alaska-British Columbia border, about a hundred miles east of where I now write.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/op...ol-left-region

[Uncle_Si]

“Run the government as a business”. Have heard this solution quite often...but very seldom if any without posing answers to the very real question of “how?”.

Cutting costs and sticking to budgets are not solutions. The problem essentially lies in the objectives of the 2 entities...businesses operate quite often on quartile results and profit is the main/only objective. This motivation is so strong that often the business does not care how many errors it makes but the larger the profit the more successful it is considered.

The reason for regulation is not to impede business. It has been demonstrated over and over that the profit motive is a corrupting influence on self regulation especially when the climate is difficult...but not always as well. In a word...greed. Blame the human condition.

Government however is “in the business” of providing services to it’s population. These can range from the mundane to the fairly complex (licenses and passports to health care and national defense)....and profit is not the objective but rather how satisfied are those who avail themselves of such services. Governments can perform 99 tasks successfully but if they fail at 1 ...in an open system everyone hears about it. This is typically not the case with a business as mentioned above...no one loses their job...not if the balance sheet is in the black.

There are many studies (and history) to show why this suggestion is unworkable. It’s been tried. This of course is not to presuppose that there is no waste or mismanagement but the idea that “business” is the panacea for some of the most important institutions (developed over centuries) is a fallacy. And please do not forget that governments in a democratic state tend to be transitional as well as tend not to be disciplined about their own fiscal views. There are plenty of examples everywhere. Why? Mostly political hubris imo.
One can go on but I provide a couple of links for reading if you wish.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...rticle6968196/

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/...-then-and-now/
(This is an in depth and quite academic view of the issue incl. historic context)

Most of the concerns you raise in the rest of your post I have addressed before...I shall touch briefly once more:
The issue here is jobs. The economy needs a jolt. The worlds’ economies are slow to stagnant. We live in a global system. Wages haven’t moved. Cash is plentiful but on the sidelines. Private institutions are sitting on their cash. Why are they not investing? What is the solution? There is one institution left: Government.

You say “cut back” and in fact create more austerity. 2 major issues: How does this foster job creation? What happens to the most vulnerable in our society? The great fear of many economists is that such a policy would send the economy into a depression. So, the choice is...you want a temporary larger debt or do you want a depression where everyone gets slammed. I won’t point any fingers here about what certain govts. did when times were good and surpluses were not in fact used to lower the national debt. I would agree that here a business might at least partially lower it’s own debt level...but expansion expense is also their sword to fall upon quite often.

Btw, you make some statements (as if fact) without providing any links, examples & figs. on “infrastructure spending doesn’t work”.

Do not understand where you get your information on “carbon tax”. I shall save my self some effort here with this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle19512237/

The population of this country considers climate change and pollution to be essential matters to address. This goes to my opening remarks about how Govt. cannot be run as a business model. The ceo and board are like an oligarchy...they have no such constraints...or constituents.

Subsidies and “market distortions” are a reality in the world economies. This is practised by ALL stripes of government. Your purist view maybe commendable but their removal is probably unrealistic but should be attempted surely. I understand how these begin...mostly for start-ups and to compete on price internationally, in a new industry or agriculture and resources. The problem is exacerbated when the entity becomes profitable and can do without the subsidy (and still receives it) or international tariffs continue to exist. Again, all governments are guilty here.

Re the refugees, you know my stance on that. I hope Angela Merkel gets the Nobel prize for her stance amid all the recrimination. Compared to the wretched plight of the great majority of the refugees, we are blessed.

Re your last para...have you not followed your Prime Minister’s visit and speeches in Davos? That is exactly what he was doing. Selling Canada’s virtues and a call for removal of tariff barriers.

In closing I cannot stress enough that good modern governments serve the interests of both the business and social classes in a manner that elevates the general happiness/well being of the citizenry. Managing the economy in an inclusive manner is a must to achieve this.

Being “rich” is a perspective.

I'm going to have to wait until I can get on computer to respond to this.

I want to address one point though:

The population of this country considers climate change and pollution to be essential matters to address. This goes to my opening remarks about how Govt. cannot be run as a business model. The ceo and board are like an oligarchy...they have no such constraints...or constituents.

Your last sentence is nonsense. They're called shareholders

[Bendit]

I'm going to have to wait until I can get on computer to respond to this.

I want to address one point though:

The population of this country considers climate change and pollution to be essential matters to address. This goes to my opening remarks about how Govt. cannot be run as a business model. The ceo and board are like an oligarchy...they have no such constraints...or constituents.

Your last sentence is nonsense. They're called shareholders

Bold: Really? Thats funny man. Unless the company goes in the tank severely/bankrupt the top guys actually get raises. It's a joke and they then trim their personnel and salaries to mitigate losses. Just check what happened in/after the financial crisis of 2008. They also have golden parachutes to make it very very expensive to be fired.

I think you are out of touch with how the operating executive manages their boards these days as well as create stock classifications that they have in their hip pocket (control themselves or in cahoots with large bloc ownership) to ride it out.

And there is no one person one vote comparative in the corporate world. Not even an illusion because of large institutional holdings who do not necessarily have a social conscience. Govts. cannot deny their social responsibilities.

The "corporations are people too" canard which Mitt Romney tried to foist on his electorate was laughed out of the building/country. No one believes that bs in today's corporate America least of all Canada. Small time shareholder punks like you and me with their thousand shares in our piggy bank have no say in how a Canada Trust, GM or GE or Apple etc. is run. Have you been to a large company's shareholder gathering...and then tried to get to the mike to raise an objection?