Crisis: Don't we care? - page 75
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Wait. And so you won't get bored, I'll tell you something else. There were two laureates. There's only one Nobel Prize. Get it?
By the way, with this post you have confirmed what I wrote above. The problem is not the fellow scientists, but who and how uses their achievements. This is the generalised cause of the crisis - big capital, using its financial power, its pocket power, its apparatus of analysts-experts-scientists, investment banks, rating agencies and so on, has built a gigantic financial pyramid, which could not help but collapse. Just like everything else that big capital builds. Alas, such are the laws of capitalism.
And everything you wrote about the twin towers is (sorry) baby talk.
However, it is your point of view on the subject, which means there is at least something to discuss. That's better than ridiculous claims.
About the twin towers I didn't write anything other than that they fell. That was the trigger for active government action to spin the consumption race - rate cuts, active "consume is patriotic" propaganda, which led to the current crisis as a result.
The CDO is not a pyramid scheme. It's not a derivative at all, well "just a little bit derivative". "You hear the bell, but you don't know where it is". The derivatives pyramid is futures, swaps, options, where a bunch of derivatives are lumped onto a unit of real product. CDOs are the real product. There are derivatives that are "leaning" on CDOs - credit default swaps are trifles compared to everything else.
Once again, those two laureates said nothing about the impossibility of a crisis, economic crises are outside their job altogether.
Some are squeamish about Latynina because of her comments on live TV. I am squeamish about those who attribute their stupid thoughts to others and then rejoice at what idiots they are. I have a lot to say on both Davos and the crises, but at this level of discussion it makes no sense.
I have something to say both on Davos and on the crises, but at this level of discussion it makes no sense.
Well, let's face it, you have allowed yourself to lower your "level" to the extreme, but as for the content: if you have something to say, no one shuts you up. Get closer to the subject - and maybe there will be a point.
I must admit that my attempt to steer the conversation away from bickering with a naive thesis was unsuccessful. Moreover, I understand that global financial monitoring is the path to global totalitarianism. But so far unrealizable, because firstly, there is no point in monitoring until there are adequate models, secondly, there is no interested centre of the new world order, each state (or currency area - at Yurixx link) will "pull the blanket".
"leaning" on CDOs - credit default swaps are nothing compared to everything else.
CDO is "Collateralized Debt Obligation". You see the difference?
CDO is Collateralized Debt Obligation. Do you catch the difference?
And colateral can default. To avoid this (or rather to eliminate the risk of it) a default swap is bought, which is a pure derivative, leaning against the CDO.
Can we discuss the multiplication table too?
I haven't written anything about the twin towers other than the fact that they have fallen. This was the trigger for active government action to spin the consumption race - rate cuts, active "consume is patriotic" propaganda, which has resulted in the current crisis.
The CDO is not a pyramid scheme. It's not a derivative at all, well "just a little bit derivative". "You hear the bell, but you don't know where it is". The derivatives pyramid is futures, swaps, options, where a bunch of derivatives are lumped onto a unit of real product. CDOs are the real product. There are derivatives that are "leaning" on CDOs - credit default swaps are trifles compared to everything else.
Once again, those two laureates said nothing about the impossibility of a crisis, economic crises are outside their job altogether.
Some are squeamish about Latynina because of her comments on live TV. I am squeamish about those who attribute their stupid thoughts to others and then rejoice at what idiots they are. I have something to say on both Davos and the crises, but at this level of discussion it makes no sense.
What you said about the towers I highlighted in red, so you can't twist it.
The CDO and CDS thing is definitely a ringer. And in essence, and in the mechanics of this spiral unfolding, and in the scale, and in the meaning and limits of the applicability of their mathematical models, and even in the history of the collapse - alas, one delusion. Not to mention the "I have something to say, but I won't say it" stance. :-)
In one thing I completely agree with you - at this level the discussion makes no sense.
Best wishes,
In fact I do wonder how it is the speculative component of trading, rather than the supply/demand ratio, that has come to play a dominant, even overwhelming role for some commodities. For example, for oil. In the summer of 2008 the price rose to 147 and now it is floundering around 40. But just half a year has passed and we don't know yet if we have hit rock bottom or not. Is supply/demand ratio capable of bringing the price down 3.5 times within half a year? Of course not.
And it doesn't even seem to be about the mathematical models of futures, it's about leverage and the virtual nature of "leveraged" trading.
to Mathemat
one cannot agree with the GDP about such an interpretation of the role of the speculative component in oil pricing.
a futures is a futures - there is no ownership of oil, but only the insurance of contracts,
Of course, the futures have leverage, but this is not the leverage of a seller/buyer.
The reasons for the drop in the price of oil are threefold:
(a) The chief oilman stepping down,
(b) A drop in "household" consumption
(c) Diversification of production, i.e. shifting oil-intensive processes to countries that buy oil under long-term contracts.
What joyous news from America ! The Obama administration plans to suspend/eliminate the accounting requirement to book assets at current market prices, resulting in billions in write-downs for banks.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said on Wednesday evening that it might be possible to modify mark-to-market accounting rules for U.S. banks facing steep write-downs of troubled assets without abandoning the underlying accounting standard.
Great, now the poor investor's eyes won't be stabbed by the dreaded loss figures, they can safely buy any banks shares.
And what a great landmine this game is - it will all be done "without abandoning fundamental accounting standards".
The only thing I cannot understand is whether these standards are so phony, or whether the fundamental principles of capitalism - honesty, objectivity, transparency and responsibility - are so phony. As soon as the smell of frying appeared, it turned out that the sacred cow of capitalism - the market - had gone under the knife. All that is left is a fig leaf and a "market" which is turning from efficient to fictitious.
What joyous news from America ! The Obama administration plans to suspend/eliminate the accounting requirement that requires accounting at current market prices for assets, resulting in billions in write-offs for banks.
It is only unclear how they will write them off if there is a market price :)) And when they sell the assets they will be in a puddle :)
They've been down this road before ... 40 years ago, there was even a debate about it.
IMHO:
The current crisis -conditioned by the leaching of DC from other countries.
When the housing market in the U.S. collapsed, downsized, and the lion's share of funds from sectors related to construction went to our markets (emerging markets), we were very happy, the market is growing :) The quid is falling, so what if it falls but the rate rises :))))
What do they care that it's a rainy day now, the dollars are flowing into their sectors. They're having a good time and we're having a bad time. That's the crisis.
The simplest picture of a great depression from which there is a way out and they will pull their economy right now. And they will cover the deficit from the GSTO by strengthening the dollar and by diversifying risk.
in Russia internal accounting is used - an accountant draws up balance sheets and is audited
in the US external accounting is used - the bank draws up balance sheets and the owner checks them
P.S. External bookkeeping was a protection of the stock market from fraud.
The Russian securities market and investors suffer because of some lack of transparency and inaccessibility of accounting