BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Looming Financial Crisis?

 
  

Page: 1(2)34567

 
 
Saturn's nod
10:11 / 23.01.08
I'm always inspired when I read about the way urban Britons coped with food supplies during rationing in and after the Second World War.

Pig and chicken clubs, with the animals kept in city squares; city allotments; trading with rural folks - for example arts, handcrafts, preserves, can be made as easily in a city flat as in the country and traded for fresh produce with your rural acquaintance; day-trips to the country to join in harvesting and preserving underutilised resources like rosehips, apples, damsons, game birds, coppicewood and so on. If we update that to include hosting, design, business development advice, skill-sharing as stuff to trade and so on, many realistic options exist for creative urban dwellers to connect to free resources without massive time investments.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:17 / 23.01.08
Oh, yes - preserves. I have a friend who lives in a one-bedroom flat in Hackney and makes her own preserves, although of course you'd need to get hold of the fruit somehow.

I think we might be wandering too far into "how does one restructure society to deal with a resource-limited future" rather than specifically the looming f.c., however. Recession or not, increasing sustainability in living is certainly a good. But specifically in the context of an upcoming recession?
 
 
Saturn's nod
12:07 / 23.01.08
I've been enjoying the intertwined discussion of markets/recession/CDOs with alternative economies and individual-action security and stability strategies for the future. It's the more-than-one-basket thing. But of course my aesthetics are not everyone's.

Reuters has this on today's situation: FTSE down 2.1% today, but this follows a 3% rise yesterday following the U.S. Fed Reserve rate cut.

"It's not absolutely certain that we've bottomed," said Dave Evans, a market analyst at Betonmarkets. "For the next two days I don't think we'll see as much severe selling as we've seen, so perhaps we will stabilise.

"I'm leaning more towards there being a rally over the next week, and if not a rally then at least some choppy trading, not more severe selling. After that it's very murky and depends on what the Fed decides."

U.S. stocks fell on Tuesday but the decline was less than feared as the emergency rate cut by the U.S. Federal Reserve helped stabilise global markets.
 
 
The Idol Rich
12:20 / 23.01.08
Really interesting interview, thanks for that Vincennes. A few bits struck me.
He says

“But in reality, over the very very long term, currency processes tend to be fairly stable and mean-reverting. So the dollar’s very weak today, but that’s no reason to believe the dollar’s going to be weak forever or that, because it’s weak today, it’s going to get dramatically weaker tomorrow.”

Unless there is some kind of paradigm shift of the kind he mentions later of course.

Anyone read this book?

Black Swan

Seems as though it ought to be relevant here, especially when he’s talking about 10-Sigma events. I will give it a go when I get a chance I reckon.

Until that interview no-one in this thread (as I recall) had mentioned the credit rating agencies, it’s strange that there is absolutely no comeback for someone who finds out that their security which is highly rated by S&P or whoever is worthless. I reckon that the rating industry may be a due a shake-up.

Also, interesting what he says about his colleagues’ instincts on watching houses going up – I wonder about that every time I get the bus through Hackney; who is going to live in all these new flats, will they buy them at full price etc?
Wasn’t there a large development abandoned the other day in Leeds or possibly Manchester?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:00 / 23.01.08
I've been enjoying the intertwined discussion of markets/recession/CDOs with alternative economies and individual-action security and stability strategies for the future. It's the more-than-one-basket thing. But of course my aesthetics are not everyone's.

Nor mine, indeed. I was wondering about spinning off a thread on how one can hedge climate change, but of course climate change affects resource prices which affects the economy, and so on, so maybe we should keep it all in one bucket.

The CRA and the use of "wrappers" is fascinating, isn't it? If you can recruit a good investment proposition to give your own vehicle a halo effect, is it possible to ascertain with any confidence how secure a venture is? Which is one of those issues that is not especially a problem as long as the inflow of money on risks exceeds the outflow of cash lost on bad investments.

Another interesting, if less technical, article is the recent one by John Lanchester, which I found useful, if a bit chatty. Excerpt:

A customer goes into the bank and deposits £200. Now the bank has £200 to invest, so it goes out and buys some shares with the money: not the full £200, but the amount minus the percentage which it deems prudent to keep in cash, just in case any depositors come and make a withdrawal. That amount, called the ‘cash ratio’, is set by government: in this example let’s say it’s 20 per cent. So our bank goes out and buys £160 of shares from, say, LRB Ltd. Then LRB goes and deposits its £160 in the bank; the bank now has £360 of deposits, of which it needs to keep only 20 per cent – £72 – in cash. So now it can go out and buy another £128 of shares in LRB, raising its total holding in LRB Ltd to £288. Once again, LRB Ltd goes and deposits the money in the bank, which goes out again and buys more shares, and so on the process goes. The only thing imposing a limit is the need to keep 20 per cent in cash, so the depositing-and-buying cycle ends when the bank has £200 in cash – all the cash there is – and £800 in LRB shares; it also has £1000 of customer deposits, the initial £200 plus all the money from the share transactions. The initial £200 has generated a balance sheet of £1000 in assets and £1000 in liabilities. Magic! In real life, it’s even better: the UK cash ratio is 0.15 per cent, so that initial £200 would generate £133,333 on both sides of the balance sheet.

The whole article is here.
 
 
The Idol Rich
14:04 / 23.01.08
The CRA and the use of "wrappers" is fascinating, isn't it?

Well, it is to me, in this case at least, because what use is something that exists purely to advise you how trustworthy something is if it offers no guarantees and can be catastrophically wrong?

If you can recruit a good investment proposition to give your own vehicle a halo effect, is it possible to ascertain with any confidence how secure a venture is? Which is one of those issues that is not especially a problem as long as the inflow of money on risks exceeds the outflow of cash lost on bad investments.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here - are you asking if (given that you know you can inflate the creditworthyness of your own vehicle) it is possible to give any credence to another vehicle's credit rating? If that is indeed what you're asking then my answer would be, I guess not, you would certainly be within your rights to treat any such rating with a pinch of salt.

The last bit is just a description/example of fractional reserve banking isn't it?
 
 
grant
14:23 / 23.01.08
Part of the "restructure of society" is basically setting the clock back either 50 or 100 years - it's not so much restructuring as falling back. Less choice, less convenience, possibly less efficiency on a global scale (depending on who you believe). But also less mass produced vegetables being loaded onto gas-guzzling trucks, ships and jets and shipped out to distant cities.

I'm not sure I see that romantically as much as just... old-fashioned. Like wearing worn-out shoes or clothes made from flour sacks. (An older relative was just talking about that the other day - her childhood dresses made from flour sacks. They used to print patterns on the cloth sacks. Nowadays, I guess we'd call it recycling.)

----

By the way, on NPR this morning, they had interviews with Chinese factory workers who were talking about layoffs due to the housing market meltdown. No one's buying the Chinese-made La-Z-Boys.

So, global? Yes.
----

is it possible to ascertain with any confidence how secure a venture is?

This always seems like magic to me. Or "confidence" as marketing.
 
 
grant
16:46 / 23.01.08
Kinda ho-ho-ho affable this is what a recession looks like! piece in the Guardian.
 
 
jentacular dreams
07:48 / 24.01.08
Oh good, bohemia to return!

The money multiplier effect haus' quote details makes me wonder just how important consumer opinion is in driving a recession or a boom? If a large proportion of the population hears a recession is coming and starts to save rather than spend, this will obviously create the very thing they are hedging against. At what point will a recession happen even in an otherwise stable economy?

The current UK economic indicators don't seem too alarming: employment, vacancies and GDP have all increased, though PPI has also increased more than is healthy so there may be a jump in the cost of living still working its way through the system. And of course this doesn't take into the international picture into account all that well.
 
 
The Idol Rich
09:32 / 24.01.08
The money multiplier effect haus' quote details makes me wonder just how important consumer opinion is in driving a recession or a boom? If a large proportion of the population hears a recession is coming and starts to save rather than spend, this will obviously create the very thing they are hedging against. At what point will a recession happen even in an otherwise stable economy?

But it's the opposite problem at the moment isn't? No-one has been saving, in fact most people are in debt. How healthy is it for a country to keep the economy afloat by spending lots and lots of borrowed money? Not very is what the pundits have been saying for a long time.
Throughout last year it was a surprise to many that despite the credit crunch, the high price of oil etc the markets were remaining buoyant - was it because the markets are not vulnerable to those factors or was it simply optimistic trading with a correction to grossly overvalued stocks due soon?
Chances are that it was optimism and the correction has arrived. The US have tried to stimulate the markets with the rate cut but the UK have not followed suit to date. Prevailing opinion seems to be that a rate cut will arrive soon but maybe not as large as in the US, which seems to imply to me that the Bank of England think that the markets need to take some tough medicine to get themselves back in line with reality (and also that they're keeping one eye on inflation).
 
 
Saturn's nod
10:35 / 24.01.08
Guardian blogs on food price inflation in the UK.
 
 
The Idol Rich
11:44 / 24.01.08
Interesting stuff. I remember reading last year that the cheese prices were going to dramatically effect the price of pizza but luckily I haven't noticed that happen yet. I'm on another board where someone did a good post on the subject of food expense and I'm sure they won't mind me putting up part of it here:

"Our expectations of what food 'should' cost have become lower and lower in real terms over the past 30 years or so, most people's food bills do not account for a significant proportion of their expenditure (we spend something like 10% of our income on food now on average, as opposed to a third in the 70s - no time to look for exact figures but you can look them up). This is the result of the cheap food boom, as well as rising incomes. We could afford to pay a lot more if we prioritised food above other things like entertainment and new clothes. And I would argue that we should."

Though of course he's talking about deciding to pay extra to get healthier food, not having to pay more for the same old crap.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:20 / 24.01.08
Well, quite - and it's the people who are already buying the cheapest food possible who are really going to be hit - there are riots in Indonesia at present intermittently over rises in the price of soy beans, because soy beans are the only affordable source of protein for many people.

And even with the cheapest foods, you are probably not exactly paying what it costs, because while the costs of production are factored in (although in the UK, certainly, supermarkets have borne down hard on suppliers, so that margins are slim), the broader environmental costs are not - and this is part of the price increase now being felt - the environmental impact of current farming models and agricultural practice damaging the soil's ability to produce yields, the turning over of agricultural areas to biodieesel or palm oil.

And then, as you say, rising food prices lead to demands for wage rises, which leads to inflation... so, perhaps I spoke too soon, as usual, and you can't separate out the recession from the environment.
 
 
The Idol Rich
07:11 / 25.01.08
So, all this Soc Gen stuff was going on yesterday - as everyone now knows I guess.
The question is, how much of the recent turmoil was due to that?
 
 
The Idol Rich
14:04 / 25.01.08
And if it was mainly down to that doesn't it show how hasty the Fed's interest rate cut was?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:22 / 25.01.08
One man really can make a difference. The moral of the story, surely, being that you shouldn't put the designer of bidding software into a job using it. Recipe for trouble.
 
 
The Idol Rich
14:49 / 25.01.08
One man really can make a difference.

Yes, but my take on it is that the fundamentals are not that good. I'm quite suspicious of the way that the market has risen again, presumably because everyone has gone "oh, so that was what the problem was, let's buy back everything we sold on Monday". He might have been the immediate cause but my guess is that there is more to it. Time will tell.

The moral of the story, surely, being that you shouldn't put the designer of bidding software into a job using it. Recipe for trouble.

You're totally right of course about the safe-guards, seems unbelievable that that kind of oversight could happen these days. I mean, it was more understandable with Nick Leeson when his superiors were simply "old school" bankers who literally didn't understand the securities he was trading. I didn't think that could happen any more.
(Just noticed that oversight is one of those weird words such as "cleave" that means one thing and (almost) its opposite.)
 
 
grant
16:30 / 30.01.08
What were you saying about the cheapest food possible?
 
 
eye landed
05:29 / 31.01.08
(Just noticed that oversight is one of those weird words such as "cleave" that means one thing and (almost) its opposite.)

and 'sanction'. i think this is a game played by nerds somewhere.

One man really can make a difference.

is he really responsible, or is he a scapegoat? how easy is it to say 'all our worries are due to this criminal', rather than address the absurdity of the whole model? as idol rich implies, it seems that this is more short-term thinking, and i dont think the worlds banks, traders, and governments (especially) will fall for it in the least.

i slogged my way through this painful thread on free markets the other day (yes, it took pretty much the whole day), and it left me wondering where the money comes from when markets create wealth. i understand that its a simulacrum of wealth (i.e. 'value') rather than a growth of resources. but isnt the whole capitalist model based on the idea that there is a 'new world' out there to conquer and exploit? the risk in investment is the probability that new resources will be discovered versus the probability that capital will be spent for nothing. now that we are making (what seems to be) maximum use of the planets resources, this debt crisis has come along to show that we cant just keep creating wealth without some kind of resource to back it up.

i dont mean this to be threadrot, but rather a question of whether free markets are the best way to manage a finite pool of resources (i.e. the planet), in the light of the recent evidence presented by the debt crisis. i guess i agree that the discussions of agrarianism and derivative markets are precisely related.
 
 
grant
01:21 / 01.05.08
Just for the hell of it, here's a reassuring AP piece about people selling heirlooms on Craigslist to pay the water bill.
 
 
grant
19:23 / 16.05.08
So, how're things going?

The "victory gardens" meme has spread to Milwaukee, and I seem to be reading lots of thinkpieces about $10/gallon gas and people car-pooling/riding the train and whatnot.

I don't really understand economy, but I'm not sure I see any kind of full global market meltdown. Just a general lowering of standard-of-living.

I'd actually really like someone to explain how oil speculation works, since speculators are taking some blame for the price skyrocketing.
 
 
_pin
14:40 / 18.05.08
It's oil futures, innit? As with so many financial mecahnisms, I think their impenetrability is the result of both dense tehcnical detail, and the nagging sense in the back of your head while you're reading about them of "Just fucking why?"

Specifically, in this instance, oil futures are a pledge to, in the fuutre, sell oil for a specific price. I assume, in these instances, they are all pledging to sell oil for a price normal people consider to be equal-to-or-more-than enough. The last time people hated futures so much that even I heard about them, incidently, was when they were the only kind of financial transaction still making banks cash after 9/11.
 
 
Fist Fun
21:00 / 18.05.08
I think oil speculation works in that people can buy the right to buy oil in the future at a set price. So if you buy the right to buy oil for $100 in five years time you profit if costs more than that in five years time and you lose if it cost less.

So that would be speculation pushing things up because people believe the demand for oil, with new demand coming from India and China, will outstrip supply.

As far as the economy goes business does seem to be slow although I haven't heard of anyone losing their job or anything.

I think most people are quite happy for house prices to fall because they did get driven up because mortgage finance was cheap and easy to get and got stupidly expensive in the UK.
 
 
_pin
09:47 / 19.05.08
You'd think people would be happy to see prices fall, but a lot of people borrowed money against the value of their house, or expected to in future be able to borrow money on their house, and ultimately see the market value of their house as in some way analogous to money in the bank.

And those people are far and away the people that newspapers are talking to, listening to, and catering to. Govt. also.

Also, Buk, if you combine us, we form to make a corectness Voltron. Futures (which is what speculation refers to), are contractual pledges to buy or sell a given commodity at a fixed price at a future date. In this instance, it would appear everyone is locked in to sell oil at really high prices in the future, making prices really high.

Could someone tell me why?
 
 
diz
14:29 / 20.05.08
Rising demand from India and China.
 
 
_pin
15:26 / 20.05.08
Sorry diz, should have been clear; the full question was why would people think it was a good idea to create an instrument that contractually obliges them to sell a commodity at a price not determined by the market, but, instead, by some fag-packet sketch of what they think the market might look like in a few months time that they drew while on coke?
 
 
_pin
15:31 / 20.05.08
Unless you were making the joke that "rising demand from India and China" is basically the increased-surface-area of economics, obviously...
 
 
Fist Fun
19:30 / 20.05.08
Well the price is still determined by the market.

I think people think it is a good idea because there is a demand for it. There is a demand for it because people think they can make money speculating on future prices.
 
 
_pin
19:46 / 20.05.08
No, Buk, they are not. They are the exact opposite. To quote the above link: "Who trades futures? [...] hedgers, who have an interest in the underlying commodity and are seeking to hedge out the risk of price changes."

So, literally, futures contracts are for buying and selling commodities at prices that are not what the market is charging.

And "because I am making mad cash on it" has, I suspect, rarely been an amazingly brilliant or widely accepted reason for doing anything. I am unclear why futures traders should get to use it.
 
 
Fist Fun
20:59 / 20.05.08
Yeah but the market is determining that future price.

It is a market in the right to buy oil (or whatever commodity) at a certain price in the future.

One person thinks oil will cost less than 100 dollars in the future so is happy to sell the right to buy oil for 100 dollars.

One person thinks it will cost more than 100 dollars in the future so they are happy to buy the right to buy it at 100 dollars in the future.

As market sentiment changes - people predict a rise in demand or problems with supply - people are willing to pay more or less for the right to buy oil in the future.

If everyone thought that demand would fall sharply, say because a really great alternative fuel has been discovered, then nobody would be willing to buy the right to buy oil for 100 dollars in the future and the buyers and sellers in the market would work out how much is a fair price for future oil.

That is the futures market. It is as much a market as buying anything except the thing being sold is the right to buy something for a set price in the future.

And "because I am making mad cash on it" has, I suspect, rarely been an amazingly brilliant or widely accepted reason for doing anything. I am unclear why futures traders should get to use it.

I think that is basically the reason. People are willing to buy the right to buy oil (or whatever) for a certain amount in the future and people are willing to sell because they have differing opinions on the future price. That creates a right to buy which can be bought and sold just like any good or service.
 
 
enrieb
21:07 / 20.05.08
18:26 / 20.05.08

Sorry diz, should have been clear; the full question was why would people think it was a good idea to create an instrument that contractually obliges them to sell a commodity at a price not determined by the market, but, instead, by some fag-packet sketch of what they think the market might look like in a few months time that they drew while on coke?

The point of the futures market is to create long term stable prices for the commodities market. The oil market just as any other commodities market is prone to many supply and demand fluctuations, should an oil pipeline be blown up in Nigeria or a hurricane strike a major oil field then the companies/investors that have purchased oil futures at the current market price will have made a profit, the companies/investors that did not invest in the futures market and expected the oil price to go lower would have made a loss. However should no disruption to the oil supply have taken place and an over supply of oil entered the market then the investors/companies who purchased oil futures at the higher price would have lost money and those who had not purchased oil futures would have profited.

If the futures market were not in existence then the market price for oil or any other commodity would fluctuate to extreme price levels on a daily basis making medium to long term business planning based on the oil price a financial minefield.

Recently some of the major air transport companies in the US have found themselves in financial difficulty due the increase in the price of fuel. The companies that had purchased oil futures at the old market price have been able to maintain a profit margin whereas the companies that did not purchase fuel at the market price because they believed the price would fall are now experiencing financial difficulties and may well go bankrupt.

There is in the main a supply/demand curve to the given price of any commodity and also a speculative premium to the price should demand outstrip supply, but to suggest that the speculative price is in the bubble territory would imply that there are excess stocks of oil due to over production. This is not the case, because when the purchases or the oil futures contract come to fruition the the oil price has risen so they can then sell at a profit, if the market were over priced then those who purchases oil futures would have made a loss leading to a fall in the price of oil at the expense of the speculators.

With speculation of a futures price there is always a risk whether the price goes higher or lower, though the guarantee of a future price can help stabilize the price for the producer. If the futures market were not in place just imagine the day to day chaos that the market price for a given commodity could fetch, one day it could be a record high the other a record low, in that sort of uncertainty the production could fall even lower.

The futures market helps create a more stable price for producers, if not then they would not sell to the futures market but sell their produce on the day of delivery. If you think the price of oil is high now imagine how high it would be if the transport companies/investors had not purchased those contracts at the old market price, the airline companies that had not purchased oil future contracts would have had to out bid their competitors in the market today and would have driven the price of oil up far beyond $129.

There is also an equally important factor in the oil price and it this reason that is the primary factor in the 'looming financial crisis' and that is the value and future value of the dollar. Oil may well have gone from $11 a barrel to well over $100 in a decade but if you price oil in gold then 10 barrels to 1 gold ounce ratio has been pretty consistent on average over the long term. The dollar is depreciating in value, this is pushing up the cost of a barrel of oil, more dollars chasing fewer or a static number of barrels of oil produced per day.

Paul Krugman explain the oil speculation straw man far better than I ever could in this article, remember in the final stages of a bubble then the excess stocks outstrip demand just like in the current housing bubble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 
 
_pin
21:17 / 20.05.08
But futures markets can be stupid and destructive. You seem to have a lot of faith in bankers being very sensible, rational, long-term, best-interests kinds of people, which I think is quite surprising, in the circumstances.

There may well be great reasons for futures trading, but unless you don't believe in the regulation of financial transactions at all, you haven't made a particularly compelling case for them.
 
 
_pin
21:21 / 20.05.08
That was an x-post with enrieb, incidently, who has made a compelling case.
 
 
enrieb
21:43 / 20.05.08
But futures markets can be stupid and destructive. You seem to have a lot of faith in bankers being very sensible, rational, long-term, best-interests kinds of people, which I think is quite surprising, in the circumstances.

There may well be great reasons for futures trading, but unless you don't believe in the regulation of financial transactions at all, you haven't made a particularly compelling case for them.


Ouch! hold on their pin, you have assumed after 10 minuets that I have faith in bankers being very sensible, rational, long-term, best-interests kinds of people infact its quite the opposite given the nature of the financial crisis that has been created, and I do apologize if I gave that impression in my above post.

True, that I don't believe in the regulation of financial transactions but I also believe that powerful corporations should be limited in power possibly through peoples/workers unions and that corporations should not have the ability to buy the rights to 'control regulation' via a centralized government control of financial transactions archived by lobbying([paying off) political parties. I think you may be assuming that because I have a very 'limited' understanding of the financial markets then I somehow support the extremes of capitalism. I assure you that this is not the case.
 
 
_pin
22:00 / 20.05.08
That was a total cross-post, enreib; the comment was to Buk, not you.

You've presented a case for why a futures market may be in the interests of producers and consumers, whereas Buk said that bankers are rich.

I agree with Krugman that there isn't a bubble, but oil producers have also been claiming that speculation raises prices, above and beyond the reasons for price increases he cites, and the point about oil-to-gold you make.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34567

 
  
Add Your Reply