Global Financial Crisis (1 Viewer)

[bigboyjames]

And now Wachovia
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080929/wach...group.html?.v=1

 

[Trefoil]

The Brazilian stock market just crashed (dropping more than 10%) and they suspended trading. The Irish stock market crashed already yesterday (dropping more than 12%).

The Brizilian crash was due to the Republicans in America not passing the $700 billion bailout bill.

America's stock market fell 6% while Canada's fell 8%.

You can probably expect more countries to crash later today and tomorrow. Switzerland likely. And now Brazil is down, the rest of South America will likely follow. Britain expects to crash shortly, as does America (as much as 33%!).

This is pretty amazing stuff. It's kind of surreal. I always figured they'd be smart enough to pass that bill.

 

[katie tully]

He did General Mathematics too, so watch out, he can (badly) process statistics and use the compound interest formula!

wait, what.

we did compound interest in general maths?

moar like, IF AN ITEM IS FOR SALE FOR $57.38 AND IS REDUCED BY 30%, WHAT WILL THE NEW SALE PRICE BE?

 

[Captain Hero]

This is pretty amazing stuff. It's kind of surreal. I always figured they'd be smart enough to pass that bill.

Not passing this bill and allowing this crash is a very good thing. It means we'll be over the crisis in a year, rather than postponing it and extending the influence over the next 10 years.

 

[Trefoil]

Not passing this bill and allowing this crash is a very good thing. It means we'll be over the crisis in a year, rather than postponing it and extending the influence over the next 10 years.

The other people who have told me that today rank among the most economically conservative people I know. To them, it's just another generic free market stance, like opposition to welfare and healthcare. I'd hope that's not true for you, too.

We won't be over this crash in a year. Not by a long shot. Glad Buffet agrees with me on that one.

Distribution of the burden over time is arguably much preferable, especially for the low and middle income earners. It could quite possibly also show logarithmic or square root cost dampening over time, making it further lucrative. It certainly seems the more socially equitable option. It doesn't matter now - the damage is done.

This will pass, but America will be all the weaker for it. I have a strong feeling Sarkozy is right on the money. At any rate, it offers a rare point where we can tangibly say "this is where the BRIC-like states began" w.r.t. Brazil, Mexico, India (and China... I guess...). Confidence in the American economy - and America's aggressive deregulation policies - will not be the same after this.

I hate to give China any credit, because they have a habit of taking 2 steps forward, one step back, but for 20 years America has been pressuring them to deregulate everywhere. They resisted because of blind rebelliousness (or so it seemed at the time), but it's paying off now.

As for free market libertarianism, since you no doubt still feel deregulation is the answer, it is very much worth listening to Noam Chomsky. Not to buy into his Utopian ideology (which is about as realistic as communism or American libertarianism), but simply to understand what libertarianism means in America.

 

[Trefoil]

America and Canada just had their biggest raw point drop in history.

Just before bailout failure
Ireland crashed down 12%
Britain down 5%
India down 4%
Iceland down 5%
Germany down 4%
Italy down 5%

After bailout failure
Brazil crashed down 10%
America crashed down 8%
Canada crashed down 8%
Australia down 5% (in first 15 minutes)
New Zealand down 5%
Japan down 5%
Hong Kong down 5%
Singapore down 5%
Taiwan down 6%
Philippines down 6%
South Korea down 5%
Mellon ADR down 8%
Latin America ADR down 9%

When Europe wakes up, it will tank again. The cycle begins.

By cancelling the bailout bill (which wasn't actually $700 billion, and would've mostly been recouped by taxpayers), world markets have already lost trillions of dollars - and America has certainly lost more than $700 billion today alone.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Thank goodness I have no money to lose in gambling!

 

[staticsiscool]

Trefoil, your high school grad is next year but you're already 19?

 

[blue_chameleon]

Thank goodness I have no money to lose in gambling!

Lol. Money to lose is only lost when people a) Need to withdraw for income and b) Pull out due to fear.

Fucking good luck to any speculators out there trying to make a buck between now and 31/10/08 when America's FY ends. Other than that, I don't see what the hype is about. Buy into solid companies that are low now (ANZ, WBC, BHP etc) and hold for the next 5-7 years.

I'm going out on a limb and saying that the bill will be pushed through again and passed. Beit right or wrong, it needs to be done. McCain will probably get it through an claim hero status for the election. Sigh.

 

[withoutaface]

The other people who have told me that today rank among the most economically conservative people I know. To them, it's just another generic free market stance, like opposition to welfare and healthcare. I'd hope that's not true for you, too.

We won't be over this crash in a year. Not by a long shot. Glad Buffet agrees with me on that one.

Distribution of the burden over time is arguably much preferable, especially for the low and middle income earners. It could quite possibly also show logarithmic or square root cost dampening over time, making it further lucrative. It certainly seems the more socially equitable option. It doesn't matter now - the damage is done.

This will pass, but America will be all the weaker for it. I have a strong feeling Sarkozy is right on the money. At any rate, it offers a rare point where we can tangibly say "this is where the BRIC-like states began" w.r.t. Brazil, Mexico, India (and China... I guess...). Confidence in the American economy - and America's aggressive deregulation policies - will not be the same after this.

I hate to give China any credit, because they have a habit of taking 2 steps forward, one step back, but for 20 years America has been pressuring them to deregulate everywhere. They resisted because of blind rebelliousness (or so it seemed at the time), but it's paying off now.

As for free market libertarianism, since you no doubt still feel deregulation is the answer, it is very much worth listening to Noam Chomsky. Not to buy into his Utopian ideology (which is about as realistic as communism or American libertarianism), but simply to understand what libertarianism means in America.

How will a bailout without a corresponding shift in the outlook of those responsible for the current crisis achieve anything?

 

[ASNSWR127]

He did General Mathematics too, so watch out, he can (badly) process statistics and use the compound interest formula!

for all of the mathematical genius and financial management present in the US banks there is one simple question:

how did they still manage to fail so badly?

it is because of arrogant people such as yourself who have lost all comprehension of reality for the workers and people of this world.

It is because people who think they are inherentely[FONT=&quot][/FONT] better than someone else thanks to their university/UAI think they are somehow born to have more 'stuff' than the common person. so you borrow and you borrow.

and you fail.

 

[withoutaface]

for all of the mathematical genius and financial management present in the US banks there is one simple question:

how did they still manage to fail so badly?

it is because of arrogant people such as yourself who have lost all comprehension of reality for the workers and people of this world.

It is because people who think they are inherentely[FONT=&quot][/FONT] better than someone else thanks to their university/UAI think they are somehow born to have more 'stuff' than the common person. so you borrow and you borrow.

and you fail.

The current crisis happened because the government tried to help poor people by giving them loans, then the arseholes defaulted.

 

[Trefoil]

How will a bailout without a corresponding shift in the outlook of those responsible for the current crisis achieve anything?

I'd argue there's already been a shift in outlook.

But I don't really see the problem - there's an assumption on my part that there will be increased oversight (yes, regulation) in the future to prevent this. Whether you agree or not, I think that's the way things will end up.

How would a bailout solve anything in a purely laissez faire market? I don't know. But then, how does a purely laissez faire market avoid trending to corporatism?

The 'no' vote wiped out $1.2 trillion dollars on Wall Street in just one day.

 

[withoutaface]

mate, you wouldn't be able to afford your own eduation or that car of yours and thaT house you line in, if you didn't get some form of loan, so stop hating.

I'm railing against giving loans to people who can't afford to pay them off, not loans in general.

Trefoil: By definition a laissez faire market is not corporatist, because it has no laws giving anyone an advantage or disadvantage. Also the $1.2 trillion is an overcorrection, and will be wound back significantly over the next couple of months, so to say that "we've lost more than we would've spent" is a fallacy. Finally, it's not about increased oversight, it's about the government not giving the impression to business that it's backing retarded loans.

 

[Trefoil]

If laissez faire has no restrictions on anybody, then it's going to come down to survival of the fittest. And unfortunately that means big, powerful, greedy corporations that use exploitation because it's the most cheap and efficient way of doing things.

That is not fair, regardless of whether or not it's how the market ended up naturally; the market is not an end unto itself. It requires oversight.

 

[withoutaface]

If laissez faire has no restrictions on anybody, then it's going to come down to survival of the fittest. And unfortunately that means big, powerful, greedy corporations that use exploitation because it's the most cheap and efficient way of doing things.

That is not fair, regardless of whether or not it's how the market ended up naturally; the market is not an end unto itself. It requires oversight.

You're taking a fairly liberal view of 'exploitation'. It comes down to those who possess the greatest skills and contribute the greatest amount to the end consumer will do better than those who possess generic skills and are easily substituted. I see no problem with this, as it is rewarding you according to your contribution.

 

[ASNSWR127]

You're taking a fairly liberal view of 'exploitation'. It comes down to those who possess the greatest skills and contribute the greatest amount to the end consumer will do better than those who possess generic skills and are easily substituted. I see no problem with this, as it is rewarding you according to your contribution.

your views on the world are truly mind bogglingly sickening

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

waf is trying to defend a defeated ideology hahaha

 

[Trefoil]

You're taking a fairly liberal view of 'exploitation'. It comes down to those who possess the greatest skills and contribute the greatest amount to the end consumer will do better than those who possess generic skills and are easily substituted. I see no problem with this, as it is rewarding you according to your contribution.

So you've gone from saying laissez faire doesn't encourage corporatism to saying you endorse corporatism?

 

[Captain Hero]

I think Ordoliberalism makes the most sense from all the political positions. Destroy corporatism and monopolies and allow a true free market. Which is kickass.

Wallstreet failing today is nothing but a thing of beauty. $700bn (LOW END OF THE TRACK given how much has already been picked up in bailouts ) would have been a waste.

They need to wipe out this value because they need to value the assets and the capital they have at the market value if there is ANY chance of this situation being fixed.

Why does everyone always have to win?