|
A stunning return to form by the thread's resident Turing bot.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
It's not even sexy bot like the one in Ex Machina
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Let me try my hand at this Socratic/Turing thingy. Hal is trying to say that Canada isn't as badly off as other countries and that there are very good technical reasons to back up his claims. I have no idea what D3 is though and google is flooded with diablo 3 references. e: ok I think D3 is the Fed's measure of non financial debt. e2: I don't know what he means about the AUD FX relative to the CAD. The AUD isn't that far off from the CAD when trading against the USD. e3: Y'know, considering the government is backstopping all the lovely CMHC insured debt, I don't know why you guys think Canadian banks are that badly off. You know what they're on the hook for? p. much nothing compared to the Canadian taxpayer. namaste friends fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:e2: I don't know what he means about the AUD FX relative to the CAD. The AUD isn't that far off from the CAD when trading against the USD. And it's been that way for a while. Since 2010 the CAD and AUD have never been more than 10 cents apart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Hal is trying to say that Canada isn't as badly off as other countries and that there are very good technical reasons to back up his claims. I have no idea what D3 is though and google is flooded with diablo 3 references. Yeah it seemed so, I just wasn't sure how it applied to the point that Financial stocks are by far the largest industry on our stock market. Sure they are healthy compared to French banks, they don't lend to the Greek government so it isn't hard. I am sort of anticipating a smug post about how I don't understand Saudi energy policy, and it would all make sense once I finished my doctorate in that field. Maybe supported with a link to a Thai currency analysis to support his claim. https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-00753733.html Think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 06:22
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:So now that weed is legal in Canada you can all spend your money on that instead of overpriced apartments. No blackmarket weed will eliminate a huge portion of domestic millionaires in Vancouver. Half of the $5,000,000 mansions in the British Properties are grow ops. When Washington legalized it was a huge blow and a bunch of the industry moved to Alberta, but this will be the final straw. UnfortunateSexFart fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Reverse Centaur posted:No blackmarket weed will eliminate a huge portion of domestic millionaires in Vancouver. Half of the $5,000,000 mansions in the British Properties are grow ops. I've been saying for years now that pot legalization in the US is the exogenous shock that will kill BC's economy. I think I'm sort of wrong now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
This article is a lot of fun to read if you hate austerity and dumb fucks who keep talking about government debt like it's the same as household debt. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/06/12/2131798/what-if-the-uk-paid-off-all-its-government-debt/ quote:UK chancellor George Osborne has announced new budgetary rules that aim to eliminate the current structural deficit within three years and ensure public sector net debt is falling as a share of national income by 2016-17. TL;DR if some G8 government somewhere like the one we have run by loving cocksuckers like Oliver are going to keep trying to 'balance the budget' and 'pay down debt', if you were to carry this to an absurdist conclusion you are going to end up with the same problem - a financial system prone to the flaws of 'financial engineering'. Maybe hal_2005 can explain to us why assholes like Osbourne and Oliver are obsessed with reducing government debt at a loving time when we need governments to spend the most. If the government of canada went on a national initiative to modernize its power grid or upgrade its highways or implement mass geothermal stations or some poo poo, we probably wouldn't need to rely on low as hell overnight rates and the motherfucking real estate industry to keep the economy afloat. Or loving southern ontario car manufacturing for that matter. gently caress you ontario.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
 Before you dive into this post, read this article about bond yields. They are confusing. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bond-yield.asp The gist is, if you are trying to sell bonds, you will offer a higher interest rate. If people think your ability to pay off the coupon, that is the total value of the bond at maturity is bullshit, you have to offer a higher interest rate. Now that economies are recovering, the interest rates offered for bonds are decreasing. That means if you're an pension fund and you're trying to find a safe investment vehicle that will offer your retiring baby boomer rear end in a top hat pensioners sufficient payments, you are making GBS threads your pants right now. When yields go up, it means interest rates for bonds are going down. Yields are shooting through the roof. http://business.financialpost.com/investing/worst-bond-crash-in-30-years-is-early-warning-of-turmoil-to-come quote:Worst bond crash in almost 30 years is early warning of turmoil to come Christine Lagarde who runs the IMF made the unprecedented move of asking Janet Yellen in public, to hold off raising the overnight rate because it would gently caress everyone in the G8 raw. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
CI the coupon is the interest payment, not the big principal repayment at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Maybe hal_2005 can explain to us why assholes like Osbourne and Oliver are obsessed with reducing government debt at a loving time when we need governments to spend the most. If the government of canada went on a national initiative to modernize its power grid or upgrade its highways or implement mass geothermal stations or some poo poo, we probably wouldn't need to rely on low as hell overnight rates and the motherfucking real estate industry to keep the economy afloat. Or loving southern ontario car manufacturing for that matter. gently caress you ontario. I'm baffled and extremely disappointed at how we got through the post 2008 economic crisis spendathon without actually creating any high speed rail infrastructure between Vancouver and Seattle/Portland even though Obama was offering money for this exact purpose in his first term. Would have been a pretty nice infrastructure mega project. Good Job Government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Let me try my hand at this Socratic/Turing thingy. Before I explain, I really like that double wtf gif. Now, the poster above wanted to show Canada's global MSCI index fund balance was very skewed to the financial sector. Finance 101 says that with a large enough market of fully public companies the stock markets market capitalization should aptly reflect a country's underlying economy. This makes sense because if everything is public, the GDP should replicate the index weightings and employment ratios of each sector. If you followed the posters logic, then Canada would be about 38% employed in financials, and financials would be equal to about 38% of holding all of Canada's GDP, and by extension responsible for about 38% of Canada's total asset value as a country under that perfect index assumption. Clear ? Extending the posters logic, he was trying to use a weighting chart to try and tell Uncle Wong's cabin that Canada is in a 'financial bubble' because he wanted to show people just how concentrated our economy is to financial profits, at the expense of all other sectors. And thus, we will all die because of that asset class inflation found in financial equities, proven by this benchmark weight. Got it ? I called this as bullshit, and then gave him a few suggested places to go, should he want to post or learn how to factually correct his post. Because his point was valid, just not for our country or using that data. Benchmark weights are done, and adjusted to reflect the public corporates that meet certain criteria. Such as size of total enterprise value and when they fail to adhere to that benchmark weight they are replaced or deleted from the benchmark. Since MSCI and iShares have not been reweighted yet since the 2014 oil shock, and biotech/financials have seen relative out performance in those sectors vs. industrials & energy, the weightings are all out of wack with their true guidelines. If you wait a few weeks then The chart will be skewed so that energy and industrial will take a larger chunk of the weighting, with financials being modulated back into a more average position (about 25%). I do not have MSCI in front of me, but this will be the approximate change in the graph. When this happens, the OP's argument that canada is 'massively overleveraged to financials and our financial sector is too big' will not be proved by that chart. However there is also another reason why the poster was wrong to quote the TSX weighted MSCI as an example for just how badly exposed Canada is to a 'property bubble'. Most of Canada and Canadian assets/employers are not listed on the Toronto main board stock market. This is one of the main reasons why that rebalance needs to be done every year since sector rotation eventually leads to divergence from the economic underlying GDP profile. So even if the poster had waited for iShares to update their profile in July after the benchmark rebalancing occurs, he would still be wrong because over 50% of Canada's assets, and their valuation is private. Which would have made posting or trying to explain Canada was 'in risk of hyperinflation' to be a false argument. A website did a repost of a major story in the financial markets where financial bank analysts have asked the OP's original question. Do banks with large assets under management and global operations eventually become too big to fail, not just on a country sense, but as a risk to the global market. If OP had looked at that post, and the post previously done on this emerging market story, he would have realized I had given him all the information needed to actually figure out if RBC, CIBC, Scotia and BMO were actually a 'risk' to the Canadian economy. How? Well, to answer this question you need to look at the total GDP of a country, or in cases of very little trade data, the GNP. That is the total amount of asset value given at both a sovereign level and a credit rating level to a country's central bank. It is, in effect, the maximum lending base a country could extend to any financial institution, or all of them at once to keep the system solvent if one bank should fail, or many go down with it. Still following ? Each bank must report to the financial institution its gross derivative exposures. If you read the article series, then you would understand that many banks only have to report for their quarterly financials, Basil III and central bank impairment tests (Dodds Frank standards) their net exposure. However, in the event of a major risk of liquidity the markets fly apart, and since derivative instruments work on posted margin collateral, no matter how well you claim to be neutral (for every cash outflow on a derivative you have one cash flow to offset it), a sudden shock will lead to a gross credit failure. In this scenario, you must look at a banks total derrivatives reported to the central bank's risk tests, or it's D3 (think like the M3; the most broadest definition of derivatives at Fed) since we can only assume all of those will fail. In the case of Lehman, Bear Sterns, Barrings Bank and LTCM it was the gross, and a sudden margin call that killed the bank and forced a Government led bailout by drawing on the total wealth of the nation, to issue more credit, to which the central bank would print more M1, and "bail out" the bank by either buying its bad debt or loaning money to someone else, to buy it out. The alternative is the bank would go to zero, and all the depositors + equity would be wiped out, sans the deposit federal insurance. Still with me ? So. As the ZH article shows, if the OP really wanted to prove Canada's banks were systemically too big to fail, and one of our banks, and all their subprime lending will kill Canada, like LEH did to the USA, then the OP would have had to go to the Bank of Canada and pull the recent stress reports. He would then have to had a look at each bank's total gross D3 reported, and compare that to Canada's GDP. Just like how one "Turing Test" (we prefer the term "quant jocks") did at Goldman Sachs, and ZH reposted so others could either read his work, or do their own studies on their own banks/financial models. Still clear? To save the OP and the thread more embarrassment, I just pulled the ratios from a Credit Suisse report which did a country by country study at the time the Swiss Govt. decided to break their peg to the Euro. At the time, they concluded that should a bank like UBS or CSFB explode, their country would be in default, and as such they needed to build currency reserves at the central bank of Switzerland by allowing the Swissy to move back to its true level. Because they were scared if Greece leaves, the total D3 of one of those two banks would take down their system and start another 2008. Thus, they "broke the peg" to the EURO and built a Frank buffer to be deployed in the event of a Greek crisis. At that time, and again just before the Canadian banks reported earnings, they checked if Canadian banks would take out the financial system. So I just reposed their findings from the report on my phone. I thought this was sufficiently clear. Now. Some countries just cant create money out of thin air, without debasing their currency. Which is one of the reasons you cut rates. To make domestic people poorer in relation to the whole world, but at the expense that purchasing power weakness makes big things, like paying off foreign debitors that much cheaper to perform in the event of a system wide bailout. Some countries have plenty of private asset to monetize, be they crown companies, federal lands, gold reserves. And others? not so much. In this case, some countries such as Russia will see a sudden and swift capital flight, and others will see very little if investors know just how much 'dry powder' a country's central banker has in "reserve". This is also one of the major factors that facilitate speculative positions in FX. I compared how the total financial sectors leverage with respect to its gdp is important, but also without a backstop currencies can rapidly spiral out of control. Which is what people are afraid of, should a housing "bubble" pop on Poloz's watch. In the case of Canada vs. Australia, I highlighted that country had far more reckless lending standards both to corporates (base metals, met. coal, U238) vs. Canada. And by the implied leverage ratio of total gross derivatives reported to the Australian economies asset base, while their country looks stable. As a poster pointed out, in reality, its a 'false bottom'. I could have used Brazil or New Zealand as applicable examples. Sorry if this point was unclear. In the end, all I wanted to do was have the poster explain why he was wrong, and demonstrate why it was off. The short answer is that Canada has more assets and less leverage both due to our banking laws on derivative instruments and how much asset value is still locked up in federal crown lands/assets plus personal corporations/pension plans. So Canada, is far more solid than nearly all our peer G8 countries, which is highlighted in our Canada credit rating and bond curve convexity. And yes, to quote a respond to a poster above, in a funny way it actually does tie back to the Saudi production hike also. But this post has already gone on for far too long and the systemic cause of the index misalignment was not the original point of my flame post. Maybe hal_2005 can explain to us why assholes like Osbourne and Oliver are obsessed with reducing government debt at a loving time when we need governments to spend the most. If the government of canada went on a national initiative to modernize its power grid or upgrade its highways or implement mass geothermal stations or some poo poo, we probably wouldn't need to rely on low as hell overnight rates and the motherfucking real estate industry to keep the economy afloat. Or loving southern ontario car manufacturing for that matter. gently caress you ontario. There are two schools of thought. One says that building for the sake of building stuff can trick people into spending more and eventually the system reaches critical mass on its own (full employment, optimal GDP). Thats Keynes in a nutshell. The other side says, if you build too much poo poo, you can hide it, until you can't. And then now you only made the problem worse because you are now even deeper into overcapacity plus everyone is now poorer because you are a dumb central banker/govt. Thats classical economics. Keynsians say the only way the USA worked out of a bad recession in 1890 and again in 1932 was when it nearly went for broke building poo poo. It just did the honeybadger approach to the global demand. Kristina Romer did a bunch on this. She also was the major force behind the whole Fiscal Plan (green shoots) with Obama. This is what you said CI, and this is what the Chinese and Japanese have been attempting since 2008, with very little to show for it. I would also argue all of Obama's plans were a failure, and I point to the Solar credits and Cash for Clunkers failures specifically. Dr Yellen, and more recently Dr Summers argued the best you can do is 'soft land' (intentionally let the economy stall out) and allow normal consumption to blow down the excess supply of garbage built in the last mania economic cycle peak. No amount of building more poo poo will encourage people to buy it, if they have no money. And as a government all you can do is "sweat it out" like recovering from a raging hangover. Clear ? Now, if I was PM Harper, I know that our economy has a good credit rating and has enough labor tightness that I really dont need to build much more, and burn my dry powder. I also know that drawing a deficit would make more temporary jobs, but since we are an export led economy, we would only be selling our poo poo to an oversupplied world which would in reality do dick all for actually boosting our trade derived foreign reserves. We would be building for no good reason and when poo poo really DOES hit the fan, we will have nothing left to use. And we will be no better off than the USA, EU, China or Japan who had to resort to currency debasement and bond curve twisting to create money and inflation via "QE". PM Osborne shares the same concerns, and the BoE has even less reserves / assets at hand than Canada/Switz. do. Which is why the UK is so eager to recreate the "poundbreaker" trade and leave the Euro peg, for much the same reason the Swiss did. They need FX reserves, because their gross risk thanks to Barclays, Lloyds and other major banks places them in a dangerous position should a Fed rate hike blow up something, and England needs to bail it out or lest the whole global trade clearing system goes under. I love solar to no end. Hell, without doxing myself, I financed Canadian Solar in the 5's, Vivent and First Solar as a anchor investor. However, if you look at all your suggestions, all those technologies are not self sustaining and rely on tax credits to live. So the more you build of it, you are actually harming your country because the cost of power they produce it at is never going to be affordable by your populations. So its a dumb policy and bad planning/investment management. Particularly if you as a country's Minister of Finance are trying to conserve cash and not blow the place up like Greece/France/Spain/China/Japan, who all threw money at dumb poo poo. Bond yield supression, by Bank open market operations and repurchasing auctions generate liquidity. Namely they make money easier to come by, but this is a standard practice to maintain inflation/price stability. Rates would go down regardless of the global demand projections and our domestic economic headwinds. The reason you want to deleverage your fiscal balance sheet is for the above mentioned 'dry powder' raising. The second reason is that govt's rarely if ever redeem a bond. Redemption is when they pay you back all interest plus the face value. Too many people, pensions and endowments need that "risk free" income to meet their own welfare / obligations, so most govts will just roll it over. Should a bank fail, and the govt. suddenly needs to draw on its assets and issue a large quantity of bonds, to be either purchased by the central bank in exchange for CAD, or to outright nationalize a failing lender (or entire sector!) then not only will they need to front run the capital flight, and sell into a panic sell off of their currency, but issue more currency at the same time. Compounding the problems for their emergency fund raising objectives to 'backstop' a failing system. That perception of economic risk is what drives a govt. issue higher, based on the 'risk premium' being priced into the bonds yield. It is also correlated to how the currency weakens on its own, day in & day out. Front running economic weakness. See Russia both in 98 and in 2014 when they had to "snap" the market to regain control. So, if you as a govt. have the foresight to know that poo poo is going to get loving terrible, at any day between here and 2020, you know as poo poo gets worse the yield you will need to pay investors will be going up, and thus your govt. will have less 'dry powder' available thanks to the higher yields, and larger cash outflows needed to keep bond holders rolling over your govt. paper vs. demanding redemption on face value; and bankrupting your economy. Like Greece and Weinmar Germany. And because your Finance Minister knows global yields are going to steepen, either through a lack of liquidity for the world reserve currency (Dollars when the US federal reserve hikes) or the world gets sicker, you want the best balance sheet, with the least cash outflows possible. To prepare for bad times. Which is why you don't spend or do anything until you are in the heat of a financial crisis. Which was the main takeaway from Dr. Bernanake's seminal work on the great depression (which Obama never read), why Harper never went balls deep on a stimulus plan (yet), and why England resisted bailing out the North Sea oil industry, or property market. As Dr. Summer's said, its nearly impossible to know when you are in the middle of bad times, until you are. And rates should never be adjusted until you see the whites of inflation's eyes. So for this reason also, central banks are reluctant to begin a self-inflicted liquidity shortage when there are countries like Germany, France, Greece, Spain, Japan, China, Korea, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Italy, Iran, Russia, Indonesia and (lastly) America who all independently could blow out the economy. Hopefully that made things slightly more clear. If not I can take a round 2 at the topic in a day or so. The Economist, who's editor Zanny is a Keynsian and takes the same side of my explanation and the same as CI. Or at least her ghost writing PHD does. They also use annon's. Their argument however falls flat, when you see that the whole last 2 paragraphs assume someone will use all that fresh infrastructure project spending to full capacity in the UK and Canada. Which, if Canada is no longer selling materials or importing Chinese (cash & mans) it will ring hollow. Just like the 2008-2014 pivot towards stimulation of London luxury for Russian laundering was a 'Dutch disease" paradox for English policy. One thing we do agree upon is reform is needed, and that is what is setting Canada's PC govt. apart from China, Russia, Australia, EU, US and Japan. Programs like the unified securities regulator, the financial literacy objective. expanding household liquidity by income twinning are all structural reforms to free up domestic asset flexibility should the floor fall out of the economy. And are unique to the Harper Govt. esp compared to all the G8 to date. If you email Joe Olivers office, you actually will get a nice response to your question CI, and I honestly suggest you do that. Be sure to post what they send back before the general election is called. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21654053-it-only-matter-time-next-recession-strikes-rich-world-not-ready-watch he world economy Watch out It is only a matter of time before the next recession strikes. The rich world is not ready Jun 13th 2015 | From the print edition Timekeeper THE struggle has been long and arduous. But gazing across the battered economies of the rich world it is time to declare that the fight against financial chaos and deflation is won. In 2015, the IMF says, for the first time since 2007 every advanced economy will expand. Rich-world growth should exceed 2% for the first time since 2010 and America’s central bank is likely to raise its rock-bottom interest rates. However, the global economy still faces all manner of hazards, from the Greek debt saga to China’s shaky markets. Few economies have ever gone as long as a decade without tipping into recession—America’s started growing in 2009. Sod’s law decrees that, sooner or later, policymakers will face another downturn. The danger is that, having used up their arsenal, governments and central banks will not have the ammunition to fight the next recession. Paradoxically, reducing that risk requires a willingness to keep policy looser for longer today. The smoke is clearing The good news comes mainly from America, which leads the rich-world pack. Its unexpected contraction in the first quarter looks like a blip, owing a lot to factors like the weather (see article). The most recent data, including surging vehicle sales and another round of robust employment figures, show that the pace of growth is rebounding. American firms took on 280,000 new workers last month. Bosses are at last having to pay more to find the workers they need. In other parts of the rich world things are also looking up. In the euro zone unemployment is falling and prices are rising again. Britain’s recovery has lost a bit of puff, but strong employment growth suggests that expansion will continue. Japan roared ahead in the first quarter, growing by 3.9% at an annualised rate. A recovery so broad-based and persistent is no fluke. America's economy: a health check Inevitably fragilities remain. Europe is deep in debt and dependent on exports. Japan cannot get inflation to take hold. Wage growth could quickly dent corporate earnings and valuations in America. Emerging economies, which accounted for the bulk of growth in the post-crisis years, have seen better days. The economies of both Brazil and Russia are expected to shrink this year. Poor trade data suggest that Chinese growth may be slowing faster than the government wishes. If any of these worries causes a downturn the world will be in a rotten position to do much about it. Rarely have so many large economies been so ill-equipped to manage a recession, whatever its provenance, as our “wriggle-room” ranking makes clear (see article). Rich countries’ average debt-to-GDP ratio has risen by about 50% since 2007. In Britain and Spain debt has more than doubled. Nobody knows where the ceiling is, but governments that want to splurge will have to win over jumpy electorates as well as nervous creditors. Countries with only tenuous access to bond markets, as in the euro zone’s periphery, may be unable to launch a big fiscal stimulus. Monetary policy is yet more cramped. The last time the Federal Reserve raised interest rates was in 2006. The Bank of England’s base rate sits at 0.5%. Records dating back to the 17th century show that, before 2009, it had never fallen below 2%; and futures prices suggest that in early 2018 it will still be only around 1.5%. That is healthy compared with the euro area and Japan, where rates in 2018 are expected to remain stuck near zero. When central banks face their next recession, in other words, they risk having almost no room to boost their economies by cutting interest rates. That would make the next downturn even harder to escape. The logical answer is to get back to normal as fast as possible. The sooner interest rates rise, the sooner central banks will regain the room to cut rates again when trouble comes along. The faster debts are cut, the easier it will be for governments to borrow to ward off disaster. Logical, but wrong. See how much "wriggle room" governments have to respond to economic trouble Raising rates while wages are flat and inflation is well below the central bankers’ target risks pushing economies back to the brink of deflation and precipitating the very recession they seek to avoid. When central banks have raised rates too early—as the European Central Bank did in 2011—they have done such harm that they have felt compelled to reverse course. Better to wait until wage growth is entrenched and inflation is at least back to its target level. Inflation that is a little too high is a lot less dangerous for an economy than premature rate rises are. Because America’s recovery is strongest, that is where debate about how fast to return monetary policy to normal is fiercest. Hawkish voices at the Fed argue that, with unemployment below 6% and hiring continuing at a torrid pace, it is plainly time to start raising interest rates. In this view, wages and prices are bound to pick up in future. Meanwhile excessively low rates are inflating asset prices and creating long-run financial risks. Those risks are real but manageable. Regulators have the ability to let the air out of asset prices by tightening rules on leverage and liquidity. An economy at full employment and with a healthy level of inflation will be better positioned to withstand a bout of financial instability than one that is flirting with deflation. The best defence Governments can also do their bit. There has still been shamefully little growth-boosting investment in infrastructure. The OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, was right to rap George Osborne, Britain’s finance minister, on the knuckles for the scale and pace of his proposed public-spending cuts. Growth is better than austerity as a policy for bringing debts under control. Governments should instead direct their energies towards overdue reforms to product and labour markets. Open product markets encourage enterprise. The freedom to hire workers under flexible contracts is the best way to keep people out of unemployment. Both reforms make an economy better able to cope with the next shock. Having fought off the effects of the financial crisis, governments and central banks are understandably eager to get back to normal. The way to achieve their goal is to allow the recovery to gather strength first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Hal I don't know what happened, but poo poo, your posts are actually readable now and not filled to the brim with obscure jargon like they were 6 months ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
Thanks for taking the time to post that Hal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
I viewed a rental apartment earlier in Vancouver - the landlord was basically a walking cautionary tale about diversification. She proudly explained that her and her husband both work for Royal Lepage, and that this was one of several investment condos they have. O_o
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Hal, 2 things: 1) "labour tightness" Isn't the Canadian labour market considerably slack? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/job-quality-in-canada-sinks-to-all-time-low-cibc-index-shows/article23303996/ If not, what would a really slack labour market look like? 50% youth unemployment? 2) "Harper never broke into full stimulus" What would you call the loosening of the lending market and the de facto bank bailouts of 2009? If that's not full scale stimulus, what would full scale stimulus look like? Bonus question: Given the trajectory of the yield curves, won't mortgage rates in Canada necessarily have to go up in the near term? And what effect will another o/n rate cut have? I mean, like you say, at this point there's not much central banks can do anymore. Your post implies that governments have no choice but to sit on their hands because they'll have to bail everyone out in the impending second credit crunch. namaste friends fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/a-new-class-canada-neglects-the-precariat-at-its-peril/article24944758/quote:A new class: Canada neglects the precariat at its peril To idiots like eveline xia, this is the real problem. Not the fact that you can't live out your loving bougie hipster dreamz in a house in mt pleasant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/a-new-class-canada-neglects-the-precariat-at-its-peril/article24944758/ The image I'm getting is that a spectre is haunting Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:Where Hall_2005 posts a mostly legible 4300 word explanation. While I have mixed feeling about eliciting a coherent reply, thanks for the explanation. More of this please, less of your normal gimmick. That said, please consider that if you need 4300 words to explain your  on a poster, you may be relying on more insider knowledge than exists in this thread. Just skip to the explanation stage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
It's amazing how a snarky one line / one image post gets that reply. I'm pretty sure that etalian just wanted to show a chart demonstrating that Canada's economy is not particularly well diversified. It wasn't the best choice of an image, but it also wasn't meant to imply most of the things that Hal claimed it was. An actual honest Socratic response might have been along the lines of asking why that chart was chosen, what etalian thought was important about it, etc. Not this barely passive aggressive bullshit of "please explain how (thing you never claimed) with reference to (jumbled mess of irrelevant distractions and impenetrable jargon)". Not " oh you posted about an index fund with 38% of its value in financials, obviously you are implying that 38% of the country is employed in this sector, you embarrassing idiot".
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Hal is awesome, his whole writing style has a zerohedge jargon overload vibe to it. etalian fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Not really. If Exxon or some other ndp weed philosopher started challenging Newton's laws and a physicist responded I'm sure said philosophers would be up in arms complaining that the explanation was worded like a Sandra Boynton picture book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
This article gets it right that job instability a bigger issue affecting a wider range of people than low minimum wage. Vast categories of stable middle class jobs have transformed into flakey contract work and precarious employment. Stability is the thing we need to fix. When times get bad, all these contract jobs just vanish overnight. I saw it in the summer of 2008 or 2009, when it seemed like most of East Van was out of work. Best solution for the precariat is a minimum income, not a $15 /h minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Not really. If Exxon or some other ndp weed philosopher started challenging Newton's laws and a physicist responded I'm sure said philosophers would be up in arms complaining that the explanation was worded like a Sandra Boynton picture book. This is a lovely comparison because physics is an exact and tested science whose principal theories can give predictable results every time you put the numbers into the equation(barring the more experimental physics and anything to do with quantum mechanics etc.) Economists on the other hand are at best about as reliable as a meteorologist, and more commonly are basically economic historians whose views are filtered through an economic philosophical bent. They may be good at analyzing what happened in the past and point out warning signs of history repeating itself, as well as being able to predict extremely short term results, but past that they're nothing more then informed and biased speculators
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:This article is a lot of fun to read if you hate austerity and dumb fucks who keep talking about government debt like it's the same as household debt. An article just for me, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 20:36
|
|
Mederlock posted:This is a lovely comparison because physics is an exact and tested science whose principal theories can give predictable results every time you put the numbers into the equation(barring the more experimental physics and anything to do with quantum mechanics etc.) This comes off as awfully dismissive and disdainful. If a meteorologist says that there is a high chance of tornadoes over a certain region and the system putters out instead are we supposed to just ignore everything that meteorology says from there on out? Why don't you actually argue against these economic theories you disdain instead of just tossing out insults?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Mederlock posted:This is a lovely comparison because physics is an exact and tested science whose principal theories can give predictable results every time you put the numbers into the equation(barring the more experimental physics and anything to do with quantum mechanics etc.) So how is someone supposed to explain a yield curve or M1 or D3 to a barista with a membership card to the NDP youth wing? I'm not sure how many crayons and colouring books I'm going to need. Thank god khan academy can explain the dirac delta function or
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Mederlock posted:This is a lovely comparison because physics is an exact and tested science whose principal theories can give predictable results every time you put the numbers into the equation(barring the more experimental physics and anything to do with quantum mechanics etc.) Other people have covered other parts of this but with QFT we can predict the electron mass and charge correctly up to 13 significant figures. It also predicted almost all of the Standard Model particle properties correctly before they were experimentally observed. Quantum mechanics lets you make extremely accurate and precise predictions about the physical world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Two good papers, very accessible authors. Eugenio Cerutti http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1512.pdf Atish Gosh http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1510.pdf Both just happened to be done in time for the June 2015 economic stagnation conference and touched on what D&D goons are taking interest in. One thing I encourage CI and most of D&D is send out emails to offices should you really want large briefs or volumes. Anything you read in a newspaper, must have public data or publically available sources so that it can be explained to the dumbest journalist to drop out of Ryerson. This gives the thread, and the forum a very large opportunity to collectively learn about topics that would normally take a few years, vs. copy + pasta. The thread is good on an finance end because policy communication is a big problem. You can either take the Levitt/Krugmann/Keynes approach whereby you make economics accessible via quick parlour tricks (freaknomics/NYT & Guardian columns) & , or assume 80% of the world just can't get it and drive on, which is what Dr Fisher argued while at Bank Israel. From a marketing perspective, the only guy who really had success in explaining finance was Buffet. And even then, and to this day, people are more interested in knowing what his next 'stock pick' will be, vs. actually understanding his work or insights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:This comes off as awfully dismissive and disdainful. If a meteorologist says that there is a high chance of tornadoes over a certain region and the system putters out instead are we supposed to just ignore everything that meteorology says from there on out? Why don't you actually argue against these economic theories you disdain instead of just tossing out insults? Yup. It's almost like impossibly-complex, dynamic feedback systems with no opportunity for experimentation are difficult for humans to understand, and so we should view their disciplines accordingly!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Yup. It's almost like impossibly-complex, dynamic feedback systems with no opportunity for experimentation are difficult for humans to understand, and so we should view their disciplines accordingly! Precisely my point. I'm not saying that economics is a useless field of study or that there isn't useful real world predictions that can come out of it, nor would I say it of meteorology. I was merely stating that CI's comparison to physics was a poor one due to them being fundamentally different in the types of data and systems they deal with, as well as their predictive power. With physics we use the scientific method and know with practically absolute certainty what will happen to a system we understand if we change a variable, and if it doesn't work out there's a process of experimentation and theorizing to arrive at a new understanding. With economics (and history and philosophy) were dealing with human beings who are largely not rational actors, with an incredibly complicated web of networks and systems that have large sections of it hidden from scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Indeed. For the record, I was in complete agreement with what you said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 00:55
|
|
Mederlock posted:Precisely my point. I'm not saying that economics is a useless field of study or that there isn't useful real world predictions that can come out of it, nor would I say it of meteorology. I was merely stating that CI's comparison to physics was a poor one due to them being fundamentally different in the types of data and systems they deal with, as well as their predictive power. And it was blindingly obvious that the comparison being made between the two was about them both being very complex, not their predictive power or anything else. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
That was a very interesting read Hal but please don't think any of the idiot staffers in Oliver's office have anything to do with national fiscal policy. No staffer is ever allowed to touch anything ij Finance
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:No PMO all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
http://www.vancouversun.com/Part+Ritzy+Richmond+neighbourhood+where+many+poor/11136169/story.html gently caress these people so hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
That's racist yo
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Don't give a poo poo where you're from - including Canada -, if you're going to live in this country and take advantage of the roads, healthcare, etc, you better loving pay your share of taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
I'm increasingly of the view that the USA has it precisely correct in taxing citizens on their worldwide income regardless of residency (with credits given for taxes paid elsewhere). Edit: side point - why the gently caress does Canada give citizenship out so easily? Hell, I'm an immigrant to Canada, and I'd say the waiting period from entry to citizenship is at the very most half as long as it ought be. Lexicon fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:11 |
|
|
How long is it? As an immigrant myself I'm curious. Also, as an American, gently caress the way the US does it. I'm kinda biased though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 06:51
|
|
