Is this agreement:

Discussion in 'Economy' started by loosecannon, Oct 23, 2010.

  1. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    >meaningful, substantive?

    >one with teeth?

    >a poseurs compromise/save face/MAS gimmick?

    >gonna solve the debasement wars, rare earth sanctions, tariff wars that have been beginning to brew?

    >is it a sell out by any particular party?

    I have no idea, I read earlier it got watered down, then it was suddenly agreed upon. Will it work? Or will China keep the peg anyway?

    G-20 powers agree to Geithner currency and trade plan

    washingtonpost.com

    Anybody getting a Copenhagen Summit head rush?
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2010
  2. william the wie
    Offline

    william the wie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,323
    Thanks Received:
    677
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,628
    This is a crock. I checked some news today earlier when the board was dead. It turns out that an economist named Schilling managed to pull off one of the two revisions needed to make the Case-Shiller housing index more accurate. By dividing housing costs by sq. ft. to get to an inflation adjusted housing number he demonstrated the high probability of the housing bubble having reached a peak at least 25% higher in real terms than previously estimated. (Not a quote but my own calculations based on the statements he made to CNBC in a 2 minute interview.)

    If the world is on track for $150 T deflation for writedowns from the US alone then this may become quite interesting. My own guess is that when an amenities adjustment is made to Case-Shiller that it will turn out that the bubble peaked 500-1000% above trendline and housing will have to decline 80-90% in price to get to trendline and will dip way below trendline before stabilizing. Under these circumstances the G-20 communique is yesterday's news at best.
     
  3. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    $150 trillion deflation for writedowns?

    I dunno if the whole world's money supply is that high. That is right around the mark of the whole world's wealth right?
     
  4. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    If anybody agrees with Geithner, I'll do the opposite.

    Besides that, every time OPEC has got together to try and fix prices, one or more members always cheat and deliver more than they say they would.

    Never trust authoritarian stooges in large groups.
     
  5. william the wie
    Offline

    william the wie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,323
    Thanks Received:
    677
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,628
    close to it. Cash injections have a multiplier of about 15. Asset write downs come straight out of capital so they have a highly negative multiplier. How negative is a matter of debate -225 would be the theoretical limit with an injection multiplier of 15 but that does not concur with reality. It is more likely in the -25 to -50 range.

    Real estate crashes are extremely painful. Coolidge and Hoover kicked the 1926 real estate crash results forward into 1931 but then the hamster died and it all came undone. The post Crimean war US agricultural land bust was perhaps the proximate reason for the Civil War. Land prices dropped like a rock after the peace treaty allowed Russian wheat ships to again use the Bosphorus and they stayed down until the Russo-Turkish war broke out in 1878.

    Total Assets in an economy should equal GDP/real risk adjusted interest rate. At the height of the boom the US had a "market" value of up to $750 T. If 6T of bank loans backing real estate and businesses go poof then 6T of somebody's money that would have been lent out at a large multiplier also goes poof. The yield on the money that is left will be lent out at higher risk adjusted rates thus dropping the value of the remaining assets. Banks are forbidden by law to lend more than their capital to any one borrower so loss provisions reduce maximum loan size as well so maximum financial leverage is reduced. A vicious cycle that reduces economies of scale, scope and network can also be established. That in turn feeds back into overseas suppliers who end up with the same problem.
     

Share This Page