Hello readers of LMOM. I'm sure there are very few of these people still left, but I always found this blog to be a good place to dump my thoughts or opinions.
Today's topic, which has been on my mind for sometime now, is the current financial crisis, an issue which has been bothering us all (if you haven't started worrying about it yet, it's time).
Here's a little background information to those who has not been paying attention or just don't really understand:
*Ahem*
This world has been running on a credit system ever since the introduction of money. What is a legal tender (note)? Why, it's the promise that for whatever services or goods which has been provided toyou, you will pay back that person with that much money's worth in gold. Where is this sum of gold stored? Our national treasuries. This concept of passing down a worthless sheet of paper down as if it's the jewel of the world became quickly popular around the world. What has been a very practical means of transaction was soon taken advantage of by leaders and financially influential people of the world. They started increasing the worth of money when they really didn't have the gold to back up that claim.
If everyone in the world decided to buy back gold at the same time instead of holding on to our money, we would soon find ourselves extremely short changed. The influence on the worth of our money has been slowly evolving and adapting to the changing demands of the consumers (us) and the dealings of business around the world.
No longer solely influenced by the amount of gold a country's treasury has, the price of the dollar has been inflated slowly but surely.
This, my friend, is the credit system.
Does it sound unstable? Well that's because it is. As more demand for a certain country's money increases, their money's worth also increases, just like the stock market; and if demand decreases, the opposite happens. This system can be easily taken advantage of by the richest people world, making them even richer... And it has been! Take a look into the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997.
(I'm not exactly sure if I'm completely right on the above and if you wish to correct me, please do so in the comments section.)
But that was just a short prelude to what I'm about to tell you.
Keeping this in mind let's turn our eyes back to Wall St.
Wall St. has been funded under the credit system where you borrow money to make more money. Doesn't this sound stupid, sounding like the theory of perpetual machines? Well, no, a smart person can take advantage of this and become really rich, and the dumb person will make a poor financial decision equal to the degree of the rich person's financial success, balancing the equation (not every single person can be rich at the same time, and ultimately, there are way more idiots than there are geniuses). But this has just always been a floatsam economy (not a real term, it was made by me), where everything looks steady and firm on the exterior, but will surely break apart or float away one day.
Here's the problem with the credit system. When the financial situation is good, it will function, and it will keep improving. But as soon as the economy hits one hiccup, we could be facing complete and utter failure. Sure things can seem alright in the present, but a problem will come one day, and no one will know when.
As soon as there is enough bad finacial news in the media, some people will abandon their stocks and cease to spend more money, because of this, the demand for stocks decrease, and the price of stocks drop. As soon as there is a slight drop in stocks plus the negative news outputted by the media, more people will start to sell, letting bears (people who either believes or wishes for the stocks to decrease in order to make money or just lack market confidence) overtake the market. If the news isn't bad enough, bulls (opposite of bears) will believe that market will make another rise, thus, restarting the cycle.
But what if the news is really bad?
That brings us back to what happened in 1930.
People were borrowing money to buy investments, markets were HUGELY inflated, and one significant drop made the huge mass of naive fools pull out. Markets plummetted, and people wanted their money pulled out of their banks to ensure their assets. Banks ran out of money, because people who borrowed money to make investments couldn't pay back. Banks went bankrupt (bank raped?), people were left with absolutely no hope, no sense of direction, and, of course, no money.
New policies were developed by our governments after the Great Depression to help prevent this event from ever happening again. But pretty much, as long as this credit system continues, it will always just be a band-aid on an open gash. This system pretty much violates one of the first Chinese peoples' fundamental principles, spend what you have, sparingly, earn what you need, diligently. Of course, this isn't exactly right, if everyone was prudent, no one would be rich. This principle was largely founded after the fall of imperialism in China, and the KMT did a poor job of managing the country. Money was worth less than paper, and vests/clothing were put into banks instead of money. The populace faced extreme hardships and went to bed each night dreaming for a fulfilling meal. Of course, 2 generations later, this sense of prudency will disappear along with their generation, and China's attitude will match that of the Americans'.
Anyways, you should always save a portion of your life savings for emergencies, and you should always spend ONLY what you have / will get in a short period of time with guarrantees. Don't live your life with debts trailing you like a piece of toilet paper on your shoe.
Anyways, in the case of the present American financial situation, the news was bad enough, and there are enough people pulling out.
The subject of the news? Negativity on the reign of Bush (he'll doom us all), huge American debts, oil prices rising at speeds which is only second to that of my penis when my right hand is firmly attached to it, and my left hand is opening a playboy magazine.
The businesses, sensing this change of market direction must follow accounting principles and write off a) their projected earnings and b) their receivable accounts (assuming there is an increased number of people not paying). Giving the investors and consumers a conservative look on their financial situation. This write off will dispel current and potential investors, plummetting their stock prices to new lows. That's what happened with the Lehman Brothers, they acquired an immense amount of bad mortgages, and offered 40-50 year mortgages to people who had no steady income or jobs or appeared to have no valid form of repayment. This caused them to rack up monumental debts when the stocks started to plummet. The problem? They only considered the present. When the times are good, no one remembers the bad, when the times are bad, people wish they would've remembered the bad so the times could've stayed good. Make sense?
Anyways, when the markets plummetted in constant 3 digit figures, they had to write off a bunch of bad debts causing their expected revenue to be lower than their expenses. Seeing this, investors are spooked, and creditors demanded their credit to be paid back in full before they have no more money to pay back (sound familiar?). Since they really don't have the money to pay back creditors - their assets are still tied down with sketchy people who might not even (be able to) pay back - they filed for bankruptcy. Like this, the market crumbles like the dead skin flakes on the back of a 90 year old man. Don't place all your trust in creditors, they will loan you an umbrella when it's sunny, and take it away when it rains.
Just to tell those readers who are confused, the reason the Lehman Brothers offers these of mortgages is because the amount of revenue they earn from interest will be HUGE if the debtors actually pay back in full.
When 1 giant falls, another must be dragged down as well (think of giants falling like dominoes). Washington Manual (WaMu), one of America's BIGGEST banks, the next to follow after Lehman Brothers, fails. The government has to bail it out, people were standing outside bank branches in huge lines waiting to withdraw their money, branches of WaMu run out of money.
This is not a joke, this is not a what if story, this is not a fairy tale with a moral attached recited to kids before they make their tribute to the fucking sand humanoid-monster.
This is happening now.
I want you to take a big breath, and fully grasp that concept. Unless the US government acts soon, more banks will fail, and again, when 1 giant falls, another must be unwillingly tripped in the process, causing a giant(adj) giant(n) rumble on the intersections of Giants Ave and Giantess Blvd, leaving half the world in smoldering ruins, and the other shaking in their own urine, sweat, blood, and tears.
No, it won't be that bad, I'm just exaggerating.
But guys, I mean it, we are witnessing the greatest recession of our time, and the emerging of another world power (after what happens with the US now, no country will be extremely confident with them in a while). Maybe even another Depression, ultimately leading to World War III. This time, we will have the power to wipe this tiny, insignificant, and unspecial planet out of the solar system, and smear it off of the face of the universe. I hope it's not a depression, but who knows what the future can bring us.
What this article meant to do is to inform you people from my point of view. Hopefully, I've done enough to let you want to do research on your own, or to become smart consumer. Know when to spend, and know when to save.
Now's the time to save guys. Technically, in my opinion, now's the time to spend. Everybody in the world, spend your asses off, and our economy will be saved. The $700bn plan will actually help the American people, and probably save the world. But obviously, no one else can hear me, so save up guys, and prepare for an extra harsh, cold, long, and bleak winter.
Oh, sorry, we're already in Canada.
-=n0n4m3=-
PS. Jamie, if you could, can you please ask your dad what he thinks of the situation? He's a prof in Queens teaching economics, I'm sure he has extremely credible opinions, and I'm genuinely interested in what he thinks.
9 comments:
Cool new layout...anywhos, we did some economic systems stuff here, so I might as well give my 2 (actually 4) cents
First, inflation rates have more to do with interest rates than over printing in western countries...if you believe Friedman anyways...
2ndly, I'm not exactly sure what your opinion is regarding saving money, but the capitalist (and IMO any) economic system is based on spending habits. In this way, this crisis is more of a psychological issue than anything. When people stop spending and investors stop trusting the business cycle, they withdraw money from the credit system and cause the system to fail.
3rdly, the biggest problem with people defaulting on mortgages is not the bank or the individual, but the mortgage broker. These are the people who do research into people's credit histories on behalf of the banks and negotiate loans. Unscrupulous brokers lie about bad credit records so banks will give out loans and they will get their comission. When you can't pay back the bank, these brokers will be long gone with their money.
Finally, unlike you, and indeed, most people. I am very optimistic about this situation. Yes, the Lehman bros, Bear Sterns, Merill Lynch, WaMu, and AIG all went bankrupt. But even bigger banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan (btw, I know this is not a "bank"), and the English Barclays are all still strong and making timely purchases. The price of oil is dropping due to low demand. European and Asian markets are largely unaffected. Look at the Russians, with the European demand for petro still high, they are completely unfazed by this "crisis". Even in Canada, we are largely unaffected beyond a small fluctuation for housing price. And I believe it's only a matter of time before congress passes a bailout plan. So rest assured, there will be no depression, and certainly no WWIII (until 2012 anyways...)
that's all for now...
First - Yes, I know that interest rates NOW, have more to do with inflation. But before, it had more to do with printing money, and I mentioned that this eventually changed based on the changing market systems. (or at least I think I did)
But anyways, I didn't really try to stress over this matter too much because that wasn't my main point.
2nd - I also understand that the capitalistic economic system is based on our ability to spend; however, the mindset right now is, don't spend. It's not like if you start spending everyone else will start spending as well, you alone cannot stimulate the market. Therefore, it's time to save, because you will get screwed over eventually if you don't.
3rd - I still say a lot of it has to do with the banks not doing a well enough background check on people. That and them not really caring about this issue because it looks better on the income statements. Sure, the middleman has issues, but I say if the bank did a better job orignally, they wouldn't have this problem today.
Now, being pessimistic is my nature, and I just went with the feeling at the time. And I quite agree that I was blowing things out of proportion, but hey! It was a rant. Plus, we can't go into another Depression anyways, we have a lot more protection against it now... aaannnnddd we won't get WWIII any time soon, but it might be closer than you think ;).
However! I quite disagree with you on how it hasn't really affected Canada or Europe yet. You might be better off in Alberta (Harper's land with all of his BS about how it won't affect Canada... No offence but that's baloney), but in Ontario, quite a bit of people are talking about it.
My point was that this mentality is the problem. If EVERYONE decided to spend more, there wouldn't be an issue. But with the media constantly advising people to save for that rainy day, the prediction of a bleak economy becomes a self-fufilling prophecy. So while the temproray solution for an individual is to save money, for the economy to recover, people need to spend.
The majority of loans still go through mortgage brokers though. And these are the people with absolutely nothing to loose!
None taken, but really, we here in Alberta are quite unfazed. Even with the lower oil prices there are still lots of jobs with good wages looking to be filled and the economy seems pretty healthy with unemployment still at a record low. For sure, house values have dropped a little, but that's only encouraging news for many first time buyers who were waiting for the housing rush of 2006 to die down.
I just read today that Dow jumped back more than 400 points after the 700 drop yesterday. And that's before any news of the bailout has been announced. When it is, I have full confidece that this recession will be over and we'll return to the boom part of the business cycle again.
On a side note I think that it's really unfair that because Bush's term happened to fall on the bust part of the cycle, McCai's chances in November are so severely damaged. For some reason, people just seem to think Obama will automatically make the economy better simply because he's a Democrat.
But again, I'm saying, since this mentality is going around, we need to act accordingly and brace for the worst. We are pretty much agreeing to the same thing but from different directions.
For us in Ontario, the loss of the auto plants really dug into our economy. It has pretty much no effect on us, but the mentality is still there, and like you said, that's all that really matters.
As for the Dow jumping back up.. yes, it did jump up, but that doesn't mean the recession will have blown over. In fact, the recession will not blow over until most of everything that went wrong (mainly housing issues) is fixed, and the people are out of the "save, not spend" train of thought.
And IMO, this won't change for quite a period of time. Buffett agrees with me too.
Now, I think the reason people look towards Obama is because the Donkeys are supposed to protect the people, where the Elephants just want a free-market system. No government intervention whatsoever. Plus, Obama is just really popular right now, and personally, I don't think I would want someone like McCain being the next president.
You're right, the recession isn't over, but IMO it's all part of the business cycle. Every few years we enter a recession and the Democrats come in with their regulations. A few years later everyone gets greedy again, forget about the recession, and the regulations are relaxed, ending in recession. It's all normal, sure it's more this this time, but I personally don't see huge cause for worry.
On the topic of Obama, it all goes back to last year when I did my summary project on the Democratic primaries. (If you can't tell, yes, I am a bitter Clinton supporter, so my opinion is completely biased)
1st, IMO Obama is ridiculously hipocritical. His "politics of hope" is a complete sham, and he as used just as much "old polictics" as everyone else.
2nd, his platform "change" makes no sense. No candidate ever runs for "let's keep everything the same" even conservatives complain about big government. Back in 2000, Bush's campaign was all about change from big government and high taxes.
3nd, Obama using "community organiser" as a qualification is like using I-won-100-gold-stickers-in-kindengarden as a qualification for university application...
4th, I'm sure just "talking" to Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez will do a whole lot of good. Knowing Chavez, he'll probably just tell Obama to shut up
5th, and this is completely personal opinion, but I find him to be arrogant and hipocritical. He calls himself black when he needed the black vote in S.Carolina. Then in mostly white Iowa, suddenly he's mixed racial. Then in California, he wants to call himself part asia cos his stepdad was Indonesian. And he really ticked me off when he refused to be photographed with muslim supporters wearing burqas. Seems to me public image is more important to Mr. Obama than the electorate.
6th, I don't care what anyone says, check the data, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote during the primaries.
7th, even with Clinton's success and experience, he still! refused to pick her as vp based solely on personal feelings
8th, anyone who speaks a word against Obama must be a bigoted Nazi racist! or says the media...
ok, rant over....
For the business cycle thing:
Yes, it does happen every 8 years or so but this time is significantly more impactful. Usually, something small just happens and it gets patched quickly, but this is gonna cost the US a shitload. Plus, they are in so much debt right now, this is just putting oil into the fire. I say something dramatic will happen this time, which is quite unlike most of the previous recessions we've had.
I don't pay much attention to the American election, it has a huge affect on the world, but still. I don't really care about that. I just don't want McCain to win, he's more of a snob than Obama. I thought Obama should've put Hillary up as VP, that's my personal opinion, would've been a really smart move. BUT! I'm sure he had a really good reason to not choose her (afraid of being overshadowed by her, and the fact that they disagreed on so many things).
step. =D
k.
My parents are fond of saying that a starved camel is still bigger than a horse (except, you know, in Chinese). Meaning basically that the US is so strong economically that even this recessionwon't hurt them too much. Sure, people will be scared for a while and mass panic will spread, but it'll blow over soon enough. Bad times make us forget the good real fast (the boom of 03 was what caused deregulation).
I am still not over Obama snubbing Clinton for the VP, considering SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE (sry, but people have to know). And IMO he still has not shown that he has the experience or werewithal to be the next president.
"European and Asian markets are largely unaffected"
Regarding the economy, this is largely untrue. Think about how much money the US gov. has borrowed from China and the EU. However, they can't just request the money back, as asking for /trillions/ of dollars will ruin the US economy, and with it the world economy. Really, they are in a tough spot, but their only real option is to sit and wait while the States become less of a superpower.
"The US Gov. should supply money to the banks."
So, what most people are suggesting is that the Government fictitious money into banks to right themselves. That would make the US government a sort of Bank in itself. But wouldn't that be a sort of nationalism? What about Zimbabwe's inflation? Shouldn't they have the right to do the same?
GM is also in a crisis. With 125000 workers, they might consider bankruptcy, further lowering consumerism. Should the government also become an autodealer and pour money there? What's the difference, as this bankruptcy would sure as hell impact the us citizens, the us economy, and the world economy.
So, what is the right option? That, my friends, is the Hundred Trillion Dollar Question.
Post a Comment