Is the global economy on the verge of the biggest collapse ever?

StewartGriffin

madmaggie wrote: »

But we're alright, we have Enda.......

Who would you prefer? Joan? Gerry? Michaaul? Lucinda?

In the event of another crash I think Enda would be the best of a bad lot.

Disgruntled Badger

Yes. But not for a wee while. There's time for a pint or two yet

SafeSurfer

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Who would you prefer? Joan? Gerry? Michaaul? Lucinda?

In the event of another crash I think Enda would be the best of a bad lot.

Yes it would probably be best to have a leader who follows in that situation.

Corpus Twisty

TallGlass wrote: »

Could you expand a little on not making money? I haven't looked at Amazons profits or losses, I know the owner is worth 40 billion last time I checked. I also don't think they are short on cash, seen as they are looking at heading into the air freight business and logistic solution area with the spending on leasing out Boeing aircraft to stop delays in supply chain to customers.

Not making money, as in no profit to show. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, as someone once said. Amazon have great turnover..

laugh

Corpus Twisty wrote: »

Not making money, as in no profit to show. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, as someone once said. Amazon have great turnover..

They are reinvesting massively, billions in infrastructure for AWS for example.

Austria!

If we do have a collapse, will we be able to rectify it? We can't cut interest rates, and we've already thrown loads of money into QE. It seems like the "solutions" to 2008 are no longer viable. Or am I wrong?

Corpus Twisty

laugh wrote: »

They are reinvesting massively, billions in infrastructure for AWS for example.

And posted a profit for q2 2015... but then again, that was what I originally said - they just keep building it bigger, with massive investment, till they're the last one standing and have a virtual monopoly.

jam_mac_jam

TallGlass wrote: »

Could you expand a little on not making money? I haven't looked at Amazons profits or losses, I know the owner is worth 40 billion last time I checked. I also don't think they are short on cash, seen as they are looking at heading into the air freight business and logistic solution area with the spending on leasing out Boeing aircraft to stop delays in supply chain to customers.

he is not the owner. He is the founder. The shareholder s own it he only owns a portion of it

It's OK. I've been stocking up on bullets, bottle caps, and cigarettes, because if TV and playing video games have taught me anything, at least one of these will be currency.

desertcircus

You want to know the most worrying fact about the world economy?

Twitter is valued at over ten billion dollars despite not once turning a profit in its ten-year existence. And it's not the only one. Billions in investment has been pumped into vast numbers of speculative startups with no real plan for becoming profitable, and unless they all magically find a way to do it at once, massive chunks of that money will go up in flames. Everyone knows it's a bubble: they also know, though, that deposit rates are zero, so investments are heavily oversubscribed, and they're all hoping they've picked the next Facebook or Google.

Akrasia

The global economy will be grand. Read the book 'Abundance' by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler

There are over 7 billion people on this world, every one of us needs food, shelter, clothes, transport, and consumable items.

New technologies will unlock the potential of billions of under resourced people.

In the next few decades, cheap renewable electricity, cheap and extremely powerful electronics and communications technology, cheap and renewable methods of irrigating land and converting sea water into potable water revolutionary new materials like graphene will enable better batteries, better and cheaper solar panels...

Biotechnology research will improve the nutritional content, and reduce the land and resource requirements for farming and food processing...

Our technology is advancing exponentially. The technology we have today will seem primitive in 30 years

The problems in the global economy will be more related to how wealth is distributed and political instability than any lack of productivity or demand. We do need new economics to deal with a world where automation removes much of the menial work, and information technology requires fewer and fewer employees per unit of production.

The biggest risk is that wealth is hoarded and these oligarchs suppress the economy and limit the ability of the world to take advantage of the new technologies that we are creating, but fortunately, the greed and small mindedness of the old style billionaires can be counter acted by a handful of philanthropic billionaires who dedicate their resources to solving global problems.

SafeSurfer

Akrasia wrote: »

The global economy will be grand. Read the book 'Abundance' by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler

There are over 7 billion people on this world, every one of us needs food, shelter, clothes, transport, and consumable items.

New technologies will unlock the potential of billions of under resourced people.

In the next few decades, cheap renewable electricity, cheap and extremely powerful electronics and communications technology, cheap and renewable methods of irrigating land and converting sea water into potable water revolutionary new materials like graphene will enable better batteries, better and cheaper solar panels...

Biotechnology research will improve the nutritional content, and reduce the land and resource requirements for farming and food processing...

Our technology is advancing exponentially. The technology we have today will seem primitive in 30 years

The problems in the global economy will be more related to how wealth is distributed and political instability than any lack of productivity or demand. We do need new economics to deal with a world where automation removes much of the menial work, and information technology requires fewer and fewer employees per unit of production.

The biggest risk is that wealth is hoarded and these oligarchs suppress the economy and limit the ability of the world to take advantage of the new technologies that we are creating, but fortunately, the greed and small mindedness of the old style billionaires can be counter acted by a handful of philanthropic billionaires who dedicate their resources to solving global problems.

The world population could exceed 10 billion by the end of the century. Technological advances will also mean lower infant mortality and increased life expectancy. Living well over a century will not be unusual, if you can afford to. That alone will have major societal implications. Older societies tend to be much more conservative. Life saving or life extending treatments will only be available to those who can afford them. National health services will simply be unable to fund these treatments so we could have huge health as well as wealth inequality. I have listened to predictions of imminent technological advances which would secure the future of mankind since I used to watch tomorrows world as a kid. In some respects we have taken retrograde steps such as supersonic passenger flights, rail and tram services etc. For generations families could be quite well off with one breadwinner. Now to fuel "growth" both parents must work while childcare is farmed out to strangers. Is this development? Globally personal debt is at record levels. One hundred years ago people were wildly optimistic about the 20th century. Because of globalisation and interdependence many thought war had become inconceivable. Look how that century turned out.

SEPT 23 1989

Corpus Twisty wrote: »

Not making money, as in no profit to show. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity, as someone once said. Amazon have great turnover..

big turnover+no profit=busy fools

cowboyBuilder

TallGlass wrote: »

I don't care about the rich getting richer to be honest, and I don't like working my arse off for hardly anything either.

But what really gets to me is how mean spirited and tight these people are, they won't give anything back and it's an absolute drain on society.

Take for example the Amazon owner he is worth 40 billion euros, he could spend 2 billion on making Amazon a great place to work and pay low paid workers an excellent wage not seen for there jobs. Everyone would be happy, and you know what? He would be still worth 38 billion and I would put money on it, if the staff are happy and know there paid well then you'll recoup that money in performance.

Yes but people like these guys, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs etc are greedy sociopathic pigs, they don't care about anyone else - really.

Akrasia

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The world population could exceed 10 billion by the end of the century. Technological advances will also mean lower infant mortality and increased life expectancy. Living well over a century will not be unusual, if you can afford to. That alone will have major societal implications. Older societies tend to be much more conservative. Life saving or life extending treatments will only be available to those who can afford them. National health services will simply be unable to fund these treatments so we could have huge health as well as wealth inequality. I have listened to predictions of imminent technological advances which would secure the future of mankind since I used to watch tomorrows world as a kid. In some respects we have taken retrograde steps such as supersonic passenger flights, rail and tram services etc. For generations families could be quite well off with one breadwinner. Now to fuel "growth" both parents must work while childcare is farmed out to strangers. Is this development? Globally personal debt is at record levels. One hundred years ago people were wildly optimistic about the 20th century. Because of globalisation and interdependence many thought war had become inconceivable. Look how that century turned out.

The word can support a population of 10/11 billion and most projections on population rises project that the rapid growth in human population will continue to slow down towards the end of the century (it's already slowing down since the peak in the 1960s) subject to the assumption that women will have access to education, and contraception, and that infant mortality does indeed continue to decline.

Technology has and continues to dramatically increase the quality of life of ordinary people all around the world.

With internet access improving and computers getting cheaper and cheaper, educational opportunities will balloon. Children from rural parts of developing countries could have access to on-line courses on a huge range of subjects delivered by teachers far more qualified than anyone in their village...

Medical technology will continue to improve on the high end of medical science, but also on the lower end. Diagnostics tests will become cheaper and faster, as more medicines go off patent, access to these medicines will become affordable to the worlds poor, and information technology will give rural patients access to doctors via virtual consultations

http://www.virtualdoctors.org/?gclid=CjwKEAiAzuK0BRCW4tiLpJT-8TISJADV8cw9uf3jgfJgUBgbPwhyAv6fmB_n_iD6MKt7njtk7jKCIxoCHaDw_wcB#home

Eugene Norman

Palbear wrote: »

I spent a very long time trading financial markets and
when I say a long time, it was many years.

What I learned.
There is no magic ball. Nobody knows what happens next.

But there is a balance of probability. And that is always your best bet.

As for stock market crashes.......... they can happen anytime.
and they do. Irrational events.

My view : don't hold equities now. Global QE is a new dimension.
An abundance of liquidity trying to find a home for yield
is not a valid reason for stock market appreciation.
For no good reason I don't feel comfortable.
Nor would I hold dollars either. Too many in circulation and
over valued.

But I may be wrong

Sterling looks vulnerable.
Brexit will be a market issue.
maybe.

Err, thanks.

Eugene Norman

Akrasia wrote: »

The global economy will be grand. Read the book 'Abundance' by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler

There are over 7 billion people on this world, every one of us needs food, shelter, clothes, transport, and consumable items.

New technologies will unlock the potential of billions of under resourced people.

In the next few decades, cheap renewable electricity, cheap and extremely powerful electronics and communications technology, cheap and renewable methods of irrigating land and converting sea water into potable water revolutionary new materials like graphene will enable better batteries, better and cheaper solar panels...

Biotechnology research will improve the nutritional content, and reduce the land and resource requirements for farming and food processing...

Our technology is advancing exponentially. The technology we have today will seem primitive in 30 years

The problems in the global economy will be more related to how wealth is distributed and political instability than any lack of productivity or demand. We do need new economics to deal with a world where automation removes much of the menial work, and information technology requires fewer and fewer employees per unit of production.

The biggest risk is that wealth is hoarded and these oligarchs suppress the economy and limit the ability of the world to take advantage of the new technologies that we are creating, but fortunately, the greed and small mindedness of the old style billionaires can be counter acted by a handful of philanthropic billionaires who dedicate their resources to solving global problems.

Technology is really slowing down. And while the world has great potential it needs more equality to realise it, by equality I mean not Marxism but higher average wages.

Eugene Norman

Back to the Baltic dry index. It's the cost of hiring ships effectively. If it collapses it indicates an existing - not a future - drop in world trade.

It is however very inelastic, that is if the demand is greater than the number of ships (say demand = 100 and ships = 99) it rises strongly and if the opposite (ships = 100 and demand = 99) it falls precipitously. Because it takes a long time to build a ship.

However Wednesday was the worst day ever. Ever. That's bad news.

cbyrd

I'll be OK.. I've been saving in silver.. Bullion and collector coins.. Paper money is useless, especially in your mattress.. makes it lumpy.. The silver is smoother and makes for a good orthopaedic feel..

Magico Gonzalez

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

RBS are telling their clients to dump everything except bonds..



http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/12/sell-everything-ahead-of-stock-market-crash-say-rbs-economists

...after which RBS will buy all those assets for dirt cheap prices and make a tidy profit.

RBS & Investment banking have a somewhat chequered past you realise.

All the same it looks like a turbulent yr economically speaking.

Magico Gonzalez

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Yes but people like these guys, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs etc are greedy sociopathic pigs, they don't care about anyone else - really.

You saw the movies and you just know it's true. Right?

Eugene Norman

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

You saw the movies and you just know it's true. Right?

At least two of them were sociopaths. Not sure about Zuckerberg (and gates wasn't).

But mild functioning sociopaths. In any case they are the famous CEO's of useful and relatively benign industries. There are some industries where the employees are more sociopathic than normal (cough - finance) never mind the CEOs.

And these guys don't give away their money.

KomradeBishop

Akrasia wrote: »

The global economy will be grand. Read the book 'Abundance' by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler

There are over 7 billion people on this world, every one of us needs food, shelter, clothes, transport, and consumable items.

New technologies will unlock the potential of billions of under resourced people.

In the next few decades, cheap renewable electricity, cheap and extremely powerful electronics and communications technology, cheap and renewable methods of irrigating land and converting sea water into potable water revolutionary new materials like graphene will enable better batteries, better and cheaper solar panels...

Biotechnology research will improve the nutritional content, and reduce the land and resource requirements for farming and food processing...

Our technology is advancing exponentially. The technology we have today will seem primitive in 30 years

The problems in the global economy will be more related to how wealth is distributed and political instability than any lack of productivity or demand. We do need new economics to deal with a world where automation removes much of the menial work, and information technology requires fewer and fewer employees per unit of production.

The biggest risk is that wealth is hoarded and these oligarchs suppress the economy and limit the ability of the world to take advantage of the new technologies that we are creating, but fortunately, the greed and small mindedness of the old style billionaires can be counter acted by a handful of philanthropic billionaires who dedicate their resources to solving global problems.

The problem with what you say though, is that the influence the wealthy/powerful have over politics/economics, is to precisely constrain Aggregate Demand, and cause the world economy to lag - that's how they gain more power, through the economic/political/social effects of this on countries.

There is no technological fix, to a problem like that which is purely political. All the utopian technological promises of a better society economically, are a red-herring, because the real problems are political - and will remain in one form or another, no matter what technological progress we see, unless challenged politically.

Actual productivity has skyrocketed over the last century - back in the 30's, Keynes predicted we'd all be working just 20 hours a week, while maintaining a decent quality of life - but the wealthy/powerful take almost all the gains of increased productivity for themselves, so this hasn't come to pass, and the same will remain true in the future, unless challenged at a fundamental level.

snubbleste

Maybe we simply don't need more ships
and therefore the BDI is a misleading indicator.

Thargor

mad muffin wrote: »

Pretty much.

You appear as honorable man yet attempt to slip cock in ass. -Batiatus

Ha, I remember people praising that line in the Spartacus thread at the time, good times

The One Doctor

It's interesting that reporting on a financial crisis causes a financial crisis.

Eugene Norman

snubbleste wrote: »

Maybe we simply don't need more ships
and therefore the BDI is a misleading indicator.

That's the economist take.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-7

Not sure I believe them.

desertcircus

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Back to the Baltic dry index. It's the cost of hiring ships effectively. If it collapses it indicates an existing - not a future - drop in world trade.

It is however very inelastic, that is if the demand is greater than the number of ships (say demand = 100 and ships = 99) it rises strongly and if the opposite (ships = 100 and demand = 99) it falls precipitously. Because it takes a long time to build a ship.

However Wednesday was the worst day ever. Ever. That's bad news.

From what I understand, a lot of shipping companies increased their capacity heavily in the last few years as they expected a big rise in demand in 2015 which failed to materialise. This left the shipping industry with lagging demand and a glut of supply, hence the collapse in the Baltic Dry Index.

However, that makes the index's collapse a symptom of existing economic conditions, not a harbinger of future economic chaos. In fact, dirt-cheap shipping costs and the existing sluggishness in the Chinese economy, along with near-zero interest rates, may represent a huge chance for companies to expand operations or move into new fields. Manufacturing capacity in China is going cheap, shipping costs from China are at record lows, and interest rates make borrowing easier than ever.

Austria!

Akrasia wrote: »

Unrelenting positivity

How do the coming environmental crises factor into your thinking?

Eugene Norman

desertcircus wrote: »

From what I understand, a lot of shipping companies increased their capacity heavily in the last few years as they expected a big rise in demand in 2015 which failed to materialise. This left the shipping industry with lagging demand and a glut of supply, hence the collapse in the Baltic Dry Index.

However, that makes the index's collapse a symptom of existing economic conditions, not a harbinger of future economic chaos.

Well yes. And I posted a link to the economist after the post you are replying to which said that. And the BDI is always about present economic conditions. I'm dubious though. The economist article is from 2015. Mid. It's been falling since. And why were shipbuilders so optimistic in 2013?

Manufacturing capacity in China is going cheap, shipping costs from China are at record lows, and interest rates make borrowing easier than ever.

Those are symptoms of bad economic times not good ones.