Podcast: Play in new window
I have to admit, I’m rather fond of the U.S. Supreme Court today, ;-), although there are many in the U.S. today that are terribly upset with it.
You called it, Nick.
HEALTH LAW STANDS
It’s quite something because Justice Kennedy, the one thought to be *the* swing vote on this if it were to have a chance (and the consensus was that he would not support it, such that many, including me, had become resigned to the likelihood that the Act would be struck down)… Justice Kennedy WAS NOT the swing vote. Chief Justice Roberts was – WHOA… definitely not expected.
I think it will go up from here –
In the UK they are having a right old sort out in there minds, Banks are being Told off in a refreshing
way, with the LIBOR manipulation scandal. Cameron is on the War path, with we will help you if you need it, but you better deserve it.) Ed is on fairness starts at the top. local jobs for local people.
I’v got little bit more faith in my institutions , I’m hoping for serious Three party rows like gladiators
in an arena of public attention. Jeremy kyle for grown ups, sleeves rolled up. Come on lets do this!
Norway is the Dubai of Scandinavia!
Is the US military not the US middle of the middle class ? The percentage of US families with a war vet is ?
“The American military has been viewed as a form of national service, an occupation, a profession, a workplace, a calling, an industry, and a set of internal labor markets. Military service has touched most American families; nearly 26 million Americans living today have served in the military—24 million of these veterans are men, 12 million are over age 60. ”
Interesting angle there Richardo.
They presumably come back with reports that the military is not a complete shambles of idiots (which is what I would have imagined ……… odd~!?)
“Twilight of the central banker”
I thought the article was pretty good.
There are some particular points that he brought out which really got me irritated.
The sheer arrogance of the bankers, who seem to think that the universe should revolve around keeping them in wealth, and the rest of us in poverty.
The “overreach”, or mission creep, in dictating the policies of sovereign countries. These bloody bankers have not been elected. They have screwed up economies through greed and essentially corruption, by sponsoring politicians, lobbies and threats.
Ever since I got immersed in studying this fiasco at the time those bastards, Northern Rock, gave me the worst time in my entire life, I have come to realise what a total obscene mess this is.
Take shorting. I have had this argument with a few people, and I still believe it is immoral behaviour. There is, as with many of the “financial constructions”, no equivalent in the real world. Try opening up a market stall and announcing you are going to sell 5,000 bananas without a single banana in your possession.
1. Nobody would buy from you
2. They guy with the real bananas next door would see this and say, “Bugger you, I’m putting UP my price because I have the REAL goods and not some BULLSHIT goods”. Banana short sellers would not exist.
But in the amorphous “financial markets” you cannot tell if the guy has the stuff or not. So, to my mind, short sellers are distorting the market by selling non-existing stuff at the margin and driving the price down. The market price is rarely driven by massive bulk selling, it is always the tiddly little 0.0001% at the margin deciding the price.
And then the forex market. 99.9% of forex transactions are speculative froth.
Totally ridiculous and totally malignant when it comes to healthy economies.
Economies are friggin immense, involving the day to day activities of billions of people. How on earth has it come to pass that exchange rates can go up and down like a demented yo-yo on amphetamine? Changes should surely be g l a c i a l with hardly a change on a daily basis.
Or look at gold, that curious substance.
According to wiki the world has some USD 10,000,000,000,000 worth of gold hanging around people’s bodies or securely locked away. Over the last couple of days it has gone down by 3% and then come back up by 3%.
Or USD 300,000,000,000 worth of fluctuation.
So how does that work? I would guess that 99.999999999999% of people who buy gold hope that its price remains stable with a slow increase in price, preserving their wealth. How have we got to the state where up and down 3% in a few days can happen? The stuff itself hasn’t changed, there has been no change in production, none of it has decayed and everybody accepts that it doesn’t generate an income but has costs of storage and insurance, so it is not to be compared with a stock or a commercial property. And I doubt whether there has been any massive selling or buying of the physical metal.
I think the whole world is now awash with a load of fraudulently generated money (let’s maybe have an argument, this is money money not created through manual labour and real stuff), sloshing and swilling around in trillions, creating and profiting further from disproportional price fluctuations. This results in the FIRE economy, modified to the FIRES economy, where the ‘S’ is the stock market.
But enough of this bollox.
So how about this concept?
Buying and selling computer generated real estate with real world cash? How does that fit into the real world economy? This adds an immense level of complexity as there is conceivably not just an infinite amount of “real estate” available but also and infinite number of levels to which this thing could go. According to the above article in 2008 some USD 2,000,000,000 changed hands in the Global Cyber Economy (GCE – I claim copyright for this). Four years down the line, how much is it worth now?
A brat down the street has just earned USD 200 by selling a ‘game generated character’ to somebody 800 miles away. And the money was sent to his mother’s bank account. Unbelievable.
The world as my parents and I once knew it exists no longer.
USD 2,000,000,000 buying “cyber stuff”. Hmm wonder how the tax man is going to get a share of that?
Indeed, how can I get a share?
I’ll take `shorting` (to start with).
Shorting is perfectly decent. You borrow a share (for a fee) and promise to give it back at a certain date.
(You then sell that borrowed share and hope you can buy it back cheaper down the road, so you have then to give it back to whoever you borrowed it off).
That is shorting and is perfectly decent.
How about naked shorting?
And how about institutions lending out clients shares unknown to the client and taking the fee for themselves?
Naked shorting ….. not good.
If institutions lend out their clients shares ……. and the client doesn’t know about it ……….
The reason, I would would bet, would be …… that the client has not read the small print.
The bulk of your comment is complaining about what goes on `under the water`.
All I can say is, that is what they do.
I don’t think anyone understands it enough to say much about it (well, some may ….. but, I don’t~!)