luni, 9 noiembrie 2009

Linkuri diverse

Aurul a trecut de 1100, merge spre 1110 azi. Stiu ca unii abia astepta un minim semn deflationist ca sa strige "bula". Dar ce te faci daca decuplarea are loc inainte si aurul continua sa se duca in sus, in timp ce bursele o iau in jos ? Trase la fund de piatra de moara reprezentata de actiunile bancilor falimentare.

Intre timp, in US scorul pe anul asta a ajuns la 120 si devine tot mai interesant pentru cei care incearca sa pastreze aparentele in ce priveste "garantarea depozitelor":

More US banks closed, number rises to 120
The failure of United Commercial Bank is expected to cost the federal deposit insurance fund an estimated USD1.4 billion; the failure of the other four banks a combined USD132.7 million.
In urma unei discutii de pe blogul de trenduri al lui Dan, am considerat ca e util sa aducem in discutie si definitia notiunii de systemic risk pentru cei mai putin familiari cu ea:
In finance, systemic risk is the risk of collapse of an entire financial system or entire market, as opposed to risk associated with any one individual entity, group or component of a system. It refers to the risks imposed by interlinkages and interdependencies in a system or market, where the failure of a single entity or cluster of entities can cause a cascading failure, which could potentially bankrupt or bring down the entire system or market. Insurance is often difficult to obtain against "systemic risks" because of the inability of any counterparty to accept the risk or mitigate against it, because, by definition, there is likely to be no (or very few) solvent counterparties in the event of a systemic crisis.
Vorbeam la inceput de pretul la aur. Cand toata lumea cumpara e cazul sa vinzi ? Sau regulile sistemului s-au schimbat si lucrurile nu mai functioneaza asa cum stiau "cunoscatorii" pe vremuri ? Ramane sa vedem la final. Pana atunci:

Inside the Global Gold Frenzy
Argor-Heraeus, a Swiss company, is making 100-gram pieces of gold as fast as it can to feed the investing fever of national banks and individual buyers.

“It’s not that gold has changed, but gold buyers have changed,” said Suki Cooper, a precious-metals strategist for Barclays Capital. “It’s a structural shift we’re seeing on the investing side, from Asian central banks right down to individual investors buying ingots and coins.”
Si in final un articol excelent gasit pe logec. Care explica de ce pusesem si eu aceleasi lucruri ca lectura obligatorie:

The Man Who Predicted the Depression
In mid-1929, he stubbornly turned down a lucrative job offer from the Viennese bank Kreditanstalt, much to the annoyance of his fiancée, proclaiming "A great crash is coming, and I don't want my name in any way connected with it."

We all know what happened next. Pretty much right out of Mises's script, overleveraged banks (including Kreditanstalt) collapsed, businesses collapsed, employment collapsed. The brittle tree snapped. Following Mises's logic, was this a failure of capitalism, or a failure of hubris?

Mises's solution follows logically from his warnings. You can't fix what's broken by breaking it yet again. Stop the credit gavage. Stop inflating. Don't encourage consumption, but rather encourage saving and the repayment of debt. Let all the lame businesses fail—no bailouts. (You see where I'm going with this.) The distortions must be removed or else the precipice from which the system will inevitably fall will simply grow higher and higher.

Mises started getting some much-deserved respect once "Theorie des Geldes" was finally published in English in 1934. It is unfortunate that it required such a disaster for people to take heed of what was the one predictive, scholarly explanation of what was happening.

But then, just Mises's bad luck, along came John Maynard Keynes's tome "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in 1936. Keynes was dapper, fresh and sophisticated. He even wrote in English! And the guy had chutzpah, fearlessly fighting the battle against unemployment by running the currency printing press and draining the government's coffers.

He was the anti-Mises. So what if Keynes had lost his shirt in the stock-market crash. His book was peppered with fancy math (even Greek letters) and that meant rigor, modernity. To add insult to injury, Mises wasn't even refuted by Keynes and his ilk. He was ignored.

Fast forward 70-some years, during which we saw Keynesianism's repeated disappointments, the end of the gold standard, persistent inflation with intermittent inflationary recessions and banking crises, culminating in Alan Greenspan's "Great Moderation" and a subsequent catastrophic collapse in housing and banking. Where do we find ourselves? At a point of profound insight gained through economic logic, trial and error, and objective empiricism? Or right back where we started?

Pentru cei care nu stiu inca, unul din adeptii scolii austriece este Peter Schiff, cel care repeta istoria lui Mises cand vine vorba de previziunile despre actuala criza: Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007

P.S. Rog luati in considerare ceea ce spuneam AICI inainte de adaugarea unor eventuale comentarii. Va multumesc.

Niciun comentariu:

Trimiteți un comentariu