sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Monday's Top 10 with NZ Mint: German's eye raid on Bundesbank gold to boost bazooka fund; Eurozone Chapter 11 plan; Obama's duplicity; Wall St's big lie; Dilbert

Monday's Top 10 with NZ Mint: German's eye raid on Bundesbank gold to boost bazooka fund; Eurozone Chapter 11 plan; Obama's duplicity; Wall St's big lie; Dilbert

Here's my Top 10 links from around the Internet at 2 pm in association with NZ Mint.

I welcome your additions in the comments below or via email tobernard.hickey@interest.co.nz.

I'll pop the extras into the comment stream. See all previous Top 10s here.

The cartoon above #10 made me laugh out loud or ROFLMAO as the kids say...

1. What a mess - The Guardian reports Europe is now on a desperate hunt for funds for its new bailout plan after the US and emerging economies (ie China) rejected their overtures at the G20 summit.

Meanwhile Italy is spiralling downhill at an ever greater speed.

The IMF will now do quarterly inspections of Italy's fiscal progress.

All this at the same time Italy's bond yields have risen over 6.4% and, crucially, over 450 basis points above German bund yields, which was the key level where Portugal, Ireland Greece were forced to seek bailouts.

But Italy is way too big to bail out or fail.

We should all be holding onto our hats over the next couple of weeks.

And also keep a wary eye on the US fiscal situation, where the famed Super Committee has to do a deal to cut America's budget deficit by US$1.2 trillion or automatic spending cuts kick in. Lobbyists, who are based on K Street, are fighting hard.

Here's the Guardian, including this little gem from Germany on how desperate Merkel is:

The desperation of leaders to boost the EFSF are becoming increasingly apparent. Over the weekend German media reported how Jens Weidmann, Bundesbank president, had forced the chancellor, Angela Merkel, to veto a proposal to use his bank's gold and currency reserves to boost the EFSF.

The Bundesbank has reserves of €181.5bn, including more than €130bn in gold, and, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Der Spiegel, these would be raided to enhance German guarantees for the EFSF.

This would be done via IMF special drawing rights and "stealthily" add up to €20bn more to Germany's maximum guarantee of €211bn.

2. A waste of time - Wolfgang Munchau writes at the FT.com that the G20 was a waste of time and that Silvio Berlusconi was let off the hook once again.

It was a big mistake to try to push Italy into an International Monetary Fund programme without being able to deliver such an outcome. If you really want to force such a momentous decision, the minimum condition is for leaders to say so openly, and for the European Central Bank to announce that it will no longer support the Italian bond market. But they blinked, and let Silvio Berlusconi once again off the hook.

The prime minister’s assertion that Italy had no crisis because the restaurants are full is an appropriate reflection of the intellectual depth seen at such gatherings.

3. Eurozone Chapter 11 - Zerohedge points to a Wikileaks cable from the US Ambassador to Germany (a Goldman Sachs veteran) passing on comments in late 2010 from the Chief Economist of Deutsche Bank that a Chapter 11 bankruptcy system should be put in place for Eurozone economies such as Greece.

Here's the section from the diplomatic cable.

9. (C) DB Chief Economist Thomas Mayer told Ambassador Murphy he was pessimistic Greece would take the difficult steps needed to put its house in order.  A worst case scenario, says Mayer, could be that Germany pulls out of the Eurozone altogether in 20 years time.  In 1990, Germany's Constitutional Court ruled that the country could withdraw from the Euro if: 1) the currency union became an "inflationary zone," or 2) the German taxpayer became the Eurozone's "de facto bailout provider." 

Mayer proposes a "Chapter 11 for Eurozone countries," which would place troubled members under economic supervision until they put their house in order.  Unfortunately, there is no serious discussion of this underway, he lamented. 

4. Obama's all bark and no bite - Zach Goldfarb points out via the Washington Post that US banks have made more profit in the first two and half year's of Obama's presidency than they did during George Bush's entire presidency.

The largest banks are larger today than when Obama took office and are returning to the level of profits they were making before the depths of the financial crisis in 2008, according to government data.

Wall Street firms — either independent companies or the high-flying trading arms of banks — are doing even better. They’ve made more profit in the first 21 / 2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the entire Bush administration, industry data show. (See data in an Excel file here.)

Behind this turnaround are government policies that saved the financial sector from collapse and then gave banks and other financial firms huge advantages on the path to recovery. For example, the federal government invested hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in banks, money that the firms used for risky investments on which they made huge profits.

recent study by two professors at the University of Michigan found that banks, instead of significantly increasing lending after being bailed out, used taxpayer money to invest in risky securities to profit from short-term price movements. The study found that bailed-out banks increased their returns by nearly 10 percent as a result.

“If the goal was to support lending, it would have been sensible to require a portion of the money to support credit origination,” said Ran Duchin, a finance professor who completed the study. “Lending to prime consumers was not the most profitable use of their capital.”

5. 'The Big Lie' - Fund manager and blogger Barry Ritholz does a nice job at the Washington Post of skewering the arguments put foward by the apologists for Wall St about what caused the 2008 crisis (and now this one).

Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

The Big Lie made a surprise appearance Tuesday when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, responding to a question about Occupy Wall Street, stunned observers by exonerating Wall Street: “It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”

6. Here's who the top 1% and 0.1% are - The Washington Post has this useful chart showing who the top 1% are and showing the top 0.1% are mostly bankers and CEOs who took 70% of the income growth going to the top 0.1% in the last 30 years.

 

“We find that executives, managers, supervisors, and financial professionals account for about 60 percent of the top 0.1 percent of income earners in recent years, and can account for 70 percent of the increase in the share of national income going to the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution between 1979 and 2005,” the paper’s authors write.

And the vast majority of the wealth held by the top 1 percent doesn’t come from income, but from stocks, securities, business equity and other investments.

 

7. Italy paralysed - Ambrose Evans Pritchard is in white hot form when writing at The Telegraph about Italy's predicament inside the Euro.

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy continue to order Italy to undertake further fiscal belt-tightening into the accelerating downturn, even though it is one of the few countries in the OECD club with a primary budget surplus and even though its combined public and private debt is just 250pc of GDP – well below that of Holland, France, the UK, the US, or Japan. The EU policy dictates have become unhinged.

Mr Berlusconi invited much ridicule in Cannes by blurting out that the “restaurants are still full”. Less reported was his comment that the country’s exchange rate is misaligned within EMU and that this has been “paralysing for Italy”.

This is the elemental point. Italy is in the wrong currency. It should not be in Germany’s monetary union at all.

Reform minister Robert Calderoli (Northern League) gave a hint of where this misguided euro-meddling will ultimately lead when he asked over the weekend whether “it is really worth the candle” staying in the European Union. “The Lisbon Treaty has a lot of bad aspects but one good point: you can withdraw from Europe.”

8. What a Greek bankruptcy might look like - The Guardian paints a suitably grim scenario here. Argentina's default and exit from its US$ peg wasn't as easy as it has been painted.

Banks shut their doors. Supermarket shelves empty. The rich stuff their suitcases with dollars and head for the border. The middle classes abandon their offices and join the street protests. The president flees by helicopter from the roof of his palace.

There is no script to follow when a country goes bust, but as Greece stares into the abyss that would open up if it left the euro, the gravity of the situation has prompted UBS's Stephane Deo to quote Keynes: "Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency."

Deo added: "If a country has gone to the extreme of reversing the introduction of the euro, it is at least plausible that centrifugal forces will seek to break the country apart... monetary union break-ups are nearly always accompanied by extremes of civil disorder or civil war."

9. A great explainer on Italy - Phillip Inman has written a nice piece at The Guardian explaining what is so wrong with Italy.

Berlusconi's key voters are shopkeepers and other small business people, professionals and sections of a middle class that likes the way life was 30 years ago. Making matters worse, Italian workers have paid themselves more than their German equivalents over the past 10 years for doing less work, less productively.

The German miracle is certainly about planning and investment, but it is also based on a decline in average real wages, cuts in benefits and pensions, and an erosion in job security. Demanding the same of Italians comes as a painful shock. Neither left nor rightwing parties favour the kind of overhaul demanded by Brussels.

The country, with a wealthy industrial north and poorer south, is a microcosm of the eurozone. It is the single currency's third biggest economy, but could now face a real struggle to stay in the euro.

10. Totally Jon Stewart talking about the Oakland Occupy Wall Street riots. He even wiggles his fingers a lot, Occupy style.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

45 Comments

Ooh, you're right. That cartoon is gold! : )

Up
0

Yes, re (5) Bernard, but do you realise that - investment banks, central banks, et al - are part and parcel of the crony capitalist system: they don't represent capitalism? So the problem here is not capitalism, as capitalism is the answer.

Up
0

No, Iain.

The State cannot just partly rule your life, no more than you can be partly pregnant. There is no middle way. There is socialism or there is freedom. The planned economy or capitalism.

Entente cordiale over.

 

Up
0

I think your choice of accountancy over diplomacy as a career may have been correct.

Up
0

What on earth are you talking about? How can you possibly have anything like Libertarians describe (a system of laws and contracts) without state intervention, e.g a legal system. Maybe it's time to do the thing which no Libertarian has managed before, describe which forms of state intervention are considered legitimate and which are not considered legitimate. Only that way can the Libertarian philosophy possibly leave the impossible la la land, which never has and never will exist.

If in fact there is no middle way, then I would have to assume that Libertarians are in fact radical socialists, because they always assume laws about the use of force. They also usually assume something about a constitution and democracy I think. Even the 'Star Trek' world is not this utopian, because they have rules and prosecutions, and it is a highly utopian fantasy.

Well I guess I have answered my rhetorical question here anyway. What on earth are you talking about? Nothing on earth its all just meaningless fantasy.

 

 

Up
0

Nic, Libertarians promote a constitutional minarchy, the constitution for which is already written: a constitution for New Freeland.

Iain I suspect we could still have the odd, or quite an odd, take your pick, beer at the pub without coming to blows.

(See, Colin, I was nice. Mind you that's because it's only 8.42am. Wait to this afternoon, and I've seen more announcements about Labour's lolly scramble, which unfortunately I'm funding).

 

Hey, this will surprise you, I'm suggesting a new tax. Now go look up satire.

 

 

 

Up
0

 

At least we know what sort of fantasy world Libertarianism is in (from the rather bizare constitution). It's a western, lots of guns, not much law, lots of violence, reprisals. If you look into the actual history of Texas there are probably some disposessed natives in there somewhere too.

The best thing about a western is that the good guys always win out in the end of course, they are usually stories of great redemption against trying odds. The bad thing about reality is that the good guys don't always win in the end.

I had not actually made the connection between Libertarianism and satire, I was under the impression that Libertarians took their crazy ideas seriously. Guess I simply don't understand this philosophy at all, its actually suppost to be a parody. Guess that is why you might make a statement like "The state can't just partly rule your life" and then in the next post state that "Libertarians promote a constitutional minarchy", which makes Libertarianism apparantly no more 'free' than any other form of government.

It's particularly clear just what sort of democracy this constitution is based on, part 1 of the constitution overturns a democratic decision on the voting system decided by referendum (because apparantly democratic decisions are not valid) and it does this not by referendum, but by constitution. Shows clearly how much respect Libertarianism really has for democracy.

 

 

Up
0

I agree with you there.

You're the first libertarian I've heard actually acknowledge this problem of laissez faire capitalism.

cheers

Bernard

Up
0

Capitalism isn't flawed, because the flawed capitalism isn't real capitalism?

That's just a 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

Up
0

Hang on, I reckon you're reading someone else's posts Bernard. Acknowledge what problem of laissez faire capitalism?

Up
0

I wondered that too ..... what was the connection between Bernard's triumphal chortling , and your actual comment .

.... how can free market  enterprise be held up as guilty for the GFC , when it has not been  in effect ...... not since some neanderthals decided to bang the rocks together

Up
0

Yes, the free market capitalist system has been clearly hijacked by what is now called  "New American Socialism. That is: The so called too big to fail banks and corporations, get to do what they want without any risk, as they just get bailed out if they stuff up.

Now for a radical comment: Maybe the intention always was to get every nation into a debt they cannot recover from, then  collapse the system, so they can provide the solution. They call it "order out of chaos"  Maybe they  are shooting for  a kind of Bretton Woods 2, where they ram the global currency and one world governerment and bank at us. All ran by non elected burocrats and crooks of course. Just look at the European union, hell bent on creating a US of Europe no matter what the cost and misery it causes to countless numbers of people..  Never realised until recently that the FED was a private bank  with the power to issue the worlds reserve currency.

 

 

    

 

Up
0

The problem is not capitalism.

The problems are: failure to regulate capitalism; failure to understand history (even recent history); failure of nerve on the part of governments; failure of interest on the part of voters; failure of just about every-thing.

These bloody people, the Masters of the Universe, honestly believed that property prices would never fall!

Plenty of very smart and knowledgable people predicted the collapse and those same people are still not being heeded - indeed they're being sneered at.

Jesus wept.

Up
0

"The problems are: failure to regulate capitalism; failure to understand history (even recent history); failure of nerve on the part of governments; failure of interest on the part of voters; failure of just about every-thing."

Thats because reforms to truely resolve the fundamental structural imbalances in the economy aren't even on the political horizon. And haven't been since World War I. Which happened conveniently enough at a time where there was actually a groudswell of popular support to address the major imbalance, land ownership. The British Fabian Party, essentially the policymakers of the British Labour Party, became bogged down in their advocacy of land nationalization, which would never have been tolerated by the Tories, as they are dominated by the aristocracy who gave up their legislative powers in return for retaining increasing capital gains on their lands. Furthermore it was none other than J M Keynes, who ensured that land reform didn't feature on the economic landscape and his class allegiance can be clearly seen in an address he made in 1925 at Cambrige University.

"We know of Keynes' complacency towards land from his self-satisfied address to the Liberal Summer School at Cambridge in 1925 … "all these causes for which the Liberal Party fought are successfully achieved or are obsolete or are the common ground of all parties alike. What remains? Some will say the land question. Not I - for I believe that this question, in its traditional form, has now become, by reason of a silent change in the facts, of very slight political importance."

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/harrison-fred_on-john-maynard-keynes.html

And his acolytes followed his example.

n the middle of Paul Samuelson's "Economics", the thousand-page Keynesian textbook which has been a staple for almost every student in high school and university, the impact of real estate slumps on recessions was noted in a single paragraph, and dismissed. There is no way of connecting financial shocks with Keynesianism, it's a parallel universe...Citing the work of Hawtree, Pigou and Robertson last century, Professor Charles Kindleberger argued that ''the neglect of the instability of credit began by and large with the depression of the 1930s, with the Currency and Banking schools converted to monetarists and Keynesians''.  More specifically, he claimed that Keynesian and monetary theory are ''incomplete'' and ''misleading'' for leaving out ''the instability of expectations, speculation and credit and the role of leveraged speculation in various assets''.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/wanted-a-new-economic-theory-20090206-7z7h.html#ixzz1czN6B2R4

 

Up
0

Take leverage out of the system, and it becomes more stable. 

Up
0

Skiduv, you can't have finance without leverage. Its a basic principle of Fractional Reserve Banking. Even that doesn't function here anymore, because according to the Reserve Bank there are no laws stipulating cash reserves in New Zealand.

Up
0

Exactly, you don't need finance to have an economy.  It takes more then it gives every time.

Up
0

Skudiv,

You do need finance to have an economy thats more complex than a basic subsistence one. Even the centralized Storehouse Economies of the Ancient Near East needed markets and a way to measure the value goods and services which were produced to meet the needs of the shallow layer of elites at the top of the society. Furthermore for a decentralized economy where a division of labour prevails, you need a form of payment that allows deferred payment. A transaction where someone wishing to coordinate production needs immediate payment to hire labour and purchase supplies and pledges that he will in turn repay his debt over time. This can only be done through finance. Finance is as old as the division of labour. As long as the divison of labour remains, so will finance. 

Up
0

I still see no reason those transactions couldn't take place using current money.  The only thing that has real value, is labour done, future labour has no value until it is done.Complex financial mechanisms attempt to accuratly price the value of future labour, and since the cost is including the risk that said labour may not eventuate it becomes overpriced.  This failure to correctly price future labour because of uncertainty creates an unbalance in the current economy.  You can get pretty complex without making claims against future labour.  Finding value and price doesn't require finance, it merely requires a medium of exchange(divisible, equal etc), which is what money is purportrated to be.  Yet the current financial systems says that 100 birds in the hand, are worth 97 birds in the bush.  Which is all back to front, and no suprise the Global economy is a slow motion train wreck.

Up
0

There is a difference between leverage and fractional reserve banking to some extent. The point of full reserve banking is in many ways that leverage of a capital venture happens by many people pooling their money, and accepting some risk. This should also mean that the successful financiers function as more successful investors rather than just higher risk takers. Maybe you wouldn't call this leverage, but from one individuals point of view, going to the bank taking a loan it looks the same.

The fact that there are no reserve laws does not actually mean that fractional reserve banking isn't applied. What this actually means/shows is that the money multiplier description of banking is not a good description of how banking sector behaves, though it would probably not be even if there were consistent reserve laws. It's still fractional reserve banking because some money must be available when a depositor wants to withdraw funds or make payments.

When fractional reserve banking was first invented there were no reserve ratios anyway, but people invented the concept of the money multiplier as a description of banking, it's probably never been accurate as a description of how banking behaves (kind of like most models in economics really).

I don't really see any alternative endgame for fractional reserve banking but too much leverage and risk a crash and a huge debt write down, because the most advantaged financiers are usually the ones who take the most risk.

 

 

Up
0

Tribeless, Central Banks have been around since 1694 (Bank of England), about as long as Capitalism has. So yes they are part and parcel of capitalism. Capitalism has always been about cronyism. 

The basis of the capitalist banking system was the tremendous rise in rents that occured in the wake of the Enclosures in England. Essentially banking was built upon the theft of the formerly communally owned lands of English commoners and in New Zealand, of the lands of the Maori, which ironically enough was a parallel historical development. Whilst the New Zealand settlers were breaching the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, and dispossessing the Maori Hapu of their lands,  the British Crown were allowing wealthy landowners to fence off the English commons and clear people from Highlands of Scotland in the Clearances. 

 

"Ricardo's theory of rent was also pulled in to bolster the arguments against providing allotments. A common justification for enclosure and attraction for landowners had always been that rents rose — doubled very often — after enclosure. This was blithely attributed to improvement of the land, as though there could be no other cause. Few gave much thought to the possibility that an increase in rent would result from getting rid of encumbrances, such as commoners and their common rights (in much the same way, that nowadays, a property increases in value if sitting tenants can be persuaded to leave, or an agricultural tie is removed). Rent may show up on the GDP, but is an unreliable indicator of productivity, as contemporary writer Richard Bacon pointed out when he gave this explanation (paraphrased here by Brian Inglis) why landowners and economists were opposed to allotments:

"Suppose for argument's sake, 20 five-acre farms, cultivated by spade husbandry, together were more productive than a single 100-acre farm using machinery. This did not mean that the landowners would get more rent from them — far from it. As each 5 acre farm might support a farmer and his family, the surplus available for tenants to pay in rent would be small. The single tenant farmer, hiring labourers when he needed them, might have a lower yield, from his hundred acres, but he would have a larger net profit — and it was from net profit that rent was derived. That was why landlords preferred consolidation."43

Richard Bacon deserves applause for explaining very clearly why capitalism prefers big farms and forces people off the land. It is also worth noting that the increased rent after enclosure had to be subsidized by the poor rates — the taxes which landowners had to pay to support the poor who were forced into workhouses."

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/harrison-fred_on-john-maynard-keynes.html

 

Up
0

6.4% Puts Italian Government debt more risky then a 20% deposit homeloan in NZ. 

Up
0

#8 is way off base, many coutries have defaulted before, Iceland is a great example of how to do it in style.  They should have defaulted years ago, instead of putting the taxpayers and SOE's on the hook for far, far more they could ever possibly repay.  The investors like to drag it out as long as possible, so they get as much as possible for thier Fiat currency.

Up
0

Giorgos Papandreou just gave up his job as PM.

Up
0

Kunst: How much do you think it is worth to the banksters to pay Papandreou off to quietly disappear so they can avoid a credit event that would trigger the CDS, and how much is it worth to persuade Berlusconi to do the same? $ billions. 

Up
0

About 2 months (time is money)

Up
0

Iconclast. How much does a phonecall cost? Not much. One threat to call in the Mafia hitmen...Priceless!

Up
0

As predicted by the Gummster , David Cunliffe ( he who refuses to re-populate the planet with Judith Collins ) has extended WFF to include beneficiaries . And not before time , too . In fact , even those without families ought not to be discriminated against , nor those without any employment . Everyone is entitled to WFF , you're citizens of Godzone , it's your inalienable right to receive WFF .

...... now , to top that and really win this election , us in NZ Labour need to extend the year by one month . Yes , you heard me correctly , we need to add an extra month into the calendar .... and there's no flipping way that those un-caring capitalist sods in National or ACT will give you this . But vote for NZ Labour , and we'll extend the year by an extra month , 4 more weeks of holiday for you all . ....... in NZ Labour , we care !

Up
0

GBH..You are witnessing the emergence of  Kun li ...The Running Kun...Cunny to his freinds........it's all in the timing of the squint.... it can be kind ..................or it can cut..!

Up
0

Don't worry guys, NZ will be fine! Remember JK said we had largely decoupled from Europe! And the bank economists are predicting returns to 3-4% GDP growth on the back of a booming Christchurch rebuild!!!! And house prices will continue to edge upwards! And our govt is undertaking the urgent reform necessary to make our economy more resilient in the face of impending international difficulties.

Please place faith in our esteemed PM and bank economists!!!!

 

Up
0

Matt, the in word is 'believe'. If we just 'believe' - in growth, TSY forecasts, economists, politicians, and investment professionals, we will saved. Have faith.

Up
0

Trussssht in me..... just in me ....... :)

Up
0

Colin,

Leaving my sarcasm behind, all I can say is that if the economists couldn't see this mess in Europe coming a year ago then they are truly useless

Either that or they are deceptive and far from "independant", trying to talk up the economy for their own banks' purposes (it has worked so far hasn't it, with massive profits)

 

Up
0

I would first add TSY 'economists', and then go with the latter option.

Up
0

How much is there in the NZ MSM media on the Europe crisis?

There's a lot of coverage here in Aus (as there should be given the gravity of the situation), but reading the Herald website everyday one would struggle to think that there is even a crisis occuring in Europe - there's hardly any coverage of it!

Blissful ignorance??????

Up
0

We're doing our bit to cover it on Interest.co.nz

cheers

Bernard

Up
0

That's fairly harsh Ian.  Bernard maintains an extremely candid view on the world of Finance and publishes it for all to see on Interest.  He's probably one of the more balanced financial journalists you'll find.

He's been very outspoken in numerous cases where he feels the banking world has not met their moral, social or even legal obligations, so I'm not sure what you mean by his "voluntary code of silence".

I've also never heard him refer to bankers as "gods gift" to anything or anybody!

I agree that fundamentally our money system is broken and that too much power is currently held by far too few individuals, but c'mon, I don't think we can assume that Bernard Hickey is a member of the "inner circle" and complicit in the act...

Up
0

 "seriously many people in this country wont bother reading anything longer than a bumper sticker"......hahaaahaaahaaa parky is pissed that so few followers believe in his free credit fluff.

Up
0

Iain,

Have a listen to my various comments on Radio Live, Radio NZ National, TVNZ and Herald on Sunday questioning bank profits.

 

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/56564/opinion-bernard-hickey-argues-nzs-big-four-banks-shouldnt-be-making-such-big-and-growi

cheers

Bernard

Up
0

Looks like the property bubble in China is bursting.

 

Residential property prices are in freefall in China as developers race to meet revenue targets for the year in a quickly deteriorating market.  The country’s largest builders began discounting homes in Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen in recent weeks, and the trend has now spread to second- and third-tier cities such as Hangzhou, Hefei, and Chongqing.  In Chongqing, for instance, Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa cut asking prices 32% at its Cape Coral project.  “The price war has begun,” said Alan Chiang Sheung-lai of property consultant DTZ to the South China Morning Post.

More here

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2011/11/06/property-prices-collapse-in-china-is-this-a-crash/

Up
0

Public Credit chaos OMG......hope parky is paying close attention....'upstanding citizens' in charge of issuing cheap and in some cases free credit in China.(no corruption involved!)..equals greed on steroids and a property bubble to beat them all.

Thank goodness only 1200 were foolish enough to vote for this madness in NZ in 08.!

Up
0

The measure of your beliefs parky will be in whether you hang on to the 1200 this time round!

Up
0

Interesting statements on number 8 - Bernard, how about an article fleshing out what a national bankruptcy actually could look like?

Unfortunately not many people actually understand the ground level implications of such an event, not down to a granular "how am I going to feed my kids breakfast in the morning" kind of way.  

Sometimes we hear statements like "empty shelves in the supermarket" and "rioting in the streets", but what happened in Iceland?  Did they experience that?  They seem to have completely disappeared off the radar these days - what's happening there now?  

If more people had a better understanding of the consequences of national bankruptcy, there's a better chance we'd all take realistic steps to avoid it.  

C'mon Bernard - write the article!  

Up
0

"what a national bankruptcy actually could look like?"

Ask the people of Newfoundland. When they joined the Canadian Federation in 1949 they had the illusion of a choice, but only because WWII had boosted their economy from totally catastrophic to just spectacularly dreadful.

Up
0

Now that's a goal we can all aim for...."spectacularly dreadful"...Labour have managed it!

Up
0