SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Financial Collapse of 2001 Unwinding -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (2635)6/25/2019 2:12:29 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13801
 
Courtesy of Bob Furman on the same theme

Message 32210697



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (2635)6/25/2019 8:06:17 AM
From: robert b furman2 Recommendations

Recommended By
elmatador
Maurice Winn

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13801
 
HI Maurice,

With Trillions of Sovereign debt being added by Central Banks - I'd say the negative yields on cash deposited at the bank is finally doing what countries have been accused of doing for years. The bebasing of the fiat money they supposedly are responsible of protecting.

The one sure fired way of getting out of debt is to make the currency worthless - thus easily paid back.

This is one slow "crock" pot, but it destroys money on a relentless daily basis.

Maybe governments should insist on Central banks reducing their "Balance sheets" - I use that term loosely!

Money must once again be made to hold value. Then and only then will it deserve the status of being able to hold a yield.

These boys have mucked up the world's currencies !

This opens up the left to complain about income inequality.

The only yield in town is equities!

If one chooses to spend all that they make vs. save and invest - As an investor I do not feel like the source of the income inequality.

This will not end well even for equities I suspect.

At that point , I wonder if land and physical "things" are the best to hold value.

One needs the cash flow from them (if it exists) to pay the government for the privilege of holding/owning them - (taxes)

What a historical mess !!

If one owns corporate shares - they then are eligible for a portion of that company's cash flow via dividends.

No wonder the market's big cap indices are going to new heights.

Seems like a big global tug of war.

Risk on for yield - risk off for investor sentiment.

Everything else is a loser, as gold breaks out up!

Nice work politicians and Central bankers!!

Bob



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (2635)6/27/2019 4:23:45 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13801
 
Australia ‘the world’s first immigration economy’ because no country in history has ever before based its long-term economic strategy on the simple but nonetheless somehow bizarre idea that if you just let more people in, the economy will grow.

There are obvious political implications there, but there are demographic ones, too. The equivalent annual population growth figures for Australia were 1.1 per cent for Keating, 1.2 per cent for Howard, 1.6 per cent for Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, and 1.7 per cent for Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison. Or summing up: low, low, high, high.

Paul Keating and John Howard kept the economy going with pro-growth policies that improved average living conditions for people already living in Australia. The next six relied on immigrants like me to keep business booming. We’ve done a good job, and most of us are very happy to live here, thank you very much. But immigration-fuelled growth isn’t quite the same as the real thing.

Yet since 2008, that has been Australia’s strategy in a nutshell.

ELMAT: This is the example Euroland must follow


Demography is destiny Forget about the per capita recession. Worry about the zombie economy
Salvatore Babones

29 June 2019


When Sky News asked Australian Labor MP Anne Aly why she opposed the Coalition’s tax cut plan, she cited ‘the fact that our economy is now in a recession, or it looks like it is going into a recession’. She didn’t seem to realise that a recession is exactly the time to cut taxes, because tax cuts stimulate demand. Aly’s call to hoard resources during a recession is the kind of nineteenth century reasoning that ultimately led to the Great Depression.

But how could she even think that Australia was in recession, when the Reserve Bank says that the economy is growing at 1.7 per cent? That’s easy. The economy may be growing at 1.7 per cent, but Australia’s population is growing at 1.6 per cent, leaving only a 0.1 per cent margin of safety between economic growth and population growth. Any lower, and the country could fall into a ‘per capita recession’, during which the economy fails to keep up with a growing population.

Labor’s shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers came to Aly’s defence, pointing out that Australia had recently experienced a per capita recession in the second half of 2018, as economic growth fell behind population growth and average output per person declined. Notably, he still didn’t defend Aly on tax cuts. Like Anne Aly, Jim Chalmers has a PhD, but Chalmers’ is in political science. That’s a little closer to economics than Aly’s PhD in media and culture.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who also is not an economist, but holds master’s degrees in international relations and public policy from Oxford and Harvard, has also admitted that Australia fell into a per capita recession last year under the Coalition’s watch.

Undaunted, he points out that when you focus on ‘real net national disposable income per capita’ instead, the economy looks just fine. So please everyone: just focus on real net national disposable income per capita. ‘Build our economy, secure your future’.

I’m not an economist either. If you want to build our economy, talk to the Reserve Bank. But as a sociologist, I can tell you why per capita recessions are so dangerous for your future. In fact, I was the first person to use the term ‘per capita recession’ in a major international publication, and the first to apply it to Australia. (Full credit to self-described ‘unconventional economist’ Leith van Onselen for beating me to it in a blog post on the NZ economy.) And I was the first to warn about the long-term consequences of slow per capita growth.







In an October 3, 2018 article for Foreign Policy magazine, under the title ‘The World’s First Immigration Economy’, I pointed out that far from posting a miracle record of 27 years of unbroken growth, Australia had actually experienced per capita recessions in 2000, 2008, and 2013. In those years, only Australia’s rapid population growth kept the economy moving forward at all.

And here we are again, with a per capita recession in the second half of 2018 and very little per capita growth so far in 2019. If you’re trying to sell widgets, no problem: the economy is growing at 1.7 per cent. But if you’re trying to evaluate the success of the government in managing the country’s economy to meet the needs of its citizens, per capita growth, sustained over the long term, is what really matters.

It matters, because widgets don’t vote. Managing quarterly growth rates is the Reserve Bank’s job (good luck). The fiscal and regulatory policy levers available to governments operate too slowly to fight recessions anyway. But making the economy work for the people at large is the government’s job (double good luck). And that’s where per capita figures come into play.

Despite 27 years of solid economic growth, Australia’s per capita figures depict an economy that has ceased to serve the needs of its citizens. Tallying up per capita economic growth since the 1991 recession that you ‘had to have’ (I’m not Australian) gives a rough annual average of 2.5 per cent under Keating, 2.4 per cent under Howard, 0.9 per cent under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, and 1.1 per cent under Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison. Or, in simple terms: high, high, low, low.

There are obvious political implications there, but there are demographic ones, too. The equivalent annual population growth figures for Australia were 1.1 per cent for Keating, 1.2 per cent for Howard, 1.6 per cent for Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, and 1.7 per cent for Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison. Or summing up: low, low, high, high.

Paul Keating and John Howard kept the economy going with pro-growth policies that improved average living conditions for people already living in Australia. The next six relied on immigrants like me to keep business booming. We’ve done a good job, and most of us are very happy to live here, thank you very much. But immigration-fuelled growth isn’t quite the same as the real thing.

In Foreign Policy, I called Australia ‘the world’s first immigration economy’ because no country in history has ever before based its long-term economic strategy on the simple but nonetheless somehow bizarre idea that if you just let more people in, the economy will grow. Yet since 2008, that has been Australia’s strategy in a nutshell.

spectator.co.uk