Banker i krise?

Viser 15 indlæg - 16 til 30 (af 36 i alt)
  • Indlæg
  • #138362
    AnonymForfatter

    Hvordan kan guldstandarden praktisk indføres?

    Hvis vi skiftede i morgen, ville alle bankerne gå konkurs, hvis man prøvede at indløse sine penge til guld.

    Heri kan vi måske finde generalens modstand?

    Det er sjovt der er så meget modstand mod guldstandarden, selvom den netop var god til at begrænse idiotiske investeringer og den magtfulde stat. Det er et dårligt argument “jamen, så kan vi ikke investere i XYZ projekt”. Det kan I ikke, fordi der ikke er penge til og det nytter ikke at trykke nogle flere.

    Man bliver nødt til at se på, hvad der reelt er råd til. Alt andet må skæres væk.

    Selvfølgelig er USA ikke tilhænger af en guldstandard. De skal jo have råd til deres kæmpe forsvarsbudget.

    #138364
    AnonymForfatter

    Bad performance of the Gold Standard

    Because economies under the gold standard were so vulnerable to real and monetary shocks, prices were highly unstable in the short run. A measure of short-term price instability is the coefficient of variation—the ratio of the standard deviation of annual percentage changes in the price level to the average annual percentage change. The higher the coefficient of variation, the greater the short-term instability. For the United States between 1879 and 1913, the coefficient was 17.0, which is quite high. Between 1946 and 1990 it was only 0.88. In the most volatile decade of the gold standard, 1894-1904, the mean inflation rate was 0.36 and the standard deviation was 2.1, which gives a coefficient of variation of 5.8; in the most volatile decade of the more recent period, 1946-1956, the mean inflation rate was 4.0, the standard deviation was 5.7, and the coefficient of variation was 1.42.

    Moreover, because the gold standard gives government very little discretion to use monetary policy, economies on the gold standard are less able to avoid or offset either monetary or real shocks. Real output, therefore, is more variable under the gold standard. The coefficient of variation for real output was 3.5 between 1879 and 1913, and only 0.4 between 1946 and 2003. Not coincidentally, since the government could not have discretion over monetary policy, unemployment was higher during the gold standard years. It averaged 6.8 percent in the United States between 1879 and 1913, and 5.9 percent between 1946 and 2003.

    #138368
    AnonymForfatter

    Jeg ved ikke hvordan en guldstandart skal indføres, eller om det overhovedet er en god ide at indføre den, men Ron Poul Tild. præsident kandidat har foreslået, at man indfører guld som lovligt betalings middel, sideløbende med de andre valutaer der eksisterer. På den måde kan folk jo selv bestemme hvilken valuta man bedst kan lide.
    så kan hver enkelt person, tage stilling til om man foretrækker et betalingsmiddel som består af “papir med blæk på / elektroniske tal på en computer skærm” eller om man foretrækker guld, som trods alt, ikke kan fremstilles, uden mange omkostninger.

    #138372
    AnonymForfatter

    Bad performence on goldstandart

    Der kan siges godt eller skidt om guld, alt afhængig hvordan man ser det, Det samme kan siges om papir pengesystemet.

    Uanset hvad hver enkelt mener om guld, har det i de seneste tusinde år aldrig været værdiløst, altså det har præsteret en eller anden form for købe kraft. Mig bekent kan dette ikke siges om papirpenge systemet.

    Jeg tror personligt ikke at guld er den eneste lyksaglighed, men historien har vist at guld ikke bør udelukkes, hvis man evt vil sprede sin købekraft i forskellige assets.

    Denne krise “kredit, finans, uregulerede derivater,insolvendte banker” eller hvad den hedder, er så ufattelig og hvad der sker, både på kort , mellem og langt sigt kan jeg ikke fatte.

    Intil videre tror jeg personligt at der er skabt så meget gæld i det finansielle system at det hele er kommet i ubalance, og for at genoprette balancen skal rigtig meget gæld afskrives, med risico for bankkolaps eller så er man nødt til at trykke en farlig masse penge for at gøre gælden overkommelig i forhold til pengemængden.

    Jeg syntes faktisk godt om Ron Pouls forslag om at gøre guld til lovligt betalings middel.

    Generalen og ligesinde kan vælge papir og og guld kan vælges af dem der ønsker det.

    Hvor svært kan det være ?

    #138374
    AnonymForfatter

    Min livsfilosofi omgang med økonomi og penge blev jeg som ung mand belært af min moder, og det har tjent mig vel.

    -Investeringsfilosofi som min moder lærte mig, da jeg var ung.

    At holde mig fra pengeinstitutter, forsikringsselskaber, pensionskasser som hun anså for sæder for den højest organiserede økonomiske kriminalitet, der fandt statslig understøttelse via nationalbanken, og at jeg derfor skulle afstå fra at være ihændehaver af fiktive (nationale) valutaer andet end i det strengeste nødvendige omfang.

    Altid at skelne mellem virkelighed og løfter, dvs reelle investeringer og fiktioner.

    Altid lade formueplejen ligge i egne hænder og afstå fra investeringsvejledere.

    Aldrig at være overdreven grådig, fordi det leder i fordærv.

    At alvorligste bedrag man kan udsættes for er fra det offentlige institutionelle liv.

    At spillereglerne ikke er ens for alle.

    I praksis betyder det for en jævn mand at satse på sin personlige bolig, sølv og guld.

    #138376
    AnonymForfatter

    Der har vi kernen af problemet: Uigennemsigtighed af systemet.

    En åben guldfod kunne hjælpe med på det problem, men du har helt ret i at det kunne lige så godt være noget andet systemet er baseret på…..pointen er at det skal være gennemskueligt for alle så disciplinen bliver holdt og der ikke bliver trykt for mange penge.

    Vi kan lige så godt vænne os til tanken at de fleste af vores banker er insolvente allerede og det kan undgås hvis de overholder loven og ikke bliver overgearet.

    #138378
    AnonymForfatter

    Interessant – har du linket hvorfra dette er sakset, jeg har nemlig læst præcist det modsatte så jeg vil gerne studere det nærmere.

    #138390
    AnonymForfatter

    Men pointen er vel stadig, at hvis ikke reglerne respekteres eller hvis ikke reglerne er ens for alle, som en anden har nævnt – Ja så kan det være fløjtende ligegyldigt hvilket system man vælger.

    Papir systemet er jo fint nok, hvis man respekterede værdien af dem, og ikke bare trykker løs når det er belejligt.

    Selv med en guldstandard er der vel ikke nogen, der seriøst tror på at f.eks. USA ligger sig til at dø, fordi de ingen penge/guld har – Næh så bliver konsekvensen bare at reglerne laves om med magt, uanset om det er rimeligt eller ej.

    Men noget nyt er der ihvertfald behov for, tilliden har lidt et så voldsomt knæk, at det nuværende system ikke kan eller bør bevares. Og de som har mistet deres opsparinger bør naturligvis kompenseres på en eller anden måde. Ellers er motivationen for en tur mere vist ikke ret stor.

    Det er lidt som at nødlande med et fly, hvor alle motorer er gået i stå. Måske lykkes det at lave en landing, hvor nogle af passagerne overlever… Men hvem ønsker at tage en tur mere, selvom motorerne udskiftes med nye magen til?

    #138402
    AnonymForfatter

    Og det jeg synes er helt forfærdeligt er at du nok har ret: Så længe vi ikke holder politikerne og centralbankerne til ilden og lader være med at tillade dem at trukke penge er fuldstændigt ligegyldigt om vi har en guldfod, blækfod eller matadorpengefod.

    Trist….

    #138406
    AnonymForfatter

    Gold price could hit $1,500
    The aggressive monetary policy of central banks around the world is playing havoc with the structure of the bullion market, creating a chronic shortage of gold that may soon push the metal to fresh records above $1,500 an ounce.

    By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

    Taget fra the telegraph uk

    #138408
    AnonymForfatter

    Tja det er meget godt med guld og sølv, men alligevel tror jeg nu ikke jeg vil den vej.

    Først og fremmest er prisen på ædelmetaller jo allerede nu skruet enormt højt op, og det er vel heller ikke rimeligt at man ikke er omfattet af den private ejendomsret, hvis man har penge i banken. Så alternativt kan man jo også anlægge den holdning, at hvis de stjæler mere via inflation, så har man ikke nogen forpligtigelser overfor hverken samfund eller stat.

    Det er jo ikke nogen naturlov, at man skal acceptere landet konverteret til Danbabwe.

    #138418
    AnonymForfatter

    Danbabwe – den var go!!!!!

    Før det går så galt sidder jeg´ sgu på Bahamas og leder efter Neptunen for at få en gin & tonic med ham!!!!

    B-)

    #138420
    AnonymForfatter

    MyMoney:

    helt korrekt indstilling: hvis de ikke vil acceptere din ejendomsret, hvorfor skulle du så?

    De korrupte politikere, der giver MINE penge til forfejlede socialistiske banker, burde forsvinde fra Christiansborg for evigt.

    Det såkaldte demokrati vi har, er forfærdeligt. Det eneste det går ud, er at holde folk i 37-timers slaveriet.

    Er det et liv, hvor man betaler 75-90% til staten og får stjålet resten gennem inflation?

    Danmark har opnået en fin plads på Transparency Internationals korruptionsliste. Danske Bank-bankpakke II kan meget fint beskrives som fuldskalakorruption. Jeg er ikke i tvivl om at vi kommer længere ned på den liste.

    #138422
    AnonymForfatter

    Læste i WeekendAvisen at de stakkels Islændinge har fundet ud af at hele deres samfund og magiske økonomiske eventyr var baseret på massiv korruption. Alle partierne var købt og betalt for af de store islandske banker.

    Jeg bliver ikke forbavset når vi finder ud af at det ikke er meget anderledes hernede i det lille store Danmark.

    Trist – men det er den verden vi lever i….vorherrebevars for noget TIS at overlevere til de næste generationer. Der er ikke meget at være stolt af.

    #138430
    AnonymForfatter

    Fra Dollar Daze for at uddybe forståelsen af “derivater” teoretisk og praktisk.

    April 19th, 2009
    Derivatives: A $700+ Trillion Bubble Waiting to Burst
    By J.S. Kim (2 comments)

    In the past three years, while banks all over the world and Wall Street were imploding, while some $40-$50 trillion of capital was being destroyed in global stock markets, one financial market kept growing. That market is the financial derivatives market.

    According to the Bank for International Settlements [BIS], the global Over the Counter [OTC] derivatives market has grown almost 65% from $414.8 trillion in December, 2006 to $683.7 trillion in June of 2008. On the BIS’s own website, there are no updated figures for the notional derivatives market since June 2008, so we can likely assume, with some margin of safety, that this market has now grown to more than $700 trillion. Comparatively speaking, the total market cap of all major global stock markets is approximately $30 trillion.

    Before I discuss how financial products could grow more than 65% during a time period when financial companies were imploding all over the world, let’s review the definition of a derivative, because this will explain how this market of financial products keeps becoming more valuable at a time when the value of many capital assets are sinking like a rock in an ocean.

    According to Wikipedia:

    Derivatives are financial contracts, or financial instruments, whose values are derived from the value of something else (known as the underlying). The underlying value on which a derivative is based can be an asset (e.g., commodities, equities (stocks), residential mortgages, commercial real estate, loans, bonds), an index (e.g., interest rates, exchange rates, stock market indices, consumer price index [CPI] — see inflation derivatives), weather conditions, or other items. Credit derivatives are based on loans, bonds or other forms of credit. The main types of derivatives are forwards, futures, options, and swaps.

    Because the value of a derivative is contingent on the value of the underlying, the notional value of derivatives is recorded off the balance sheet of an institution, although the market value of derivatives is recorded on the balance sheet. Over-the-counter [OTC] derivatives are contracts that are traded (and privately negotiated) directly between two parties, without going through an exchange or other intermediary. The OTC derivative market is the largest market for derivatives, and is largely unregulated with respect to disclosure of information between the parties, since the OTC market is made up of banks and other highly sophisticated parties, such as hedge funds…Because OTC derivatives are not traded on an exchange, there is no central counterparty. Therefore, they are subject to counterparty risk, like an ordinary contract, since each counterparty relies on the other to perform.

    There are two key phrases to note in the above explanation of the financial derivatives markets-

    The notional value of derivatives is recorded OFF the balance sheet of an institution, although the market value of derivatives is recorded ON the balance sheet; and
    OTC derivatives are not traded on an exchange, there is no central counterparty. Therefore, they are subject to counterparty risk, like an ordinary contract, since each counterparty relies on the other to perform.
    As I’ve noted before, the $700 trillion global derivatives market is the notional value of this market, not the market value of these derivatives. The Bank for International Settlements compiles the notional value of this market worldwide from reported figures by Central Banks of the G10 countries and Switzerland. Thus, if the off-balance sheet assets of major international banks are growing so rapidly in the form of their notional values of their held financial derivative products, how can so many of these banks be in trouble?

    The answer, quite simply, is that the market value of these derivatives is nowhere near the notional values of these derivatives maintained and reported by these banks, and that the global derivatives market is in serious trouble. Because derivative products are subject to counterparty risks as well, this means that the failure of one major financial institution could cause the evaporation of assets for many other financial institutions that have derivative products with exposure to that one financial institution. In other words, when the notional values of a good percent of these financial derivative products start evaporating into thin air, and they will, it will have a negative domino effect on the balance sheet of not just one major financial institution, but many.

    Of course, when FASB suspended mark-to-market accounting rules recently, major international banks were allowed to re-value some of their derivative products closer to their notional value on their books to pad their balance sheets. Due to this change in accounting law, I can almost guarantee you that before market open Friday, Citigroup will announce better than expected financial results as they carried huge amounts of illiquid mortgages and financial derivatives on their balance sheets. [Editor’s note: Article was written prior to earnings announcement on 4/17/09]

    Though many people argue that only the market value of these derivatives, and not their notional values, is ultimately important, this would have only been valid if FASB hadn’t suspended mark-to-market accounting rules. The types of derivative products most likely to continue to blow up are Credit Default Swaps [CDS], and indeed, it was AIG’s exposure to Credit Default Swaps that caused it to collapse.

    In reality, the market value of financial derivatives is only a fraction of its $700 trillion notional value; however the reality is that the potential losses from bad Credit Default Swaps can also be much more than their notional value. For example, consider a scenario where Company ABC underwrites a CDS in which they will receive $100,000 of payments from Company X in return for guaranteeing a $1,000,000 bond issued by Company Z. If all goes well, and the bond performs, then company ABC makes $100,000 in profit. However, if company Z fails, then Company ABC may now have to pay Company X $1,000,000. This is a scenario in which the losses from financial derivative products can be very real and very large. Though many analysts harp on the fact that the $700+ trillion notional figure of the derivative market is not real, it is not realistic either to only consider the much smaller market value of these derivatives as the above example illustrates.

    Since it is now likely that the balance sheets of many financial institutions have been quickly “nursed back to health” by returning the book value of OTC financial derivative products to some fantasyland notional value versus their true market value, the collapse of the notional value of the $700+ trillion derivative market will indeed have future devastating consequences for global economies.

Viser 15 indlæg - 16 til 30 (af 36 i alt)
  • Du skal være logget ind for at svare på dette indlæg.