Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Unemployment below 2 millon
Topic Started: Oct 15 2014, 09:03 AM (1,922 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Unemployment below 2 million BUT:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29627831

However, the number of people classed as economically inactive, including students, long-term sick and those retiring early, increased by 113,000 in the quarter to more than nine million.

The number of self-employed people dropped by 76,000 in the latest three-month period to 4.5 million, but the total is 279,000 higher than a year ago.

And the number of employees in part-time jobs has reached a record high of 6.8 million.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
If we are going to play the blame game, and it looks like there’s a definite appetite for that, let us do it properly. I am very interested in this and have read most of the threads relating to this. Formerly I was of the opinion that NL was throwing our money around during the last government. Ctoo states that there spending was circa 40% of GDP and that does tally with what was generally considered to be sustainable and wise. Then the “crisis” hit.

IF Labour were spending circa 40% GDP when the crisis hit I don’t think the accusation that they were throwing money around willy nilly has much purchase. I am yet to see Ctoo effectively challenged on this. So at the moment, against my instinct, I am inclined to believe that labour weren’t profligate.

What do you think?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:10 AM
If we are going to play the blame game, and it looks like there’s a definite appetite for that, let us do it properly. I am very interested in this and have read most of the threads relating to this. Formerly I was of the opinion that NL was throwing our money around during the last government. Ctoo states that there spending was circa 40% of GDP and that does tally with what was generally considered to be sustainable and wise. Then the “crisis” hit.

IF Labour were spending circa 40% GDP when the crisis hit I don’t think the accusation that they were throwing money around willy nilly has much purchase. I am yet to see Ctoo effectively challenged on this. So at the moment, against my instinct, I am inclined to believe that labour weren’t profligate.

What do you think?

I think the point is they were running a deficit at a time of economic boom and you are not supposed to do that.

Economic booms are the time where you pay back your debts that you ran up in recession.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
deleted
Edited by Affa, Oct 17 2014, 09:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Oct 17 2014, 09:14 AM
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:10 AM
If we are going to play the blame game, and it looks like there’s a definite appetite for that, let us do it properly. I am very interested in this and have read most of the threads relating to this. Formerly I was of the opinion that NL was throwing our money around during the last government. Ctoo states that there spending was circa 40% of GDP and that does tally with what was generally considered to be sustainable and wise. Then the “crisis” hit.

IF Labour were spending circa 40% GDP when the crisis hit I don’t think the accusation that they were throwing money around willy nilly has much purchase. I am yet to see Ctoo effectively challenged on this. So at the moment, against my instinct, I am inclined to believe that labour weren’t profligate.

What do you think?

I think the point is they were running a deficit at a time of economic boom and you are not supposed to do that.

Economic booms are the time where you pay back your debts that you ran up in recession.
Good Point and a sensible approach. I wonder how many of our governments since the sixties paid off debts in booms.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:10 AM


What do you think?

I think you are spot on!
I note that Andy makes a different analysis based on the fact that (prior to the crash) the economy was growing (not Booming - averaging about 3% annually), and that running a deficit (below 3% GDP - 3% being the ceiling before the EU calls for interventions), has contributed significantly to our difficulties today.
That isn't correct! The biggest factor in the UK deficit being so large is that the Financial Sector stopped contributing to the Treasury and became a drain on it. That Sector was the major reason for UK prosperity, the country being more reliant on the FS Sector than any other - we lost the main source of income.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 17 2014, 09:43 AM
I think you are spot on!
I note that Andy makes a different analysis based on the fact that (prior to the crash) the economy was growing (not Booming - averaging about 3% annually), and that running a deficit (below 3% GDP - 3% being the ceiling before the EU calls for interventions), has contributed significantly to our difficulties today.
That isn't correct! The biggest factor in the UK deficit being so large is that the Financial Sector stopped contributing to the Treasury and became a drain on it. That Sector was the major reason for UK prosperity, the country being more reliant on the FS Sector than any other - we lost the main source of income.
And not one financial terrorist prosecuted in the UK. How odd.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Marconi
Oct 17 2014, 09:58 AM
Affa
Oct 17 2014, 09:43 AM
I think you are spot on!
I note that Andy makes a different analysis based on the fact that (prior to the crash) the economy was growing (not Booming - averaging about 3% annually), and that running a deficit (below 3% GDP - 3% being the ceiling before the EU calls for interventions), has contributed significantly to our difficulties today.
That isn't correct! The biggest factor in the UK deficit being so large is that the Financial Sector stopped contributing to the Treasury and became a drain on it. That Sector was the major reason for UK prosperity, the country being more reliant on the FS Sector than any other - we lost the main source of income.
And not one financial terrorist prosecuted in the UK. How odd.
Quite right. I think we should have kicked up more of a stink. There's still time but right now it's looking decidedly like society gets what society deserves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Gnikkk
Oct 17 2014, 05:54 AM
But, but, but,..., but we were screwed by the last government. What chance has a country that despite good news there will always be some who cannot move on from their childhood indoctrination.
It is the responsibility of Gov. to protect our economy as best they can from unexpected chilled winds. Brown did the opposite and Merkel is being castigated today from seeking to protect the German economy.
Labour is genetically focussed on spending and seeking to re-engineer society into some acceptable social mould, it has no interest in wealth or job creation. Without a programme of spending, mainly increasing current running costs with Big Nanny, it has no reason to exist. Labour will never put the health of the economy as paramount. That said the Tories whilst being extremely lackadaisical in reducing the deficit at least they recognise that this must be done and not avoided. I think this is the reason why Joe Public trusts the two posh boys with the economy, but does not trust the two Eds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 17 2014, 11:36 AM
It is the responsibility of Gov. to protect our economy as best they can from unexpected chilled winds.
The current one is failing badly at that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:36 AM
AndyK
Oct 17 2014, 09:14 AM
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:10 AM
If we are going to play the blame game, and it looks like there’s a definite appetite for that, let us do it properly. I am very interested in this and have read most of the threads relating to this. Formerly I was of the opinion that NL was throwing our money around during the last government. Ctoo states that there spending was circa 40% of GDP and that does tally with what was generally considered to be sustainable and wise. Then the “crisis” hit.

IF Labour were spending circa 40% GDP when the crisis hit I don’t think the accusation that they were throwing money around willy nilly has much purchase. I am yet to see Ctoo effectively challenged on this. So at the moment, against my instinct, I am inclined to believe that labour weren’t profligate.

What do you think?

I think the point is they were running a deficit at a time of economic boom and you are not supposed to do that.

Economic booms are the time where you pay back your debts that you ran up in recession.
Good Point and a sensible approach. I wonder how many of our governments since the sixties paid off debts in booms.
Nearly none. Economists favour The Golden Rule and ensuring that the debt:GDP is no greater than 40%. However, that does not mean we could not target 20% or 10%, but not 50%+
We need to resist Politician and Political Parties that promise to borrow money and expand the State sector faster than our average rate of long term growth. Yep ~2.5% PA or less. This is what the Tory Gov. was about pre-1997 but NL decided to bin that and splurge. Now we are struggling to reel-in their profligacy. Remember that in the boom years NL borrowed for every year from 2002 to spend on current consumption and if it was not for the 3G licences they would have started earlier.
If you ever wish to see the UK with a balanced economy, with slimmer State and more real jobs then you must resist Labour as they want us to emulate France.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 17 2014, 11:36 AM
Gnikkk
Oct 17 2014, 05:54 AM
But, but, but,..., but we were screwed by the last government. What chance has a country that despite good news there will always be some who cannot move on from their childhood indoctrination.
It is the responsibility of Gov. to protect our economy as best they can from unexpected chilled winds. Brown did the opposite and Merkel is being castigated today from seeking to protect the German economy.
Labour is genetically focussed on spending and seeking to re-engineer society into some acceptable social mould, it has no interest in wealth or job creation. Without a programme of spending, mainly increasing current running costs with Big Nanny, it has no reason to exist. Labour will never put the health of the economy as paramount. That said the Tories whilst being extremely lackadaisical in reducing the deficit at least they recognise that this must be done and not avoided. I think this is the reason why Joe Public trusts the two posh boys with the economy, but does not trust the two Eds.
Tories are genetically focused on squeezing every last drop of blood out of those less able to further enrich their donors. They have no interest in fairness or justice. Without a programme of cuts, mainly aimed at reducing the size of the safety net for the weak and vulnerable in society, it has no reason to exist. Labour, whilst being somewhat lacksadaisical in their desire to reduce the deficit realise that an economy is about more than just money. I think this is why Joe Public, whilst not being overly enamoured of the two eds, prefer them to the posh boys who came up with the Phrase “we are all in this together” as they “shaft” those they can rather than those they should.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH: Tories are genetically focused on squeezing every last drop of blood out of those less able to further enrich their donors.

Load of unsubstantiated Marxist BS.

ACH: They have no interest in fairness or justice.

What does this mean? Whose fairness whose justice? Same emotional twaddled trotted out by the left over the last 50 years. Means bugger all unless you flesh it out.

ACH: Without a programme of cuts, mainly aimed at reducing the size of the safety net for the weak and vulnerable in society, it has no reason to exist.

More Marxist inspired crap. Nobody has asked for a destruction of the State only that it is brought to a sensible size and made to work efficiently.

ACH: Labour, whilst being somewhat lacksadaisical in their desire to reduce the deficit realise that an economy is about more than just money. I think this is why Joe Public, whilst not being overly enamoured of the two eds, prefer them to the posh boys who came up with the Phrase “we are all in this together” as they “shaft” those they can rather than those they should.

Sorry but the economy is about money. Do not confuse the State with the economy.

As for who is doing the heavy lifting then claiming it is those that are either making no contribution or lightly taxed is a joke. The weight, under this Gov. has shifted, so it should, more on to the shoulders of those that can contribute more. The Top 10% pay for the Lion's share an increasing share. Those at the bottom are contributing less increasingly so.

ACH best not spread the crap from the Old Red Nag as it is just that. Crap!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD: Labour is genetically focussed on spending and seeking to re-engineer society into some acceptable social mould,
ACH: Load of unsubstantiated facist bollox
RJD: it has no interest in wealth or job creation
ACH: What does this mean. They created a ¾ of a million public sector jobs. Same ideological nonsense parading as logic that you have been peddling since I arrived on this forum.
RJD: Without a programme of spending, mainly increasing current running costs with Big Nanny, it has no reason to exist
ACH: More facist inspired crap Nobody wants a massive nanny state just one that provides a decent standard of living for those not rich enough to buy everything they desire.
RJD: Labour, whilst being somewhat lacksadaisical in their desire to reduce the deficit realise that an economy is about more than just money

ACH: The economy is about people. Don’t confuse people and their minds with inanimate resources.
Best not deconstruct that which is little more than a parody of what you posted with a “logical dissection” from the sioree that Adolf and Benitos invited you to 
Live Long and Prosper
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD: Labour is genetically focussed on spending and seeking to re-engineer society into some acceptable social mould,
ACH: Load of unsubstantiated facist bollox.

But I have and can provide proof of this. For starters just look at the increase in the absolute size of the State from 1997 to 2010 and then compare this to any other recent post war period.


RJD: it has no interest in wealth or job creation
ACH: What does this mean. They created a ¾ of a million public sector jobs. Same ideological nonsense parading as logic that you have been peddling since I arrived on this forum.

Under NL we saw a massive reduction in manufacturing value added ~£44b Claiming that Public Sector jobs are equivalent in terms of wealth creation is ignorant of the facts.


RJD: Without a programme of spending, mainly increasing current running costs with Big Nanny, it has no reason to exist
ACH: More facist inspired crap Nobody wants a massive nanny state just one that provides a decent standard of living for those not rich enough to buy everything they desire.

Then why allow her to become so large?


ACH: The economy is about people. Don’t confuse people and their minds with inanimate resources.

The economy is measured in money terms. It is about money. It is about finance, borrowing, GDP, GDP per head etc. etc. The size and structure of the welfare programme is a separate social issue.

ACH: Best not deconstruct that which is little more than a parody of what you posted with a “logical dissection” from the sioree that Adolf and Benitos invited you to 
Live Long and Prosper

Sounds like some cut and paste BS.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
You can provide proof that labour are genetically focused on something can you. I suspect not.
You said that labour had no interest in Wealth or Job creation. It created ¾ million jobs. You are wrong and changing the goals posts doesn’t change that.
You state that the Nanny State is so large. Define large. Large in comparison to what?
That the economy is measured in money does not mean that it is simply about money. This is an oversimplification. You might like for it to be only about money so you don’t have to consider that people less fortunate than yourself might be suffering and you can ignore this.
Sounds like some cut and paste BS huh. Do you mean it’s pathetically childish like perhaps “nonsense on the back of a beer mat from the old red nag”. If you don’t like childhish sh21t like this perhaps you shouldn’t post it in the first place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 01:41 PM
You can provide proof that labour are genetically focused on something can you.
I doubt he can prove that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Oct 17 2014, 07:47 AM
disgruntled porker
Oct 17 2014, 07:26 AM
It's the younger generations who fall for the Tory claptrap. Older people have seen the damage they are caple of inflicting.
The young people vote for the Tory's how do you figure that out?
That's like the SNP voters calling the older people up in Scotland traitor and cowards for wanting to stay part of the UK
Oh do shut up, the grown ups are trying to talk.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 16 2014, 08:24 PM
C-too
Oct 16 2014, 08:09 PM
We certainly don't have an international financial meltdown/bust every 8 years. :)
Looking at the panic in the markets today, personally I would not put a bet on that.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/16/markets-global-idUKL6N0SB1S620141016

GLOBAL MARKETS-Europe falls again as global rout resumes
Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:52pm BST


* European shares, periphery euro bonds slump for second
day.
* U.S. data awaited as U.S. Treasuries nudge 2 percent
* Dollar steadies, commodities take another step lower
* Euro skids 11 month low vs yen, gold climbs

By Marc Jones
LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - World markets tumbled for a
second day on Thursday, hurt by concerns about the health of
world economy and fears that Europe's debt crisis was waking up
from a two-year siesta.
European stock markets slumped, with London
, Frankfurt and Paris down 1.8, 1.7 and
2.4 percent by midday and Greek shares down 3 percent for
a loss of 17 percent in a week.
Wall Street was also expected to open sharply lower,
with futures prices signalling falls of 1.3 percent for the S&P
500 and 1.4 for the Dow Jones, as market
volatility stayed at its highest since 2011 and investors braced
for a flurry of economic data and earnings.
Assets that depend on economic growth, such as shares and
oil, have been hit by a raft of weak indicators from Europe at a
time when other big economies including China, Japan and Brazil
face their own hardships.
These come as the U.S. Federal Reserve prepares to wind down
later this month the asset purchase programme that has boosted
markets over the past two years. Many observers doubt that new
measures from the European Central Bank will make up for it.
"Equity markets are going through a growth, inflation and
liquidity scare right now and we are seeing some pretty savage
equity price moves," said Morgan Stanley strategist Graham
Secker.
"Positioning and technical factors are driving near-term
asset prices, so investors are effectively having to sell what
they can."
The euro skidded to a fresh 11-month low against the
safe-haven yen while euro zone peripheral bonds from Greece to
Portugal and Italy to Spain saw renewed heavy selling.
The sell-off had echoes of the zenith of the euro debt
crisis and left investors scurrying for traditional safe havens.
German 10-year Bund yields -- which fall as
demand for the bonds rises -- hit a fresh record low. U.S.
Treasury yields were nudging 2 percent again and
gold also sprang back up towards a one-month high.


EURO ZONE ON ALERT
As well as meek global growth, European markets have been
rattled by fears that the fragile government in Greece, one of
the countries at the centre of the region's debt crisis, could
fall and leave an anti-bailout party to take the reins in
Athens.
Greek 10-year bond yields jumped 110 bps again to 8.94
on Thursday as their biggest sell-off since
October 2008 continued.
One of Greece's euro partners told Reuters late on Wednesday
that Athens was changing its mind about quitting its EU/IMF aid
programme next year, while a source said on Thursday the ECB
would make it easier for Greek banks to tap its cheap funding.

But the sell-off was not confined to Greece. Portuguese
, Spanish and Italian
10-year yields rose too, jumping 25-45 bps to 3.75, 2.45 and
2.31 percent respectively.
They all pulled further away from Germany's benchmark Bunds
, which sank to new low yield of 0.75 percent.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told parliament in Berlin on
Thursday that the euro zone must not drop its guard.
"The crisis has not yet been permanently and sustainably
overcome because the causes, regarding the set-up of the
European economic and currency union and the situation of
individual member states, haven't been eliminated," she said.

GROWTH GLOOM
In the currency markets, the U.S. dollar was back on
a firmer footing after one of its sharpest drops of the year on
Wednesday as the Japanese yen, which tends to be favoured
during market turbulence also made gains.
Only a month ago, markets <0#FF:> were thinking the Federal
Reserve could raise U.S. rates as early as June next year, but
after the stormy last few weeks traders have pushed back their
expectations to the first quarter of 2016.
Wall Street stocks have been slammed too. The benchmark S&P
500 and the MSCI 45-country world index
have lost almost 10 percent in the last three weeks. U.S. stocks
are still up 170 percent since the depths of the financial
crisis in 2009 though.
As U.S. trading began, the dollar's index was at 85.188,
flat on the day.
Oil and commodity prices were back under pressure, though.
Brent crude, which has fallen more than 28 percent
since June amid slow demand and signs that producers are not
cutting output, hovered at a 4-year low of $82.93 a barrel as
U.S. crude slumped to $80.45.
Safe-haven gold, meanwhile, was within touching
distance of a one-month high at $1,242, while growth-sensitive
copper fell 1.25 percent after shedding 2.3 percent in
the previous session, its biggest daily drop since March.

(Additional reporting by Harpreet Bhal in London; editing by
Anna Willard)


The Stock Market has been falling since September not just the last couple of days due to a drop in the price of oil and investors getting nervous about the European Market, and the possibility of the USA raising its interest rates.

When investors get nervous they sell which snowballs and more sell however the market is starting to recover as investors start to buy again.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Oct 17 2014, 05:12 PM
HIGHWAY
Oct 17 2014, 07:47 AM
disgruntled porker
Oct 17 2014, 07:26 AM
It's the younger generations who fall for the Tory claptrap. Older people have seen the damage they are caple of inflicting.
The young people vote for the Tory's how do you figure that out?
That's like the SNP voters calling the older people up in Scotland traitor and cowards for wanting to stay part of the UK
Oh do shut up, the grown ups are trying to talk.
Hey the grunter is still here,,,or is it just day release
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Oct 17 2014, 09:14 AM
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:10 AM
If we are going to play the blame game, and it looks like there’s a definite appetite for that, let us do it properly. I am very interested in this and have read most of the threads relating to this. Formerly I was of the opinion that NL was throwing our money around during the last government. Ctoo states that there spending was circa 40% of GDP and that does tally with what was generally considered to be sustainable and wise. Then the “crisis” hit.

IF Labour were spending circa 40% GDP when the crisis hit I don’t think the accusation that they were throwing money around willy nilly has much purchase. I am yet to see Ctoo effectively challenged on this. So at the moment, against my instinct, I am inclined to believe that labour weren’t profligate.

What do you think?

I think the point is they were running a deficit at a time of economic boom and you are not supposed to do that.

Economic booms are the time where you pay back your debts that you ran up in recession.
We did not have an economic boom it was just the traditional British economic activity of inflating house prices, opening the credit taps and letting the guys in the City invent new ways to sell debt and shuffle money, and would you believe it we're doing it again!  :(

I do wonder about this country and the now alarming levels of self deception evident, booms traditionally were accompanied by rising productivity and strong capital investment and not applying a foot pump to asset prices and pretending everything is dandy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 17 2014, 06:43 PM
papasmurf
Oct 16 2014, 08:24 PM
C-too
Oct 16 2014, 08:09 PM
We certainly don't have an international financial meltdown/bust every 8 years. :)
Looking at the panic in the markets today, personally I would not put a bet on that.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/16/markets-global-idUKL6N0SB1S620141016

GLOBAL MARKETS-Europe falls again as global rout resumes
Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:52pm BST


* European shares, periphery euro bonds slump for second
day.
* U.S. data awaited as U.S. Treasuries nudge 2 percent
* Dollar steadies, commodities take another step lower
* Euro skids 11 month low vs yen, gold climbs

By Marc Jones
LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - World markets tumbled for a
second day on Thursday, hurt by concerns about the health of
world economy and fears that Europe's debt crisis was waking up
from a two-year siesta.
European stock markets slumped, with London
, Frankfurt and Paris down 1.8, 1.7 and
2.4 percent by midday and Greek shares down 3 percent for
a loss of 17 percent in a week.
Wall Street was also expected to open sharply lower,
with futures prices signalling falls of 1.3 percent for the S&P
500 and 1.4 for the Dow Jones, as market
volatility stayed at its highest since 2011 and investors braced
for a flurry of economic data and earnings.
Assets that depend on economic growth, such as shares and
oil, have been hit by a raft of weak indicators from Europe at a
time when other big economies including China, Japan and Brazil
face their own hardships.
These come as the U.S. Federal Reserve prepares to wind down
later this month the asset purchase programme that has boosted
markets over the past two years. Many observers doubt that new
measures from the European Central Bank will make up for it.
"Equity markets are going through a growth, inflation and
liquidity scare right now and we are seeing some pretty savage
equity price moves," said Morgan Stanley strategist Graham
Secker.
"Positioning and technical factors are driving near-term
asset prices, so investors are effectively having to sell what
they can."
The euro skidded to a fresh 11-month low against the
safe-haven yen while euro zone peripheral bonds from Greece to
Portugal and Italy to Spain saw renewed heavy selling.
The sell-off had echoes of the zenith of the euro debt
crisis and left investors scurrying for traditional safe havens.
German 10-year Bund yields -- which fall as
demand for the bonds rises -- hit a fresh record low. U.S.
Treasury yields were nudging 2 percent again and
gold also sprang back up towards a one-month high.


EURO ZONE ON ALERT
As well as meek global growth, European markets have been
rattled by fears that the fragile government in Greece, one of
the countries at the centre of the region's debt crisis, could
fall and leave an anti-bailout party to take the reins in
Athens.
Greek 10-year bond yields jumped 110 bps again to 8.94
on Thursday as their biggest sell-off since
October 2008 continued.
One of Greece's euro partners told Reuters late on Wednesday
that Athens was changing its mind about quitting its EU/IMF aid
programme next year, while a source said on Thursday the ECB
would make it easier for Greek banks to tap its cheap funding.

But the sell-off was not confined to Greece. Portuguese
, Spanish and Italian
10-year yields rose too, jumping 25-45 bps to 3.75, 2.45 and
2.31 percent respectively.
They all pulled further away from Germany's benchmark Bunds
, which sank to new low yield of 0.75 percent.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told parliament in Berlin on
Thursday that the euro zone must not drop its guard.
"The crisis has not yet been permanently and sustainably
overcome because the causes, regarding the set-up of the
European economic and currency union and the situation of
individual member states, haven't been eliminated," she said.

GROWTH GLOOM
In the currency markets, the U.S. dollar was back on
a firmer footing after one of its sharpest drops of the year on
Wednesday as the Japanese yen, which tends to be favoured
during market turbulence also made gains.
Only a month ago, markets <0#FF:> were thinking the Federal
Reserve could raise U.S. rates as early as June next year, but
after the stormy last few weeks traders have pushed back their
expectations to the first quarter of 2016.
Wall Street stocks have been slammed too. The benchmark S&P
500 and the MSCI 45-country world index
have lost almost 10 percent in the last three weeks. U.S. stocks
are still up 170 percent since the depths of the financial
crisis in 2009 though.
As U.S. trading began, the dollar's index was at 85.188,
flat on the day.
Oil and commodity prices were back under pressure, though.
Brent crude, which has fallen more than 28 percent
since June amid slow demand and signs that producers are not
cutting output, hovered at a 4-year low of $82.93 a barrel as
U.S. crude slumped to $80.45.
Safe-haven gold, meanwhile, was within touching
distance of a one-month high at $1,242, while growth-sensitive
copper fell 1.25 percent after shedding 2.3 percent in
the previous session, its biggest daily drop since March.

(Additional reporting by Harpreet Bhal in London; editing by
Anna Willard)


The Stock Market has been falling since September not just the last couple of days due to a drop in the price of oil and investors getting nervous about the European Market, and the possibility of the USA raising its interest rates.

When investors get nervous they sell which snowballs and more sell however the market is starting to recover as investors start to buy again.

No, look beyond the Anglo Saxon World and see what they are saying.

In Europe they are now aware that there are two price indices in the economy, asset prices and current prices, both of these operate independently but over different time scales and indeed different markets, the latter must always validate the former otherwise we get recession which is what we are in my opinion still suffering from..

To get a sustainable recovery, note the word sustainable here, the two must be brought into balance, by continually subsidizing the market the balance is kept artificially in favour of asset holders, eventually society will be unable to pay the rent seekers and speculators the dues they believe they deserve, this is now starting to dawn on the markets..........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Some years ago I was at Manchester University when I decided to visit a local factory where I had been employed a few years earlier. I didn't mention it at the time but I was shocked at the state of a number of the workers who were just about out on their feet and I recalled how I used to have a sleep when I arrived home from working in that heavy engineering factory.

About six years later I was talking to a very successful business man and I mentioned my experience in Manchester, he wasn't fussed in the least all he said was something on the lines of, that's the way it works.

I interpreted that as saying you get as much as you can out of your employees while paying them as little as possible, needless to say he is a multi millionaire. There is a problem in there somewhere.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
AndyK
Oct 17 2014, 09:14 AM
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:10 AM
If we are going to play the blame game, and it looks like there’s a definite appetite for that, let us do it properly. I am very interested in this and have read most of the threads relating to this. Formerly I was of the opinion that NL was throwing our money around during the last government. Ctoo states that there spending was circa 40% of GDP and that does tally with what was generally considered to be sustainable and wise. Then the “crisis” hit.

IF Labour were spending circa 40% GDP when the crisis hit I don’t think the accusation that they were throwing money around willy nilly has much purchase. I am yet to see Ctoo effectively challenged on this. So at the moment, against my instinct, I am inclined to believe that labour weren’t profligate.

What do you think?

I think the point is they were running a deficit at a time of economic boom and you are not supposed to do that.

Economic booms are the time where you pay back your debts that you ran up in recession.
NL paid off the post WWII debt to America.

They reduced the debt to GDP from 42% to less than 30% and then began to repair the damage they inherited in 1997.

The UK debt to GDP in 2006, (the slide into the meltdown began in 2007) was 36%.

The UK deficit to GDP in 2006 was 2.6% which was lower than in Germany, France, the US and in many other countries.
The EU guideline for deficit to GDP was 3%.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:10 AM
If we are going to play the blame game, and it looks like there’s a definite appetite for that, let us do it properly. I am very interested in this and have read most of the threads relating to this. Formerly I was of the opinion that NL was throwing our money around during the last government. Ctoo states that there spending was circa 40% of GDP and that does tally with what was generally considered to be sustainable and wise. Then the “crisis” hit.

IF Labour were spending circa 40% GDP when the crisis hit I don’t think the accusation that they were throwing money around willy nilly has much purchase. I am yet to see Ctoo effectively challenged on this. So at the moment, against my instinct, I am inclined to believe that labour weren’t profligate.

What do you think?


That's to look at it the wrong way round which is why Ctoo (and others) like to blame the bankers.

In real terms NewLab were increasing government spending recklessly when there should have been no need

Posted Image

Now they were able to 'justify' this because the overlending indicated GDP went up so much

Posted Image

But it was illusion, froth as RJD says. The bankers can be blamed for that and its part in preventing prompt government criticism for their idiocy of driving us up shit creek but it was the government wot did it.

C-too
Oct 17 2014, 08:02 PM
NL paid off the post WWII debt to America.

They reduced the debt to GDP from 42% to less than 30% and then began to repair the damage they inherited in 1997.

The UK debt to GDP in 2006, (the slide into the meltdown began in 2007) was 36%.

The UK deficit to GDP in 2006 was 2.6% which was lower than in Germany, France, the US and in many other countries.
The EU guideline for deficit to GDP was 3%.


Yes you keep using that "to GDP" line to defend their idiocy but it was hopelessly delusory GDP level compared to what we were earning and Gordon Brown was on the record warned it was so. But he kept on spending, after all he needed to make sure NewLab got re-elected in 2005 or he'd never get to the top step. And to Gordon that top step was far far more important than running an economy properly.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 17 2014, 10:15 PM
ACH1967
Oct 17 2014, 09:10 AM
If we are going to play the blame game, and it looks like there’s a definite appetite for that, let us do it properly.

IF Labour were spending circa 40% GDP when the crisis hit I don’t think the accusation that they were throwing money around willy nilly has much purchase. I am yet to see Ctoo effectively challenged on this. So at the moment, against my instinct, I am inclined to believe that labour weren’t profligate.

What do you think?


That's to look at it the wrong way round which is why Ctoo (and others) like to blame the bankers.

In real terms NewLab were increasing government spending recklessly when there should have been no need

Posted Image

Now they were able to 'justify' this because the overlending indicated GDP went up so much

Posted Image



Sorry for editing screw up >>>
Affa Wrote >>>>

The problem I have with this is the selectivity, the charts, and their criteria.
One is for Total spend £bns, the other Spend at 2005 parity.

You also use the word 'recklessly' - that brings in 'affordability', which must then introduce %GDP.

So the chart we need to see whether Labour's spending was 'reckless' is this one.

Posted Image

And certainly, Labour were increasing spending at a time when it would have been more prudent to reduce spending (I have no fathomable reason for this extra spend - I know not why)
Contrary to the spin, it was not increased Welfare spending causing the rise (though it did rise - by less than most others)

Look at these charts (one page) - the biggest increases were in the NHS, and Education.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/charts
Edited by Affa, Oct 17 2014, 11:32 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Both charts I posted were in 2005 £ terms Affa, not sure why you have a problem with that.

And they very much increased welfare in real terms, just when it should have been going down

Posted Image

But then for Gordon that 2005 election just had to be won despite the Iraq fallout.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Who's blaming the bankers? A real banker is someone who is responsible to his financial institution, the wider community and the country, who is professional and has integrity.

If he isn't any those things then he is not a banker, he is a financial terrorist.

So are we saying that those who were working in the financial institutions at the time of the crash are not even a teeny weensy bit responsible for sinking the economy?

It would have been in the interest of real bankers to have prosecuted the rogues within the industry and bring confidence to the markets and the public. Instead they blamed everyone else.


Wish me luck tomorrow when I am at work - I am going to break all the CNC machines then do bugger all and blame it on my mate Steve. Let's see how long I last in my job.



Edited by Marconi, Oct 18 2014, 12:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 17 2014, 11:45 PM
Both charts I posted were in 2005 £ terms Affa, not sure why you have a problem with that.

And they very much increased welfare in real terms, just when it should have been going down
But then for Gordon that 2005 election just had to be won despite the Iraq fallout.


Don't know how I got that wrong, I deliberately looked for it and missed seeing it (gremlins).

I agree that there is no obvious reason for the extra spend (other than politicking) though to me that makes no sense either - did more harm than good in that regard.

Welfare spending increased at a slower rate than other spends - I think tax credits and other 'in-work' benefits can explain that. Rent increases (housing benefits) ...... it's not at all a voter winning effort. People on benefits aren't going to vote Tory are they.

The only parallel I know of is that these increases Do coincide with EU expansionism ........ ?




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 17 2014, 07:36 PM
Stan Still
Oct 17 2014, 06:43 PM
papasmurf
Oct 16 2014, 08:24 PM
C-too
Oct 16 2014, 08:09 PM
We certainly don't have an international financial meltdown/bust every 8 years. :)
Looking at the panic in the markets today, personally I would not put a bet on that.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/16/markets-global-idUKL6N0SB1S620141016

GLOBAL MARKETS-Europe falls again as global rout resumes
Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:52pm BST


* European shares, periphery euro bonds slump for second
day.
* U.S. data awaited as U.S. Treasuries nudge 2 percent
* Dollar steadies, commodities take another step lower
* Euro skids 11 month low vs yen, gold climbs

By Marc Jones
LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - World markets tumbled for a
second day on Thursday, hurt by concerns about the health of
world economy and fears that Europe's debt crisis was waking up
from a two-year siesta.
European stock markets slumped, with London
, Frankfurt and Paris down 1.8, 1.7 and
2.4 percent by midday and Greek shares down 3 percent for
a loss of 17 percent in a week.
Wall Street was also expected to open sharply lower,
with futures prices signalling falls of 1.3 percent for the S&P
500 and 1.4 for the Dow Jones, as market
volatility stayed at its highest since 2011 and investors braced
for a flurry of economic data and earnings.
Assets that depend on economic growth, such as shares and
oil, have been hit by a raft of weak indicators from Europe at a
time when other big economies including China, Japan and Brazil
face their own hardships.
These come as the U.S. Federal Reserve prepares to wind down
later this month the asset purchase programme that has boosted
markets over the past two years. Many observers doubt that new
measures from the European Central Bank will make up for it.
"Equity markets are going through a growth, inflation and
liquidity scare right now and we are seeing some pretty savage
equity price moves," said Morgan Stanley strategist Graham
Secker.
"Positioning and technical factors are driving near-term
asset prices, so investors are effectively having to sell what
they can."
The euro skidded to a fresh 11-month low against the
safe-haven yen while euro zone peripheral bonds from Greece to
Portugal and Italy to Spain saw renewed heavy selling.
The sell-off had echoes of the zenith of the euro debt
crisis and left investors scurrying for traditional safe havens.
German 10-year Bund yields -- which fall as
demand for the bonds rises -- hit a fresh record low. U.S.
Treasury yields were nudging 2 percent again and
gold also sprang back up towards a one-month high.


EURO ZONE ON ALERT
As well as meek global growth, European markets have been
rattled by fears that the fragile government in Greece, one of
the countries at the centre of the region's debt crisis, could
fall and leave an anti-bailout party to take the reins in
Athens.
Greek 10-year bond yields jumped 110 bps again to 8.94
on Thursday as their biggest sell-off since
October 2008 continued.
One of Greece's euro partners told Reuters late on Wednesday
that Athens was changing its mind about quitting its EU/IMF aid
programme next year, while a source said on Thursday the ECB
would make it easier for Greek banks to tap its cheap funding.

But the sell-off was not confined to Greece. Portuguese
, Spanish and Italian
10-year yields rose too, jumping 25-45 bps to 3.75, 2.45 and
2.31 percent respectively.
They all pulled further away from Germany's benchmark Bunds
, which sank to new low yield of 0.75 percent.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told parliament in Berlin on
Thursday that the euro zone must not drop its guard.
"The crisis has not yet been permanently and sustainably
overcome because the causes, regarding the set-up of the
European economic and currency union and the situation of
individual member states, haven't been eliminated," she said.

GROWTH GLOOM
In the currency markets, the U.S. dollar was back on
a firmer footing after one of its sharpest drops of the year on
Wednesday as the Japanese yen, which tends to be favoured
during market turbulence also made gains.
Only a month ago, markets <0#FF:> were thinking the Federal
Reserve could raise U.S. rates as early as June next year, but
after the stormy last few weeks traders have pushed back their
expectations to the first quarter of 2016.
Wall Street stocks have been slammed too. The benchmark S&P
500 and the MSCI 45-country world index
have lost almost 10 percent in the last three weeks. U.S. stocks
are still up 170 percent since the depths of the financial
crisis in 2009 though.
As U.S. trading began, the dollar's index was at 85.188,
flat on the day.
Oil and commodity prices were back under pressure, though.
Brent crude, which has fallen more than 28 percent
since June amid slow demand and signs that producers are not
cutting output, hovered at a 4-year low of $82.93 a barrel as
U.S. crude slumped to $80.45.
Safe-haven gold, meanwhile, was within touching
distance of a one-month high at $1,242, while growth-sensitive
copper fell 1.25 percent after shedding 2.3 percent in
the previous session, its biggest daily drop since March.

(Additional reporting by Harpreet Bhal in London; editing by
Anna Willard)


The Stock Market has been falling since September not just the last couple of days due to a drop in the price of oil and investors getting nervous about the European Market, and the possibility of the USA raising its interest rates.

When investors get nervous they sell which snowballs and more sell however the market is starting to recover as investors start to buy again.

No, look beyond the Anglo Saxon World and see what they are saying.

In Europe they are now aware that there are two price indices in the economy, asset prices and current prices, both of these operate independently but over different time scales and indeed different markets, the latter must always validate the former otherwise we get recession which is what we are in my opinion still suffering from..

To get a sustainable recovery, note the word sustainable here, the two must be brought into balance, by continually subsidizing the market the balance is kept artificially in favour of asset holders, eventually society will be unable to pay the rent seekers and speculators the dues they believe they deserve, this is now starting to dawn on the markets..........
The economists have looked beyond borders for years due to investment being a global market, in addition to what I posted earlier on top of the nervousness about the European Economy and the Euro especially what is happening in France, the economy of China and its neighbours is slowing down.

That is what has made investors sell shares over the last few weeks, lower investment puts employment at risk world wide, but the market was starting to recover as of yesterday when investors started to buy shares again.

Like it or not we need the global market to be robust and strong if you and I want to keep earning paying our bills and feeding our families, you would soon go out of business if few could afford to pay for your services.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
HIGHWAY
Oct 17 2014, 08:54 AM
All goes back to Blair and Brown in charge,,that's when Britain went pear shaped
Its not pear shaped now?

The economy is beginning to collapse again.

Immigration despite the incompetents weasel words is just as high as ever and increasing.

Interest rates are far too low for those who have savings.

Government borrowing is as high as ever.

In short just a shambles.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 17 2014, 11:45 PM
Both charts I posted were in 2005 £ terms Affa, not sure why you have a problem with that.

And they very much increased welfare in real terms, just when it should have been going down

Posted Image

But then for Gordon that 2005 election just had to be won despite the Iraq fallout.

Your timeslot is way too short to get a true appreciation of what has been going on.

Thereby rendering your argument mostly invalid. Welfare has been steadily increasing as we see from 1980 (short respite in circa 2000), when we had a mostly competent government in power.

Posted Image
Edited by Lewis, Oct 18 2014, 06:54 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
The state of the economy is not dandy with the most significant problem being low productivity. Tax receipts are not growing and all the evidence points to the fact that we should have cut the overhang in a single Parliament. Unless we get a Gov with gonads this borrowing to fuel current consumption will go on for decades. Labour have no interest in the future only the votes to be bought today.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Oct 18 2014, 07:28 AM
Tax receipts are not growing and all the evidence points to the fact that we should have cut the overhang in a single Parliament.
With not a care in the world about the dire consequences that would have had for millions of people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 07:32 AM
RJD
Oct 18 2014, 07:28 AM
Tax receipts are not growing and all the evidence points to the fact that we should have cut the overhang in a single Parliament.
With not a care in the world about the dire consequences that would have had for millions of people.
Of course not. He is probably in a position to ride it out nicely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Oct 18 2014, 07:42 AM
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 07:32 AM
RJD
Oct 18 2014, 07:28 AM
Tax receipts are not growing and all the evidence points to the fact that we should have cut the overhang in a single Parliament.
With not a care in the world about the dire consequences that would have had for millions of people.
Of course not. He is probably in a position to ride it out nicely.
Quite, there was an interview on Radio 4 earlier this morning. Husband earning £19000 gross , wife £8000 gross, three children, £8000 of credit card debt.
(The £8000 of credit card debt would terrify me.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 07:49 AM
disgruntled porker
Oct 18 2014, 07:42 AM
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 07:32 AM
RJD
Oct 18 2014, 07:28 AM
Tax receipts are not growing and all the evidence points to the fact that we should have cut the overhang in a single Parliament.
With not a care in the world about the dire consequences that would have had for millions of people.
Of course not. He is probably in a position to ride it out nicely.
Quite, there was an interview on Radio 4 earlier this morning. Husband earning £19000 gross , wife £8000 gross, three children, £8000 of credit card debt.
(The £8000 of credit card debt would terrify me.)
To be honest, they shouldn't run that amount of debt up. I'm happy to say, I've never been in debt in my life. If I can't afford something I want, I save for it. If I cant save for it, I would obviously be unable to pay the debt incurred to get it with borrowed money, and I do without. Same goes for kids, if you can't afford them, don't have them. Prevention is easy and costs nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Lewis
Oct 18 2014, 06:46 AM
HIGHWAY
Oct 17 2014, 08:54 AM
All goes back to Blair and Brown in charge,,that's when Britain went pear shaped
Its not pear shaped now?

The economy is beginning to collapse again.

Immigration despite the incompetents weasel words is just as high as ever and increasing.

Interest rates are far too low for those who have savings.

Government borrowing is as high as ever.

In short just a shambles.
Our economy is not collapsing it is not a strong as one as one would like it but it is slowly improving and soon all being well will overtake France, what happens there may well effect us and those in the Euro zone according to economists .

Frances economy is in serious trouble 10% unemployment, strike ridden right across the board so much so some pundits compare it to the days of the UK under Callaghan in the winter of discontent and the sick man of Europe, their entire economy is in grave danger of collapsing.

The advice the economists give to anyone with money in France is very simple get it out quick, they see the UK as a much safer more stable option, the French community in London is growing and has been for the last few years as they leg it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Oct 18 2014, 08:02 AM
To be honest, they shouldn't run that amount of debt up. I'm happy to say, I've never been in debt in my life. If I can't afford something I want, I save for it. If I cant save for it, I would obviously be unable to pay the debt incurred to get it with borrowed money, and I do without. Same goes for kids, if you can't afford them, don't have them. Prevention is easy and costs nothing.
What I find worrying is apparently personal debt NOT including mortgages is over £1 trillion. That is going to end in tears.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Oct 18 2014, 08:02 AM
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 07:49 AM
disgruntled porker
Oct 18 2014, 07:42 AM
papasmurf
Oct 18 2014, 07:32 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Of course not. He is probably in a position to ride it out nicely.
Quite, there was an interview on Radio 4 earlier this morning. Husband earning £19000 gross , wife £8000 gross, three children, £8000 of credit card debt.
(The £8000 of credit card debt would terrify me.)
To be honest, they shouldn't run that amount of debt up. I'm happy to say, I've never been in debt in my life. If I can't afford something I want, I save for it. If I cant save for it, I would obviously be unable to pay the debt incurred to get it with borrowed money, and I do without. Same goes for kids, if you can't afford them, don't have them. Prevention is easy and costs nothing.
Yes I fully agree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 18 2014, 06:32 AM
Tigger
Oct 17 2014, 07:36 PM
Stan Still
Oct 17 2014, 06:43 PM
papasmurf
Oct 16 2014, 08:24 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deephttp://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/16/markets-global-idUKL6N0SB1S620141016

GLOBAL MARKETS-Europe falls again as global rout resumes
Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:52pm BST


* European shares, periphery euro bonds slump for second
day.
* U.S. data awaited as U.S. Treasuries nudge 2 percent
* Dollar steadies, commodities take another step lower
* Euro skids 11 month low vs yen, gold climbs

By Marc Jones
LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - World markets tumbled for a
second day on Thursday, hurt by concerns about the health of
world economy and fears that Europe's debt crisis was waking up
from a two-year siesta.
European stock markets slumped, with London
, Frankfurt and Paris down 1.8, 1.7 and
2.4 percent by midday and Greek shares down 3 percent for
a loss of 17 percent in a week.
Wall Street was also expected to open sharply lower,
with futures prices signalling falls of 1.3 percent for the S&P
500 and 1.4 for the Dow Jones, as market
volatility stayed at its highest since 2011 and investors braced
for a flurry of economic data and earnings.
Assets that depend on economic growth, such as shares and
oil, have been hit by a raft of weak indicators from Europe at a
time when other big economies including China, Japan and Brazil
face their own hardships.
These come as the U.S. Federal Reserve prepares to wind down
later this month the asset purchase programme that has boosted
markets over the past two years. Many observers doubt that new
measures from the European Central Bank will make up for it.
"Equity markets are going through a growth, inflation and
liquidity scare right now and we are seeing some pretty savage
equity price moves," said Morgan Stanley strategist Graham
Secker.
"Positioning and technical factors are driving near-term
asset prices, so investors are effectively having to sell what
they can."
The euro skidded to a fresh 11-month low against the
safe-haven yen while euro zone peripheral bonds from Greece to
Portugal and Italy to Spain saw renewed heavy selling.
The sell-off had echoes of the zenith of the euro debt
crisis and left investors scurrying for traditional safe havens.
German 10-year Bund yields -- which fall as
demand for the bonds rises -- hit a fresh record low. U.S.
Treasury yields were nudging 2 percent again and
gold also sprang back up towards a one-month high.


EURO ZONE ON ALERT
As well as meek global growth, European markets have been
rattled by fears that the fragile government in Greece, one of
the countries at the centre of the region's debt crisis, could
fall and leave an anti-bailout party to take the reins in
Athens.
Greek 10-year bond yields jumped 110 bps again to 8.94
on Thursday as their biggest sell-off since
October 2008 continued.
One of Greece's euro partners told Reuters late on Wednesday
that Athens was changing its mind about quitting its EU/IMF aid
programme next year, while a source said on Thursday the ECB
would make it easier for Greek banks to tap its cheap funding.

But the sell-off was not confined to Greece. Portuguese
, Spanish and Italian
10-year yields rose too, jumping 25-45 bps to 3.75, 2.45 and
2.31 percent respectively.
They all pulled further away from Germany's benchmark Bunds
, which sank to new low yield of 0.75 percent.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told parliament in Berlin on
Thursday that the euro zone must not drop its guard.
"The crisis has not yet been permanently and sustainably
overcome because the causes, regarding the set-up of the
European economic and currency union and the situation of
individual member states, haven't been eliminated," she said.

GROWTH GLOOM
In the currency markets, the U.S. dollar was back on
a firmer footing after one of its sharpest drops of the year on
Wednesday as the Japanese yen, which tends to be favoured
during market turbulence also made gains.
Only a month ago, markets <0#FF:> were thinking the Federal
Reserve could raise U.S. rates as early as June next year, but
after the stormy last few weeks traders have pushed back their
expectations to the first quarter of 2016.
Wall Street stocks have been slammed too. The benchmark S&P
500 and the MSCI 45-country world index
have lost almost 10 percent in the last three weeks. U.S. stocks
are still up 170 percent since the depths of the financial
crisis in 2009 though.
As U.S. trading began, the dollar's index was at 85.188,
flat on the day.
Oil and commodity prices were back under pressure, though.
Brent crude, which has fallen more than 28 percent
since June amid slow demand and signs that producers are not
cutting output, hovered at a 4-year low of $82.93 a barrel as
U.S. crude slumped to $80.45.
Safe-haven gold, meanwhile, was within touching
distance of a one-month high at $1,242, while growth-sensitive
copper fell 1.25 percent after shedding 2.3 percent in
the previous session, its biggest daily drop since March.

(Additional reporting by Harpreet Bhal in London; editing by
Anna Willard)


The Stock Market has been falling since September not just the last couple of days due to a drop in the price of oil and investors getting nervous about the European Market, and the possibility of the USA raising its interest rates.

When investors get nervous they sell which snowballs and more sell however the market is starting to recover as investors start to buy again.

No, look beyond the Anglo Saxon World and see what they are saying.

In Europe they are now aware that there are two price indices in the economy, asset prices and current prices, both of these operate independently but over different time scales and indeed different markets, the latter must always validate the former otherwise we get recession which is what we are in my opinion still suffering from..

To get a sustainable recovery, note the word sustainable here, the two must be brought into balance, by continually subsidizing the market the balance is kept artificially in favour of asset holders, eventually society will be unable to pay the rent seekers and speculators the dues they believe they deserve, this is now starting to dawn on the markets..........
The economists have looked beyond borders for years due to investment being a global market, in addition to what I posted earlier on top of the nervousness about the European Economy and the Euro especially what is happening in France, the economy of China and its neighbours is slowing down.

That is what has made investors sell shares over the last few weeks, lower investment puts employment at risk world wide, but the market was starting to recover as of yesterday when investors started to buy shares again.

Like it or not we need the global market to be robust and strong if you and I want to keep earning paying our bills and feeding our families, you would soon go out of business if few could afford to pay for your services.
"Economists" do not run the financial system Stan!

Bankers and what I'd very loosely describe as investors do, and all they are interested in is extracting as much profit as possible and sod the longer term consequences, exponential growth is no longer possible instead some consolidation must take place, I repeat those who are productive can no longer afford the inflated prices the markets are demanding, deflation (a dirty word in the City) will restore the balance between what people can afford and what markets can ask.

At the moment assets are being kept at artificially high prices thus resulting in the stagnation we are now seeing once again, those consumers cannot afford to consume at current price points, have you got that now? ie the easy money for the markets is drying up and consumers cannot fill the gap. But don't just take my word for it in the last 24 hours the head of the US federal reserve has said much the same, the growing wealth inequality in the US is damaging the economy, of course the exact same thing applies here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply