Volker-This is not an Ordinary Recession

Wookster

Reaper wrote: »

Last I heard it was improving.
There may be more up-to-date figures but these were the most recent I could find.

Yup - its still negative though. And still large.

chucky

Wookster wrote: »

Yup - its still negative though. And still large.

and you would swap places with Japan?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7909248.stm
Japan's exports plunged 45.7% in January compared with a year ago

Generali

Reaper wrote: »

Last I heard it was improving.
There may be more up-to-date figures but these were the most recent I could find.

Perfectly true and what you'd expect to see as a result of a fall in the value of sterling.

It's still massive however.

Time will tell what will happen to it in future.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Generali wrote: »

Do you have anything more substantive than, 'Europe is doing worse than the UK so any predictions that the UK will fare badly are incorrect'? It's all very well knocking everyone else's arguments but you need to come up with something yourself.

That isn't substantive? Our economy only works in relation to other economies, as we don't live in a bubble. We measure its size and its health on measures that use comparisons - total size, imports, exports, debt.

We are suffering from what will be the deepest Uk recession in living memory. Its going to cost a lot of jobs and hurt a lot of people. What makes this UK recession different from all of our previous ones is that much of the world is also in their deepest recession in a generation. Whatever drop we suffer - GDP, balance of payments, unemployment etc - measures relatively against everyone else, so if we find our economy shrinking less than our major competitors then we exit in a better place than they are.

Its like market share in a declining market. You're losing sales vs the previous year but because you're contracting slower than the market and your competition you find yourself stealing share. Not sustainable long term, but in a downward slump its a much better position to be in than leading the decline.

bubblesmoney

please watch the live treasury select committee hearing going on now on bbc.

live video via this link . you can see archives for older stuff. right now they are discussing the banking crisis.

you can watch the hearing from the start on this link

Generali

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

That isn't substantive? Our economy only works in relation to other economies, as we don't live in a bubble. We measure its size and its health on measures that use comparisons - total size, imports, exports, debt.

We are suffering from what will be the deepest Uk recession in living memory. Its going to cost a lot of jobs and hurt a lot of people. What makes this UK recession different from all of our previous ones is that much of the world is also in their deepest recession in a generation. Whatever drop we suffer - GDP, balance of payments, unemployment etc - measures relatively against everyone else, so if we find our economy shrinking less than our major competitors then we exit in a better place than they are.

Its like market share in a declining market. You're losing sales vs the previous year but because you're contracting slower than the market and your competition you find yourself stealing share. Not sustainable long term, but in a downward slump its a much better position to be in than leading the decline.

Your argument seems to suggest that if terrible things happen to the UK then it's ok because the French really got it in the neck.

We compare the size of the UK's economy to others but ultimately it doesn't really mean anything. Absolute standard of living is what matters surely?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that over the next 10 years (or even the past 10 years) that British traders have taken market share from others?

I'm trying to piece together a coherent argument from your post but I'm struggling frankly.

Wookster

Generali wrote: »

I'm trying to piece together a coherent argument from your post but I'm struggling frankly.

I read that last post three time and still cannot discern anything substantive.

bubblesmoney

just heard the FSA chap say on the treasury select committee hearing about 11 mins into the video that he didnt know what the 'unmeasurable' inputs were that were used to measure the barclays assets. looks like they were reffering to level 2-3 assets. the hearing chairman was saying that the valuations could be 2 billion off the stated valuations or something like that, dont know if it was a question or a statement. FSA person also said later that CDOs probably wouldnt exist in future or something to that effect !!! one hand he was saying there needed to be models to value things that werent liquid and another time he says CDOs wont exist in future. doesnt this mean that they are inherently worthless pieces of complicated garbage masquerading as assets. he also said after the changes proposed for the FSA it will be fit for the purpose.

Generali

bubblesmoney wrote: »

just heard the FSA chap say on the treasury select committee hearing about 11 mins into the video that he didnt know what the 'unmeasurable' inputs were that were used to measure the barclays assets. looks like they were reffering to level 2-3 assets. the hearing chairman was saying that the valuations could be 2 billion off the stated valuations or something like that, dont know if it was a question or a statement. FSA person also said later that CDOs probably wouldnt exist in future or something to that effect !!! one hand he was saying there needed to be models to value things that werent liquid and another time he says CDOs wont exist in future. doesnt this mean that they are inherently worthless pieces of complicated garbage masquerading as assets. he also said after the changes proposed for the FSA it will be fit for the purpose.

Just because they're (very) hard to value doesn't make them worthless.

Many CDOs are performing at 100% of advertised payout still AFAIK. Many aren't too of course.

My guess is CDOs won't exist in anything like the same quantities as now is because there is no investor appetite for them. Imagine suggesting to your boss that you should be buying up CDOs if you were a trader right now - you'd get the sack!

bubblesmoney

Generali wrote: »

Just because they're (very) hard to value doesn't make them worthless.

Many CDOs are performing at 100% of advertised payout still AFAIK. Many aren't too of course.

My guess is CDOs won't exist in anything like the same quantities as now is because there is no investor appetite for them. Imagine suggesting to your boss that you should be buying up CDOs if you were a trader right now - you'd get the sack!

you can see for yourself the FSA chap on the video at the hearing going on now saying clearly that many of them cant be sold now as no one will buy them and also even if we hold them a few years they still cant be sold and that mostly they wont exist in future. i dont know if he meant all CDOs or just the toxic assets with the banks now. this was a specific question regarding CDOs and other complex instruments which the FSA person agreed are very hard to decipher and that people who buy them probably didnt know much either as per the chairperson of the hearing.

there was also a question about a compulsory CDS trading going on through official multilateral channel, they seem to be looking into it apparently. 75% of the CDS market as per FSA is apparently not standardised and cant be put through a central clearing mechanism and would still need OTC mechanisms!!!

there was also a specific discussion on the 'unmeasurable inputs' needed for valuing these assets and FSA person said he didnt know what these 'unmeasurable inputs' were. this was a specific question regarding barclays assets as far as i can remember.