Log in

View Full Version : Global Meltdown?



Rosa Lichtenstein
27th March 2008, 18:01
Comrades might like to read this report from the UK Independent (it contains useful stats to rub in the faces of cappies):



By Phillip Blond
Sunday, 23 March 2008

The Western world is in an economic crisis similar in scale to the oil shock of 1973. What we are seeing is nothing less than the unravelling of neo-liberalism – the dominant economic and ideological model of the last 30 years.

The disintegration of Anglo-Saxon-inspired markets has come about largely because of the confluence of two tendencies of the "free market": speculation and monopoly capitalism. Contrary to received opinion, free markets – unless subject to civil regulation, asset distribution and persistent intervention – always tend to monopoly.

Similarly, there is nothing inherently efficient about free markets – they do not of themselves promote sound investment or wise management. Rather, when markets are conceived wholly in terms of price and return, and when asset wealth and the leverage that this provides becomes as concentrated as it was in the 19th century (which is a scenario we are approaching), then markets encourage nothing other than gambling masking itself as sound investment.

For example, before 1973 the ratio of investment to speculative capital was 9:1; since 1973, these proportions have reversed. So huge have the numbers, leverage and derivative instruments become that their value now far exceeds the total economic value of the planet. For instance, in 2003 the value of all derivative trading was $85 trillion, while the size of the world economy was only $49 trillion.

These ratios have risen with the latest estimates that the value of all traded paper instruments exceeds the underlying value of the assets on which they are written by 3:1. The fact that these assets may themselves be devaluing by up to 50 per cent (US housing values have declined by 25 per cent in two years) means that the overall ratio of global paper value to its leveraged base may indeed double.

This average global figure itself masks even more extreme levels of leverage. The Carlyle Group de-faulted on $16.6bn (£8.4bn) of debt last week. The private equity firm had been speculating assiduously on its AAA-rated mortgage base – by some estimates, at the end of its life, Carlyle's loan-to-value ratio and hedge exposure was at 36:1. There are, of course, many other private equity firms in a similar position.

This incalculable level of speculation is abetted by the huge concentration of wealth that has occurred since 1973. Why? Because if markets tend to monopoly then smaller groups of people control larger amounts of assets. The latest figures demonstrate this admirably: the richest 10 per cent of the UK population increased their share of the nation's marketable wealth (excluding housing) from 57 per cent in 1976 to 71 per cent in 2003. Over the same period, the speculative capital that could be deployed or inves-ted by the bottom 50 per cent of the British population fell from 12 per cent to just 1 per cent. Indeed, the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population, on current government figures, now control more than a third of all the marketable wealth – and this ignores the vast sums held in offshore tax havens.

The New Economics Foundation has shown that global growth has not aided the poor. In the 1980s, for every $100 of world growth, the poorest 20 per cent received $2.20; by 2001, they received only 60 cents. Clearly neo-liberal growth disproportionately benefits the rich and further impoverishes the poor.

Real wage increases in the top 13 countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have been below the rate of inflation since about 1970 – a situation compounded in Britain as the measure of inflation massively underestimates the real cost of living.

Thus wage earners – rather than asset owners – have faced a 35-year downward pressure on their standard of living. Indeed, the golden age for the salaried worker, as a share of GDP, was between 1945 and 1973 – and not this vaunted age of liberalisation.

The trouble is that nobody in power recognises this crisis for what it is – an asset insolvency crisis brought about by massive debt leverage. Neo-liberals are still reacting as if the emergency was one of liquidity. They are wrong. Governments should bail out not banks and speculators but the customers who now have every reason to fear for the future.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/outside-view-the-end-of-capitalism-as-we-know-it-799494.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/outside-view-the-end-of-capitalism-as-we-know-it-799494.html)

BobKKKindle$
27th March 2008, 18:10
This article does seem interesting, but I don't understand all of the economic concepts, can someone explain what the author means when he writes about derivatives and leverage? How do these differ from "normal" investments?

cyu
27th March 2008, 18:26
wikipedia is your friend. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_%28finance%29

"Financial leverage (FL) takes the form of a loan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loan) or other borrowings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt) (debt), the proceeds of which are reinvested with the intent to earn a greater rate of return than the cost of interest."

Rosa Lichtenstein
27th March 2008, 18:29
An online dictionary defined leverage thus:



1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment.

2. The amount of debt used to finance a firm's assets. A firm with significantly more debt than equity is considered to be highly leveraged.

Leverage helps both the investor and the firm to invest or operate. However, it comes with greater risk. If an investor uses leverage to make an investment and the investment moves against the investor, his or her loss is much greater than it would've been if the investment had not been leveraged - leverage magnifies both gains losses. In the business world, a company can use leverage to try to generate shareholder wealth, but if it fails to do so, the interest expense and credit risk of default destroys shareholder value.

Investopedia Says:

1. Leverage can be created through options, futures, margin and other financial instruments. For example, say you have $1,000 to invest. This amount could be invested in 10 shares of Microsoft stock, but to increase leverage, you could invest the $1,000 in five options contracts. You would then control 500 shares instead of just 10.

2. Most companies use debt to finance operations. By doing so, a company increases its leverage because it can invest in business operations without increasing its equity. For example, if a company formed with an investment of $5 million from investors, the equity in the company is $5 million - this is the money the company uses to operate. If the company uses debt financing by borrowing $20 million, the company now has $25 million to invest in business operations and more opportunity to increase value for shareholders.


http://www.answers.com/topic/leverage?cat=technology (http://www.answers.com/topic/leverage?cat=technology)

And derivatives:



Derivatives are financial instruments (http://www.answers.com/topic/financial-instrument) whose value is derived from the value of something else. They generally take the form of contracts (http://www.answers.com/topic/contract) under which the parties agree to payments between them based upon the value of an underlying asset or other data at a particular point in time. The main types of derivatives are futures (http://www.answers.com/topic/futures-contract), forwards (http://www.answers.com/topic/forward-contract), options (http://www.answers.com/topic/option-finance) and swaps (http://www.answers.com/topic/swap-game).


The main use of derivatives is to reduce risk (http://www.answers.com/topic/risk) for one party while offering the potential for a high return (at increased risk) to another. The diverse range of potential underlying assets and payoff alternatives leads to a huge range of derivatives contracts (http://www.answers.com/topic/contract) available to be traded in the market. Derivatives can be based on different types of assets such as commodities (http://www.answers.com/topic/commodity), equities (http://www.answers.com/topic/stock) (stocks (http://www.answers.com/topic/stocks-1)), bonds (http://www.answers.com/topic/bond-wordnet), interest rates (http://www.answers.com/topic/interest), exchange rates (http://www.answers.com/topic/exchange-rate), or indexes (such as a stock market index (http://www.answers.com/topic/stock-market-index), consumer price index (CPI) (http://www.answers.com/topic/consumer-price-index) — see inflation derivatives (http://www.answers.com/topic/inflation-derivatives) — or even an index of weather conditions, or other derivatives). Their performance can determine both the amount and the timing of the payoffs.


There is more here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/derivative-finance

Die Neue Zeit
28th March 2008, 02:28
^^^ And if you want me to introduce you folks to textbook corporate finance problems on leverage and derivatives, just ask. :D

Entrails Konfetti
28th March 2008, 04:31
So I took from this article the estimated wealth of the market in 2003
and the world population from 2003 in January from a population clock, and divided the two numbers.

$49,000,000,000,000
_________________ = $ 7,673.27 (rounded up to the nearest whole cent)
6,385,811,282

Yeah seventy-seven hundred dollars looks like crap to live off.

However, in the Jan-Feb 2006 edition of the International Socialist Review;
Keith Rosenthal in "What Do Socialists Say About World Hunger?", in summary, said that theres double the amount of food to go around to feed the worlds population, and there's enough money to provide resoucres to people who lack basic health and hygene.

You cannot find this article on-line, I had to look through my closet.

cyu
28th March 2008, 19:54
Yeah seventy-seven hundred dollars looks like crap to live off.

You hear stories about people living on $1 a day. Of course, this would be impossible where there's a high cost of living (like New York City), but if the cost of living in an area is low, it is possible (though life can still be hard).

The cost of living tends to be high if you live near rich people. The more money they have, the more they can afford to spend buying up the things in your area. The larger supply of money pushes up inflation in that area.

bcbm
28th March 2008, 21:13
I could live off $7700 for probably 3 years, in a city.

Entrails Konfetti
28th March 2008, 23:26
But the point isn't to scrape by on bare minimum.

Rosa Lichtenstein
28th March 2008, 23:40
The thing is that if all this wealth is consumed, there will be far less to go round next year. So the $7700 figure is misleading.

The point is, not how much each receives, but who decides.

Entrails Konfetti
29th March 2008, 05:16
Rosa, I think that $49 trillion figure, representing the worlds wealth of 2003, is misleading.

What about all the waste, is that accounted for?
What about how the issue of currency isn't backed by anything, but circulation?
Then theres what CYU said.

Rosa Lichtenstein
29th March 2008, 08:51
It is always difficult counting GDP. So, you will need to ask an economist exactly how it is done, and what is counted, and what is not (for example, if you mend a coat, is it counted? If someone else mends it and you pay, that must be).

cyu
31st March 2008, 18:56
It is always difficult counting GDP. So, you will need to ask an economist exactly how it is done, and what is counted, and what is not (for example, if you mend a coat, is it counted? If someone else mends it and you pay, that must be).
Exactly. Quoting from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1012287

An increase in GDP can actually reflect one (or a combination) of three things:

1. True increase in productivity and the amount of goods and services available to (and used by) the population.

2. Additional economic activity required because of natural or man-made disasters - for example, the replacement of windows required after an earthquake or protest.

3. The transformation of the relationships within a society from informal activity to business dealings. One example is the growing use of hired child-care providers to replace the caring of children by relatives.

Ironically, hiring a prostitute in Nevada increases GDP (and the illusion of prosperity) while sleeping with your wife does not (unless you pay her and report that fact). Unfortunately, the GDP is still being used to measure economic progress by the both the uninformed and those who should know better.

Zurdito
31st March 2008, 19:15
The article is interesting but the excessive emphasis on "neo-liberalism" is misleading. "Neo-liberalism" as an ideology is just a tool to justify certain policies, and to be honest I think it's had it's day.

China is providing an example to capitalists the world over fo a kind neo-keynesian planning system, which is effective at protecting the national bourgeoisie against competing blocs, but which doesn't really have any emphasis on redistributionism. Argentina and Russia are also good examples of this. Expect to see the UK and USA going that way soon, and expect the bourgeoisie to lecture us on the "excesses" of the "bad capitalists" and the "speculators" - them neoliberals - who killed the golden goose and had no sense of "patriotism/sustainability".

We've already seen this begin with Brown steppin in to nationalise Northern Rock. Not a bad thing in itself - we must fight to keep Northern Rock nationalsied - but let's just be aware that the cpaitalists themselves will soon be stepping up their demands for the state to step in and pass the cost of their msitakes onto us - in Marx's words, "socialisation of risk". The "concession" they will grant will be that they'll drop the "aggressive" neo-liberal discourse and make vague promises for a more planned economy.

We must be ready to fight this. Broad opposition to "neo-liberalism" doesn't prepare us for the non neo-liberal future.

Colonello Buendia
31st March 2008, 20:02
posted the article up on Bebo

Rosa Lichtenstein
2nd April 2008, 03:10
From bad to worse:


According to Alexander Cockburn, citing the Financial Times' Martin Wolf, "neoliberalism has collapsed" (http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn03292008.html). The Telegraph reports that the Federal Reserve is considering Nordic-style nationalisations (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/31/cnfed131.xml). Even New Labour is touting "socialism" (http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2157004.0.0.php), albeit north of the border. The Wall Street Journal says (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657397294066915.html):
On the Richter scale of government activism, the government's recent actions don't (yet) register at FDR levels. They are shrouded in technicalities and buried in a pile of new acronyms.

But something big just happened. It happened without an explicit vote by Congress. And, though the Treasury hasn't cut any checks for housing or Wall Street rescues, billions of dollars of taxpayer money were put at risk. A Republican administration, not eager to be viewed as the second coming of the Hoover administration, showed it no longer believes the market can sort out the mess.


Are the GOP really getting all Kremlinesque? Leave that to one side for a second. It seems self-evident that the whole mythology has collapsed. Neoliberalism has just not delivered the dynamism that it promised: economic growth, labour productivity and wage growth are all down on the statist-corporatist era of 1945-1970. The 'liberalisation' of financial markets has changed the property structure and increased risks while increasing global turbulence. The growing profile of the financial markets has produced record debt, insane stock market bubbles, and fraud on a massive scale (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/03/auguring-armageddon.html), all adding to the risk in the system...



More here:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-neoliberalism-finished_31.html

Die Neue Zeit
2nd April 2008, 06:51
^^^ The problem is that the Federal Reserve is PRIVATELY owned. :(

[The US monetary system is run FORMALLY by financial oligarchs.]

Rosa Lichtenstein
3rd April 2008, 03:10
I am not sure why that is relevant.

Die Neue Zeit
3rd April 2008, 04:53
China is providing an example to capitalists the world over fo a kind neo-keynesian planning system, which is effective at protecting the national bourgeoisie against competing blocs, but which doesn't really have any emphasis on redistributionism. Argentina and Russia are also good examples of this. Expect to see the UK and USA going that way soon, and expect the bourgeoisie to lecture us on the "excesses" of the "bad capitalists" and the "speculators" - them neoliberals - who killed the golden goose and had no sense of "patriotism/sustainability".

We've already seen this begin with Brown steppin in to nationalise Northern Rock. Not a bad thing in itself - we must fight to keep Northern Rock nationalsied - but let's just be aware that the cpaitalists themselves will soon be stepping up their demands for the state to step in and pass the cost of their msitakes onto us - in Marx's words, "socialisation of risk". The "concession" they will grant will be that they'll drop the "aggressive" neo-liberal discourse and make vague promises for a more planned economy.

We must be ready to fight this. Broad opposition to "neo-liberalism" doesn't prepare us for the non neo-liberal future.

Actually, this new state capitalism is bigger than you think (Boston Globe):

State Inc. (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/state_inc/)



The problem with you Trots is that you don't read enough Wilhelm Liebknecht and Karl Kautsky:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1896/08/our-congress.htm

"Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!"

History has "begun" once more (so much for Francis Fukuyama's BS).