Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    Well that's a stupid thing to say. If I was to get a teenage shop assistant and ask how the economy was going to turn out, he'd certainly give me an answer within your so called range since that range is pretty much everything. You actually have no idea what an economist does do you, under you ridiculous logic EVERYONE should be given the same legitimacy as an economist. What you don't understand is an economist has research to back it up, but it's that research, there model will factor a lot things in and ultimately you cannot accurately predict the future.

    To my main point, his credentials are very important, it gives weight to what he says. This guy lives in a 200K house not in his name, -10K in the bank and calls himself a trader, so why exactly should we listen to him. If it was a shop keeper with an account with an interactive broker, would you take him seriously on BBC.
    Well obviously that teenage shop assistant would have to know how to fluff up his prediction to add legitimacy to it. He probably wouldn't have a clue about the Euro Zone crisis either. It's not like economists on the BBC get super technical going into various theories or anything. Did you even bother to look at that book, or am I wasting my time here?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Well obviously that teenage shop assistant would have to know how to fluff up his prediction to add legitimacy to it. He probably wouldn't have a clue about the Euro Zone crisis either. It's not like economists on the BBC get super technical going into various theories or anything. Did you even bother to look at that book, or am I wasting my time here?
    Yes but an economist would be able to explain to exactly how what he said was going to happen, will happen, backed with research. This guy cannot, he isn't even a trader. So when you said 'his credentials don't matter' you were wrong. Simple. I refuse to read that book, mostly because I have no time and secondly because you're stupidly ignorant of forecasting and what an economist actually does. I am always amused at those who will claim economists are useless because they can't 100% certainty tell us now, what will happen in the future.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    If the Euro collapses, never mind 'it not helping the situation' we're all screwed. If you thought Lehmans was bad this will be 10x worse, we're talking loss in GDP of over 20%. And because of this, the chance of Greece leaving the euro or the euro collapses is zero.
    That a situation is bad is not a guarantee that it will get sorted. I don't base my views on this trader, but if you look at the simple facts, you can see that this bailout will not work.

    Firstly, every government will have to face elections eventually - most in 2/3 years. Greek voters are not going to carry on supporting austerity and cuts and more debt - they are going to want a default, a clean slate. And the "hey, let's bail out Greece!" party isn't exactly going to have a vote-winning platform in Germany, France or the UK. The sustained political will required to effect a bailout on this scale doesn't really exist even now, and will evaporate entirely when it comes to polling time.

    Secondly, the figures required for a working bailout are massive. Austerity isn't working: GDP is chasing the deficit downwards in a destructive spiral. The Greek economy would need ALL its debt wiping or postponing for this to work, and even then it would still face massive problems in bringing down the deficit, raising taxes, and attaining growth.

    Thirdly, the Euro as a concept is a political one and not an economic one. Worries about tying southern and northern Europe together in one currency were glossed over by EU high-ups who loved the notion of a more united and integrated Europe. It was all wrapped up in a shiny economic package, but it was never going to work.

    We're just delaying the inevitable. We should let Greece default before we throw more good money after bad, face the dire economic consequences, and learn our lesson about debt. Neither a borrower nor a lender be. We should stick to a little cyclical borrowing, and leave it at that.

    It's not just some trader on the BBC and I who think this. On Newsnight tonight even the editor of the FT said that Greece had to leave the Euro.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michael321)
    That a situation is bad is not a guarantee that it will get sorted. I don't base my views on this trader, but if you look at the simple facts, you can see that this bailout will not work.

    Firstly, every government will have to face elections eventually - most in 2/3 years. Greek voters are not going to carry on supporting austerity and cuts and more debt - they are going to want a default, a clean slate. And the "hey, let's bail out Greece!" party isn't exactly going to have a vote-winning platform in Germany, France or the UK. The sustained political will to effect a bailout on this scale doesn't really exist even now, and will evaporate entirely when it comes to polling time.

    Secondly, the figures required for a working bailout are massive. Austerity isn't working: GDP is chasing the deficit downwards in a destructive spiral. The Greek economy would need ALL its debt wiping or postponing for this to work, and even then it would still face massive problems in bringing down the deficit, raising taxes, and attaining growth.

    Thirdly, the Euro as a concept is a political one and not an economic one. Worries about tying southern and northern Europe together in one currency were glossed over by EU high-ups who loved the notion of a more united and integrated Europe. It was all wrapped up in a shiny economic package, but it was never going to work.

    We're just delaying the inevitable. We should let Greece default before we throw more good money after bad, face the dire economic consequences, and learn our lesson about debt. Neither a borrower nor a lender be. We should stick to a little cyclical borrowing, and leave it at that.

    It's not just me and some BBC trader who think this. On Newsnight tonight even the editor of the FT said that Greece had to leave the Euro.
    I do agree with much of what you have said although i would like to point out that Greek austerity is failing because in the main they have raised taxes, but not really assaulted the public sector yet and with no confidence in the economy from overseas, this was never likely to be effective (it's a shame they can't send some 'administrators' in to force them to enact proper cuts). Portugal is also a worry in that its collapse could hit Spain very hard, perhaps more concerning than a Greek bailout.

    Ireland is a positive austerity example, it took the bailout, got on with the cuts and has recorded 2.9% growth in the first half of 2011 with apparent minimal tax rises.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    Yes but an economist would be able to explain to exactly how what he said was going to happen, will happen, backed with research. This guy cannot, he isn't even a trader. So when you said 'his credentials don't matter' you were wrong. Simple. I refuse to read that book, mostly because I have no time and secondly because you're stupidly ignorant of forecasting and what an economist actually does. I am always amused at those who will claim economists are useless because they can't 100% certainty tell us now, what will happen in the future.
    Got any evidence for what you're saying or are you going to keep behaving like a touchy 12 year old jackass? Here is what I am basing my viewpoint that economists and stock market analysts, especially those who go on TV, are all just frauds:

    "Analyses of the Forbes honor role funds over the period 1973 to 1998 indicate that they underperformed the S&P 500 stock index (Kida 2003: p. 142; Malkiel 2007). In short, there's no scientific evidence that professionally managed funds, as a group, perform any better than a randomly selected group of stocks (Kida 2003: p. 143; Malkiel 2007)."

    "What about the geniuses at the Fed, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Congressional Budget Office, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the National Bureau of Economic Research? Surely these top economic advisers with their large budgets and sophisticated tools of analysis are able to consistently make accurate predictions about such things as the gross national product and inflation. Wrong! "A review of twelve studies on forecasting accuracy, covering the periods 1970 to 1995, concluded that economists can't even predict the major turning points in our economy. The top economic institutions listed above were wrong in their predictions of forty-six out of forty-eight turning points in our economy (Kida 148). That's about a 4 percent success rate. Not too impressive."

    http://www.skepdic.com/economicforecasting.html

    Want more people that share my opinion? Here is an FT article (http://cachef.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8c4adf...#axzz1ZI99OCyX)

    “The evidence on the folly of forecasting is overwhelming,” Mr Montier concludes, whether you are talking about economists or stockbroking analysts. “Frankly the three blind mice have more credibility than any macro-forecaster at seeing what is coming,” is his verdict on economists. As for analysts, he notes that the average forecasting error in the US analyst community between 2001 and 2006 was 47 per cent over 12 months and 93 per cent over 24 months."

    Wow a 7% success rate in predictions over the space of 2 years... talk about a science! Haha. Banks, governments and the bbc might as well just round up a bunch of bin men and ask them their opinions. O wait, they can't say 'look at this chart, see how it bends here and it did that before - it's sure to do that again!', so their opinions are worthless :lol:

    So, i've shown you my evidence and a variety of academics that share my view, now show me yours? Y'know, instead of saying again and again I don't know what an economist does, as if that constitutes an argument. Forget being right 100% of the time, i'd settle for 50%. Stop throwing your toys out of your pram, that should free up some time to read a book once in a while and get educated before you run around the internet talking *******s and calling people out on things you clearly know nothing about.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Astonix)
    Doesn't mean it doesn't have to be paid back.
    something far too many don't realise.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    My mum works for a trader who pretty much said the same thing. If drastic action isn't taken soon the brown stuff will well and truly hit the fan.
    what qualifications are required to become a trader?


    honestly
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    Trading is more about experience, gut feeling and general advice and tips you pick up. Studying a group of companies long term is the best way to go about it. You don't need X piece of paper from X institution to do a job successfully despite what TSR likes to pontificate. I could go to a broker tomorrow and say I want to buy 1,000 shares in this company and lose every penny or make a fortune it depends on how I feel about a company and if I feel it is worth the cash. You can't teach gut instinct, look at Warren Buffett. He has no formal tertiary education he just read books in his local library and is now the third richest man in the world. The market is basically the biggest most complex casino in the world, as Gok Wan says "it's all about the confidence". :P
    Treating the market like a casino is a very quick way to lose everything. Only in the minority of cases would gambling actually pay off. You either need to know a lot about the companies you are investing in (and U don't put all ur eggs in one basket) and lower the risk as much as possible or you can play it safe and invest in 30 random companies and just follow the market growth.

    However gambling and relying on 'gut feeling' is downright stupid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get this... where is all the money going? Why are all those countries in so much debt?

    Are big companies and wealthy people just soaking up all the money?

    For a country to be in debt, another country must have gained money??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BackDoorEntry)
    I don't get this... where is all the money going? Why are all those countries in so much debt?

    Are big companies and wealthy people just soaking up all the money?


    For a country to be in debt, another country must have gained money??
    Seems that way. Oh, and all this "money" isn't actually real.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    Trading is more about experience, gut feeling and general advice and tips you pick up. Studying a group of companies long term is the best way to go about it. You don't need X piece of paper from X institution to do a job successfully despite what TSR likes to pontificate. I could go to a broker tomorrow and say I want to buy 1,000 shares in this company and lose every penny or make a fortune it depends on how I feel about a company and if I feel it is worth the cash. You can't teach gut instinct, look at Warren Buffett. He has no formal tertiary education he just read books in his local library and is now the third richest man in the world. The market is basically the biggest most complex casino in the world, as Gok Wan says "it's all about the confidence". :P


    i thought so so how would pone get a job in a trading firm, do they ever specify degrees, or do they have traineeships


    honestly
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    I disagree. I think to paraphrase a great Singaporean leader when asked if a strong nation should leave the Euro 'when a nation tries to compete with a subcontinent the nation will be laughed away into humiliation' Germany hasn't a hope against China, Brazil USA India and the rest who surely will dominate the world in the next few decades. Europe does however. Germany needs Europe like it or not.
    why do you need to dominate something?

    Norway has a smaller economy than china and india, but I'd much rather live in Norway. Being small allows for simpler regulations, more competitive tax rates and frankly the average wealth of the individuals within the nation should be much more important to those individuals than the collective wealth of all peoples within the area. Ironic that this leader is from Singapore. Any better example of a successful, small nation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morris743)
    Seems that way. Oh, and all this "money" isn't actually real.
    What do you mean it isn't real? Is it just like IOU notes or something?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BackDoorEntry)
    What do you mean it isn't real? Is it just like IOU notes or something?
    Effectively. The global economy works on a fractional reserve system whereby banks must only hold 8% (i think that was the Basal accord) of real money. So for every £8 they get, they can lend £92, though some banks do hold more (Leemans had 11.6% the day it went bust).

    That above is effectively commercial banking and why the financial derivatives market is worth about 20 times what the global economy is right now. My personal opinion is that it is a flawed system and defeats the object of having money which in the grand scheme of things is supposedly to make us use resources in the most efficient way.

    In regards to why countries have fiscal defcits, it is because they borrowed more money than they gained through economic growth. That said, countries such as Norway choose to run fiscal surplusses (my prefered option).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin6767)
    Nowadays I would suspect a degree was necessary to get your foot through the door but there is no substitute for experience. A lot of people think for IB and trading firms jobs you need a degree in business, economics, finance etc from X university but the truth is those subjects don't really prepare you for a career in that sector, the knowledge is only part of it. I know I will be persecuted for saying this on TSR from teenagers who think they know better but I really couldn't give a damn :P

    You could get lucky and find a traineeship with a smaller firm, maybe a local broker but it is doubtful that you find one with a large bank. Although that being said other firms, not directly related to trading, like KPMG do offer school leaves programs because they know uni doesn't suit everyone.

    But as I said before there is nothing stopping you tomorrow going into your local bank and buying into a company through them, although they would charge a higher fee than a broker. You get good brokers and you get not so good brokers but again sorting the good from the bad comes down to experience.

    Some people do think that they can make vast fortunes by the time they are 25 in the stock market but that is largely myth. There is an old saying in the City that if you want to make a million in the market start with 2 million.

    Hope that helps. Find an old wise trader and milk every piece of advice you can from him :P I don't know why more people don't learn from the mistakes of others, it saves so much time.
    thanks,,,, really helpful ... and i am sure as this is the TSR peeps will crucify you lol. but i did hear that a degree was not essential, you confirmed that , thanks


    honestly
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamageddon)
    why do you need to dominate something?

    Norway has a smaller economy than china and india, but I'd much rather live in Norway. Being small allows for simpler regulations, more competitive tax rates and frankly the average wealth of the individuals within the nation should be much more important to those individuals than the collective wealth of all peoples within the area. Ironic that this leader is from Singapore. Any better example of a successful, small nation?
    Germany isn't a small nation, neither is Britain. They're just dwarfed by the likes of the US, Russia and China in terms of natural resources ect. Such nations are much more dependent on international trade for income due to a lack of a great natural resource like oil and gas in Norway. Moreover, Singapore, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries to name a few are nations which made their wealth decades ago in a less globally competitive climate. Germany with its high end manufacturing is up against the world in order to enrich its people and the kind of value for money it gets as being part of a juggernaut like the E.U. is not something they can replicate on their own. They'd be worse off.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    Germany isn't a small nation, neither is Britain. They're just dwarfed by the likes of the US, Russia and China in terms of natural resources ect. Such nations are much more dependent on international trade for income due to a lack of a great natural resource like oil and gas in Norway. Moreover, Singapore, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries to name a few are nations which made their wealth decades ago in a less globally competitive climate. Germany with its high end manufacturing is up against the world in order to enrich its people and the kind of value for money it gets as being part of a juggernaut like the E.U. is not something they can replicate on their own. They'd be worse off.
    And yet you have still said nothing as to why they would be worse off. Why they have to remain part of a single currency in order to compete with the likes of china. You've just made vague statements about size and references to natural resources that Germany won't have regardless. How does remaining part of the euro (this isn't about the EU) suddenly empower them to access new markets? Are these negotiated with on their behalf? In terms of bullying the oil nations I'm sure being part of a big bloc helps, but this again has bugger all to do with their involvement in a single currency.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Effectively. The global economy works on a fractional reserve system whereby banks must only hold 8% (i think that was the Basal accord) of real money. So for every £8 they get, they can lend £92, though some banks do hold more (Leemans had 11.6% the day it went bust).

    That above is effectively commercial banking and why the financial derivatives market is worth about 20 times what the global economy is right now. My personal opinion is that it is a flawed system and defeats the object of having money which in the grand scheme of things is supposedly to make us use resources in the most efficient way.

    In regards to why countries have fiscal defcits, it is because they borrowed more money than they gained through economic growth. That said, countries such as Norway choose to run fiscal surplusses (my prefered option).
    Wow, that sounds like a recipe for disaster (it is). Where do they think all this extra money is going to come from?!?! If they lend imaginary money, then really debts are gonna be run up that can never really be paid off.

    Thank you for this info, it certainly explains why the world is crashing down at the moment!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BackDoorEntry)
    Wow, that sounds like a recipe for disaster (it is). Where do they think all this extra money is going to come from?!?! If they lend imaginary money, then really debts are gonna be run up that can never really be paid off.

    Thank you for this info, it certainly explains why the world is crashing down at the moment!
    The theory is that they can be paid off and the ones that do not get paid back can be covered by the interest gained from the ones that are paid back (hence why CDO's were created packaging good and bad debts together). Provided people are paying money back, the system can go on. When asset prices fell and people defaulted, this then caused the almighty crash.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BackDoorEntry)
    Wow, that sounds like a recipe for disaster (it is). Where do they think all this extra money is going to come from?!?! If they lend imaginary money, then really debts are gonna be run up that can never really be paid off.

    Thank you for this info, it certainly explains why the world is crashing down at the moment!
    The 8% was actually the average held in the early 1990's and pushed for by the UK and USA at the Basil summit. In reality, capital reserves of around 25% are needed to avoid bailouts provided that the recession were only to last a year.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.