Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    So now that the crash has occurred and left banks with bad debts, this essentially means that we cannot recover from it? And we cannot go back to the old 8% system?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    They announced new measures which increase it to 13% in 2013 as a responce to the crisis but effectively they have little idea what to do at the moment.

    We can recover now that people are paying again (asset prices have pretty much stabalised) however they have obviously written a lot of debt off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    I don't have any evidence to support what i'm saying. My vocation and my degree is the academic equivalent of astrology. My idol is Mystic Meg.

    I can only assume by your lack of reply that this is what you meant to say.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by NJA)
    What does he mean "protect your assets"?
    That man is probably storing up gold.

    "They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity." (Ezekiel 7:19)

    "godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content" (1 Tim. 6:6-8)


    All you need is basic food, which God promises to his children.
    mmm, but what do you say to the millions of people who die of hunger every day?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mbranson)
    mmm, but what do you say to the millions of people who die of hunger every day?
    Name one please.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    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.

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I can only assume by your lack of reply that this is what you meant to say.
    That's your problem, you make stupid assumptions. I have been too busy to give you a proper reply, which I will do now.

    From reading your posts I can only gather that you aren't extremely bright. Here are my reasons:

    1. Your first source is from a website called 'The Sceptics diary' it is in no way meaningful to anyone with sense. I read the first 4 paragraphs before giving up, no one with any tangible experience or knowledge of economic models or teaching would believe what this person is saying. The way they go about it is as if they have no idea of the underlying theory. If you think economists are putting data into regressions and then predicting then, which this person seems to believe, then you have no reason to be discussing this topic.

    2. Economists never aim to predict all, they give likely outlooks when one thing happens and how that will affect another.

    3. This is not an academic piece of work, it is on a random website. You are claiming you know the flaws of economics based on what you read in a book/website. Even you must see the absurdity of this. I would gladly accept any academic work from a reputable economic journal, one stating that the underlying econometric forecasting theory is wrong.

    4. Your second piece of evidence is a short blurb from the FT, which if you look at the home page is littered with economic insights from economists, the idea that the FT is somehow in the mindset that economists cannot and will never predict is stupid, since they obviously don't believe that. i.e. your second source is a journalist who writes short blurbs, that is not an FT article.

    5."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". Clearly you don't understand how forecasting works, as the time increases the disturbances in your model increase, leading to forecasts that will inevitably, be less accurate. If over 12 months economists on average have a 47 percent error, that's pretty impressive.

    6. You claim anyone could predict what an economist could, well your quote above shows that isn't true. If you were to predict a stock price in the next year it would be no more than a guess, systematically you'll never be able to predict accurately, you have shown above, an economist could.

    7. What you seem to not be able to understand, not surprising from what you've shown, is we are predicting what will happen in the FUTURE, you look at this as if it was an easy task.

    8. Back to actual economics, the vast majority of economics is not predicting the stock market. Evidently you don't understand this.

    9. Naturally and instinctively we would not continue to use economists if they didn't present some sort of value, the fact that they are widely in demand, in terms of opinions, shows crucially that your simplistic idiotic view is not widely shared.

    10. Since you didn't understand when I first told you, I will repeat myself. If a random person says X will happen after Y they will have no basis, and will not be able to explain with some sort of reliable evidence why it will happen. I bet you have no idea what monetary mechanism cause the exchange to fluctuate, so why would anyone listen to you. When an economist says it, they will tell you how this will happen, in with such evidence you can now plan with these scenarios in mind. Whether or not it comes true IS NOT THE POINT, governments, central banks or just the common person want to know how and why something will happen.

    I think it's plainly obvious that you don't understand economic models or the rationale nor do I believe you mentally capable of understanding. So unless you present some sort of paper from a reputable journal and economist, I will assume any further replys are based on your ignorance, stupidity and uneducated preconceptions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    That's your problem, you make stupid assumptions. I have been too busy to give you a proper reply, which I will do now.

    From reading your posts I can only gather that you aren't extremely bright. Here are my reasons:

    1. Your first source is from a website called 'The Sceptics diary' it is in no way meaningful to anyone with sense. I read the first 4 paragraphs before giving up, no one with any tangible experience or knowledge of economic models or teaching would believe what this person is saying. The way they go about it is as if they have no idea of the underlying theory. If you think economists are putting data into regressions and then predicting then, which this person seems to believe, then you have no reason to be discussing this topic.

    2. Economists never aim to predict all, they give likely outlooks when one thing happens and how that will affect another.

    3. This is not an academic piece of work, it is on a random website. You are claiming you know the flaws of economics based on what you read in a book/website. Even you must see the absurdity of this. I would gladly accept any academic work from a reputable economic journal, one stating that the underlying econometric forecasting theory is wrong.

    4. Your second piece of evidence is a short blurb from the FT, which if you look at the home page is littered with economic insights from economists, the idea that the FT is somehow in the mindset that economists cannot and will never predict is stupid, since they obviously don't believe that. i.e. your second source is a journalist who writes short blurbs, that is not an FT article.

    5."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". Clearly you don't understand how forecasting works, as the time increases the disturbances in your model increase, leading to forecasts that will inevitably, be less accurate. If over 12 months economists on average have a 47 percent error, that's pretty impressive.

    6. You claim anyone could predict what an economist could, well your quote above shows that isn't true. If you were to predict a stock price in the next year it would be no more than a guess, systematically you'll never be able to predict accurately, you have shown above, an economist could.

    7. What you seem to not be able to understand, not surprising from what you've shown, is we are predicting what will happen in the FUTURE, you look at this as if it was an easy task.

    8. Back to actual economics, the vast majority of economics is not predicting the stock market. Evidently you don't understand this.

    9. Naturally and instinctively we would not continue to use economists if they didn't present some sort of value, the fact that they are widely in demand, in terms of opinions, shows crucially that your simplistic idiotic view is not widely shared.

    10. Since you didn't understand when I first told you, I will repeat myself. If a random person says X will happen after Y they will have no basis, and will not be able to explain with some sort of reliable evidence why it will happen. I bet you have no idea what monetary mechanism cause the exchange to fluctuate, so why would anyone listen to you. When an economist says it, they will tell you how this will happen, in with such evidence you can now plan with these scenarios in mind. Whether or not it comes true IS NOT THE POINT, governments, central banks or just the common person want to know how and why something will happen.

    I think it's plainly obvious that you don't understand economic models or the rationale nor do I believe you mentally capable of understanding. So unless you present some sort of paper from a reputable journal and economist, I will assume any further replys are based on your ignorance, stupidity and uneducated preconceptions.
    Your whole argument seems to revolve around my sources being incorrect, rather than taking up my gauntlet of proving that economists are useful and better at it than lay people. If you'd bother to scroll to the bottom you would have seen that the whole article was fully referenced with academic books.

    Sutherland, Stuart. 1992. rev. 2nd ed. Irrationality. Pinter and Martin.


    A less than 50% success rate in one year suggests to me that they are worse than flipping a coin at predicting whether a stock or a market or a comodity will rise.



    Again I will ask you to provide the evidence you are asking me to provide, which I have done. I will happily accept equal evidence from yourself.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Your whole argument seems to revolve around my sources being incorrect, rather than taking up my gauntlet of proving that economists are useful and better at it than lay people. If you'd bother to scroll to the bottom you would have seen that the whole article was fully referenced with academic books.

    Sutherland, Stuart. 1992. rev. 2nd ed. Irrationality. Pinter and Martin.


    A less than 50% success rate in one year suggests to me that they are worse than flipping a coin at predicting whether a stock or a market or a comodity will rise.



    Again I will ask you to provide the evidence you are asking me to provide, which I have done. I will happily accept equal evidence from yourself.
    Can you read?

    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    I think it's plainly obvious that you don't understand economic models or the rationale nor do I believe you mentally capable of understanding. So unless you present some sort of paper from a reputable journal and economist, I will assume any further replys are based on your ignorance, stupidity and uneducated preconceptions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    Can you read?
    Why don't you do that for your side of the argument? Because you can't? Why don't you present a valid published book that argues your case using statistics? Because you can't...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So one guy who is not even an actual trader(he lives in South London in a 200k house paid for by his partner) and who makes his money through idiots going to his training lessons talks cliches for a few minutes on the BBC(good journalism there btw, so glad my money is being used for such competence) and everyone thinks this is representative of all of finance.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Why don't you do that for your side of the argument? Because you can't? Why don't you present a valid published book that argues your case using statistics? Because you can't...
    Robert Engle.

    Nobel Prize winning economist based on his work on econometric time series models in the presence of volatility, known as AutoRegressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (ARCH). Published work in many top journals, gained his PhD from MIT, teaches at NYU. ARCH models are used widely in finance and risk mitigation in volatile markets.

    http://ideas.repec.org/e/pen9.html

    Your pop culture books are useless, none would have tried to attack the underlying statistical theory used in stochastic models because the people who have written them aren't smart enough. What you have shown me is not evidence of anything, you wouldn't be allowed to reference those books in an undergradute essay let alone trying to bring down all of economics.

    I've shown you a reputable economist, who's written in reputable journals who has been scrutinised by the best academics in the world and come out with generally overwhelming praise. Please stop making a fool of yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    Robert Engle.

    Nobel Prize winning economist based on his work on econometric time series models in the presence of volatility, known as AutoRegressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (ARCH). Published work in many top journals, gained his PhD from MIT, teaches at NYU. ARCH models are used widely in finance and risk mitigation in volatile markets.

    http://ideas.repec.org/e/pen9.html

    Your pop culture books are useless, none would have tried to attack the underlying statistical theory used in stochastic models because the people who have written them aren't smart enough. What you have shown me is not evidence of anything, you wouldn't be allowed to reference those books in an undergradute essay let alone trying to bring down all of economics.

    I've shown you a reputable economist, who's written in reputable journals who has been scrutinised by the best academics in the world and come out with generally overwhelming praise. Please stop making a fool of yourself.
    Sorry, but are you actually retarded? Some of those books were published by the Cambridge University Press. They compile the best academic research on success rates into those books. They don't need to go through and systematically dismantle what the economists say because all they need to look at is results. The risk models presented by economists are just a way of validating what is essentially gambling.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Sorry, but are you actually retarded? Some of those books were published by the Cambridge University Press. They compile the best academic research on success rates into those books. They don't need to go through and systematically dismantle what the economists say because all they need to look at is results. The risk models presented by economists are just a way of validating what is essentially gambling.
    have shown you a nobel prize winner but you are yet to show me any renowned academic research supporting your view. I guess I win.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    have shown you a nobel prize winner but you are yet to show me any renowned academic research supporting your view. I guess I win.
    I am fully aware there are nobel prizes handed out every single year for economics, that doesn't prove a damn thing. Show me statistics that show that economists predictions are any better than anyone elses, you can't. I don't care if the person saying the euro is going to plummet derived that from looking at stars, or from 10,000 hours pouring over charts doing complex 'analysis', if both have a near equal chance of being right. The Cambridge University press does not just publish willy nilly, it only publishes thorough academic research. I guess you lose.

    This paper shows systematic failures by economists over even the most basic of computerised forecasting techniques:

    http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...%20revised.pdf
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I take issue with the guy calling himself a "trader" as it devalues the essence of genuine trade (an exchange of useful goods and services), reallys he's just a snappily dressed gambler, but at least he talked from the heart which is commendable I suppose. There's nothing wrong with trying to gamble your way to riches, even in a recession.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    As much as i hate to spoil some of the Europhobe fun in here i did look at Eurozone data the other day and came up with this loose conclusion...

    looking at the data, if we include the Eurozone countries with national debt levels above 60% as being at risk of default in the next few years then we have with national debt levels and fiscal deficits...

    Greece - 142.8% - 10.5%
    Italy - 119% - 4.6%
    Belgium - 96.8% - 4.1%
    Ireland - 96.2% - 32.4%
    Potrugal - 93% - 9.1%
    Germany - 83.2% - 3.3%
    France - 81.7% - 7%
    Hungary - 80.2% - 4.2%
    Austria - 72.3% - 4.6%
    Netherlands - 63.7% - 5.4%
    Spain - 60.1% - 9.2%

    Now below is economic growth for the first 6 months doubled to make a 2011 prediction...

    Ireland - 5.8%
    Austria - 3.6%
    Belgium - 3.4%
    Germany - 2.8%
    France - 1.8%
    Netherlands - 1.8%
    Hungary - 1.4%
    Spain - 1%
    Italy - 0.8%
    Greece - -1.2% (Q2 figures not confirmed yet)
    Potrugal - -1.2%

    Note that growth forecasts will be too high due to Euro slowdown.

    So taking into account fiscal deficits then we have the following countries in danger within the next 2 years of defaulting (including bailed countries)...

    Ireland (bailed already and now recording growth)
    Italy (economy is growing)
    Greece (high risk of default)
    Portugal (high risk of default)

    Austria, Belgium and Germany are all 100% fine. France, Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands all have ample time to bring their finances under control. Ireland and Italy should be fine provided that recession does not occur. Greece and Portugal are at a high risk of default.

    The story is pretty much that Potrugal and Greece are in real trouble and not really progressing in their fight against fiscal defecit. Italy will be fine unless they enter recession and Spain will be completely fine unless Portugal goes under.

    The Euro going under would be catastrophic however there is thankfully the political will to keep it alive.
    Rakas21 for president!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoulfulBoy)
    Rakas21 for president!!!
    He's being a tad optimistic, all countries within the Eurozone are now at serious risk of default because the EU is intent on socialising sovereign debt. Not only have they been stuffing more money into the pockets of the hapless Greeks they're also coercing the German's into acting as their unofficial guarantor, something that hasn't exactly gone down well with the German people, especially as the Greeks don't want to pay any tax.

    Imo the Euro could have been saved if they just allowed the heavily indebted nations to go bust, Greece et al could have remained in the Euro but the people who lent them money would have lost out. Tough cookies. But the European Commission are so vain and self serving they'd rather keep bailing, jeopardising the fate of the entire Eurozone just so they can save a bit of face and pretend they were right all along.

    You only have to briefly listen to Barroso to realise that he's a power crazed nut.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I am fully aware there are nobel prizes handed out every single year for economics, that doesn't prove a damn thing. Show me statistics that show that economists predictions are any better than anyone elses, you can't. I don't care if the person saying the euro is going to plummet derived that from looking at stars, or from 10,000 hours pouring over charts doing complex 'analysis', if both have a near equal chance of being right. The Cambridge University press does not just publish willy nilly, it only publishes thorough academic research. I guess you lose.

    This paper shows systematic failures by economists over even the most basic of computerised forecasting techniques:

    http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...%20revised.pdf
    Have you thought that maybe it's a conspiracy? They gave Robert Engel a nobel prize...the top academics in the world agree with him....it all adds up me thinks :holmes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    Have you thought that maybe it's a conspiracy? They gave Robert Engel a nobel prize...the top academics in the world agree with him....it all adds up me thinks :holmes:
    The nobel prize for economics was created in 1969 and has been awarded every year since.... They are hardly going to stop doing it. There has however been a lot of criticism of awarding nobel prizes in economics. You can find a professional forecaster to back up almost any forecast on the economy, the fact that there is no universal agreement means economics is no more a science than any of the arts subjects like sociology.

    So, are you actually going to provide any evidence that economists have greater accuracy than non-professional forcasters? This is your last chance. You can use any sources you please, but if you fail to reply with an actually respected book or paper then I will assume you know you are defending economics purely out of personal bias and denying my argument because of cognitive dissonance. Good luck.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The nobel prize for economics was created in 1969 and has been awarded every year since.... They are hardly going to stop doing it. There has however been a lot of criticism of awarding nobel prizes in economics. You can find a professional forecaster to back up almost any forecast on the economy, the fact that there is no universal agreement means economics is no more a science than any of the arts subjects like sociology.

    So, are you actually going to provide any evidence that economists have greater accuracy than non-professional forcasters? This is your last chance. You can use any sources you please, but if you fail to reply with an actually respected book or paper then I will assume you know you are defending economics purely out of personal bias and denying my argument because of cognitive dissonance. Good luck.
    Does this help?

    http://www.moneyweek.com/investments...oom---but-when
 
 
 
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.