- Joined
- 16 February 2008
- Posts
- 2,906
- Reactions
- 2
Who is this guy? What a muppet
Who is this guy? What a muppet
Your posts seems a bit irrational. You should consider letting people know what you are on. That way when they have to call the medics, they can tell them what you've been taking. Might save your life one day.
The Pool Room–Week Ending Friday 5th June 2009
Published in June 5th, 2009
Posted by Cassander in Debtwatch
Before the Pool Room, a quick comment on Australia’s recent 0.4% growth in GDP in the first quarter of 2009–largely due to a surprise growth in nex exports–and the sequel the next day of a surprise trade deficit.
Briefly, the “textbook” definition of GDP is:
GDP = C+I+G+X-M
“GDP equals Consumption plus Investment plus Government spending plus eXports minus iMports”
M fell by 9 billion, X (more on this below) fell by 3 billion, so there was a +6 billion turnaround in the “net exports contribution to GDP” (as it’s known).
Now for a healthily growing economy, all 5 factors (C,I, G, X, andM) would be increasing–including M, since lots of the C+I+G are spent purchasing them. But suddenly spending on imports has dropped $9 billion in a quarter–that’s of the order of 2% of GDP. That implies that spending has dropped, not risen. This is not what I call a sustainable “growth” pattern.
Secondly, the “increase” in exports that was spruiked when the GDP figures came out was not all that it seemed. The GDP figure is a “real” measure: the ABS has survey information on nominal output, and then produces the real estimate by deflating it (producing what is known as the chain-weighted GDP figure). So they take actual dollar amounts and divide them by a range of price indices to generate the real GDP figure, which attempts to quantify the actual level in output.
Since Australia is a large exporter of raw commodities, the export price index is obviously important. This is normally revised by the ABS every June, to reflect changes in annual contract prices that are normally settled in April.
For some reason, they used the revised price index in this quarter’s figures–one quarter earlier than normal. These revised contracts have much lower prices–up to 40% falls for some commodities–so the resulting price index was much lower. (Thanks to Gerard Minack of Morgan Stanley for the detective work on this).
Divide a known dollar figure for coal exports by a smaller estimated price index and what do you get? A dramatic increase in the volume of coal exports… In fact, the exported tonnage probably fell significantly (this could be calculated by adding up all the reported tonnages, but since the ABS GDP survey works at the higher level of aggregation of dollars produced [and disaggregation would mean recording dollars of brown coal, dollars of coking coal, blah blah... and deflating each separately] this isn’t an option for them).
This explains the “huh” factor of the very next day’s announcement that we had gone from a substantial trade surplus to a deficit. How does that tally with the “increase” in exports in the GDP figures? The trade deficit is the dollar value of exports minus the dollar value of imports–there is no “price deflating” going on.
So putting this all together (looking just at C+I+G+X components), the probable outcome for real output in the last quarter was a fall of the order of 1-2%, or an annual rate of decline of 5-8%.
Now who is shifting the goalposts, student?
What I am saying is you cannot name billion dollar traders and put yourself in the same "school".
You are just an unproven mug who thinks he knows enough to lecture people like myself who take $$ out of the system daily which you think you are an expert on. But you are empty.
His words. Not mine.
If he is going to come out with idiotic posts like that (on a share trading forum too). Then he deserves to be questioned.
Hahah, the last part was edited in and all in jest.
Any bets on Conza's Profession.
I got him marked in the "education" field.
His not wrong. The theory as we all know is right and proper.
Where he has miss-stepped is the believe that,
1. He's ahead of the curve
2. He has no actual skill for extracting money from the market - yet laughably will lecture those that have the balls to step up and do it.
An excellent post by Steve's Keen on his thoughts with the latest GDP data.
That's how the ABS play around with statistics and numbers to hide the fact that Australia is in a serious downturn.
Of course, the general public would all believe that we aren't in one at all because the government's calculation on official GDP say so.
You also doesn't seem to understand the proper connection between inflation and prices. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia's figures, M3 rose 114% since June 2001 to May 2008. From 469.3 Billion to 1004.8 Billion.
There is a reason a paddle pop used to cost below $1, and now it's just below $2. Essentially doubling in price. Hint: it's not because the company got greedy. lol Housing prices are exactly the same.
2. Strawman. I haven't done such a thing. In fact, I explicitly stated I am still learning about investing and that folks here could help. I simply stated, a better understanding of economics - the fundamental underpinnings of a market and knowledge about how it works, could be very useful to investors? I know about the Economic side fairly well. I just thought others could be interested & should be. I don't understand what the hostility is for?
The housing market is complex though and simplistic Austrian idea's will never provide you with decent entry/exit signals IMO, especially for something as specialised as a purchase in a specific suburb/city, and with such high costs of entry/exit plus even a high cost of not being in the market (ie rent!). If that is what you are looking for - all they will tell you is to never enter the market! Riiiighhhht....... I mean if you can't pick an inevitable stock market correction to within +/- 5 years when they occur roughly every 10 years, what hope do you have to time a major housing market correction when they have happened (in a serious way - Ie more than 20% nominal price falls) maybe only 2 or 3 times in the past century?? Anyway good luck with that one - but I am very confident now that this period in history is NOT the time when the AU housing market is going to see any major correction - the opportunity for a systemic financial crisis to trigger that has passed - so maybe if you wait another 10, 20 or 30 years you might be proven correct
Cheers,
Beej
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?