Home > Regular Features > Monday Message Board

Monday Message Board

December 15th, 2008

It’s time once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual civilised discussion and no coarse language.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Ian Gould
    December 19th, 2008 at 22:43 | #1


    Interesting report of a meeting of the Institute of International Finance.

    A couple of points stand out.

    1. “The Institute of International Finance (IIF), the Washington-based association representing more than 375 of the world’s major banks and financial institutions, projected the world economy would shrink 0.4 percent in 2009, after 2.0 percent growth this year.

    Charles Dallara, the managing director of the IIF, called it “the most severe, globally synchronized recession in modern economic history.” ”

    The general picture seems to be western European and North American economies shrinking around 1.4%; Japan and Eastern and Southern Europe around zero and growth in the developing world falling to around 3% (with India at around 5% and China around 6.5%).

    A 1.4% contraction in GDP is not particularly severe. During the Great Depression US GDP fell roughly 30% between 1929 and 1933.

    The noteworthy aspect of the current economic crisis is that it’s possibly the first global recession ever. In the past, one of the three major economic areas – North America, Europe, East and South East Asia has continued to grow.

    This time we’re all in the poo simultaneously.

    This may mean a longer recession and slower recovery but quite frankly NOBODY KNOWS at this point.

    The other noteworthy point:

    “Since the start of 2007, the reported losses at financial institutions has topped one trillion dollars, the IIF said. Institutions have raised about 930 billion dollars since mid-2007, with more than one third coming from the public sector.

    Hung Tran, head of the IIF’s capital markets and emerging market policy department, warned that those losses would increase amid the economic slowdown.”

    So if new capital ($930 billion) almost matches losses, why has lending contracted so abruptly?

    Capital adequacy rules and sheer lack of money to lend would appear not to be the problem.

  2. Ian Gould
    December 19th, 2008 at 23:31 | #2

    A correction, according to the Bureau of Economic analysis, a 1.3% fall in GDP would be the second-most severe since the 1930′s, exceeded only by the 1.9% fall in 1982.


  3. Tony G
    December 20th, 2008 at 15:00 | #3

    “you have failed totally to prove that there is any release of the toxic compounds used in solar cell production much less provided any measure of the claimed associated externality.”

    Ian, the toxic compounds are produced. I do not see them being sent out into deep space, do you?

    “Tell me tony do you accept that smoking is linked to lung cancer?”

    Ian, the dead bodies with blackened lungs are real, they are not some abstract model concept in cyberspace.

  4. Ian Gould
    December 20th, 2008 at 16:36 | #4

    “Ian, the toxic compounds are produced. I do not see them being sent out into deep space, do you?”

    No actually I think they’re collected and reused or sent for incineration.

    “Ian, the dead bodies with blackened lungs are real, they are not some abstract model concept in cyberspace.”

    So the disabled kids aren’t real?

    And how exactly without using statistical models do you prove that smoking is the cause of the cancers.

  5. nanks
    December 20th, 2008 at 17:22 | #5

    Here’s a review with a good summary of the mechanisms by which smoking causes cancer.


  6. Tony G
    December 20th, 2008 at 21:15 | #6

    “No actually I think they’re”

    Is that the same as your reasoning on “No actually I think they’re” emitting too much C02 and causing global warming? If “they’re” not causing global warming because we can’t tell, then “they’re” causing the climate to change, or climate change; “they’re” definitely causing something.

    “So the disabled kids aren’t real?”
    Yes they are real contrary to what any cyber statistical model might indicate.

    No you do not need statistical cyber models to ‘prove’ people die from smoking, just dead bodies with lungs blackened by tobacco residue. Ian have yiu heard of autopsies?

    Ian, If you came across a deceased person and you wanted to know if they were dead, would you check for a pulse or would you go to your computer and check the cyber modelling to give you an answer?

Comment pages
1 2 4478
Comments are closed.