FISO News   Play Totel Football     FISO News   Admin's Spanish Holiday Apartment Rental Offer     FISO News   Rooney, Aguero, Suarez, RVP   


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 23:30 
Offline
Dumbledore
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 5213
Location: Outside, fighting 3 big fellas and drinking beer at the same time.
Forgive my ignorance. We were watching the news and Mrs Sted asked me some questions that I could not answer.

1. There seems to be a problem that Italy, for instance, owes 110% of it's national GDP. We owe more than 110% of my gross pay on mortgage etc, and I'm not worried about it.

2. Countries that are problematic can pay up to 6% interest on borrowing instead of the 0.3% that Germany pays (many people pay similar rates on mortgages)

3. Why do countries need to borrow? I understand that we did during the world wars, and I understand that that has been paid back. But to borrow just to keep afloat is surely comparable to me taking out 'payday loans' and we'd be better cutting our coats according to our cloth?

Economics confuse me. Am I being naive to compare them with our personal liabilities?


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 23:36 
Online
FISO Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 13375
Location: Location! Location!
Blog: View Blog (2)
FS Record: TFFOSM MotW in 2008 and MotM in 2003. 78th overall in TFFO for 2002/3 and 2003/4
Germany may borrow at say 0.3% and then lend that to Italy at 6%.
All countries will issue bonds to raise funds which maybe to repay previous debts or to lend to others.


Top
 Profile FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 23:42 
Offline
Dumbledore
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 5213
Location: Outside, fighting 3 big fellas and drinking beer at the same time.
Surprised wrote:
Germany may borrow at say 0.3% and then lend that to Italy at 6%.
All countries will issue bonds to raise funds which maybe to repay previous debts or to lend to others.


Yes. Fair enough. But why do they need to borrow year in year out in the first place? Seems a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul.


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 23:47 
Online
FISO Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 13375
Location: Location! Location!
Blog: View Blog (2)
FS Record: TFFOSM MotW in 2008 and MotM in 2003. 78th overall in TFFO for 2002/3 and 2003/4
sted wrote:
Surprised wrote:
Germany may borrow at say 0.3% and then lend that to Italy at 6%.
All countries will issue bonds to raise funds which maybe to repay previous debts or to lend to others.


Yes. Fair enough. But why do they need to borrow year in year out in the first place? Seems a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul.


Ideally they wouldn't but any business needs to borrow to cover short term cash flow problems. A small amount of government borrowing is fine but if they get their forecasts horribly wrong by vastly overestimating tax receipts then they can't just cut expenditure immediately so they borrow. Get it wrong a few times and the borrowing mounts up I guess.


Top
 Profile FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 23:52 
Offline
Dumbledore
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 5213
Location: Outside, fighting 3 big fellas and drinking beer at the same time.
Surprised wrote:
I guess.


You are an economist I claim my £5. :lol:


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 23:54 
Online
FISO Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 13375
Location: Location! Location!
Blog: View Blog (2)
FS Record: TFFOSM MotW in 2008 and MotM in 2003. 78th overall in TFFO for 2002/3 and 2003/4
sted wrote:
Surprised wrote:
I guess.


You are an economist I claim my £5. :lol:


Very good :lol:
A true economist would have said assume rather than guess and then listed all his assumptions, none of which would be applicable in the real world.


Top
 Profile FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 23:54 
Online
FISO Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 36987
Location: .. he thinks that he knows something which he doesn't, whereas I am quite concious of my ignorance.
2) Germany are a safer bet to pay back the money, so the interest is less. (It is like gambling, but with a much better chance of winning as most people do pay it back.) Germany almost certain to pay it back Greece and Italy a but less certain...

1) Indeed, but Italy didn't buy a house with it, which can be sold if you\they do not pay it off. The etc is also relevant re car loans, and credit card debts - which is what Vince Cable was on about years ago. He was one of the very few (and no Tories that I know of) that went on about the huge UK House Prices and Private Debt..... I don't know if Italy gave the Banks a load of cash, but I assume so. (This doubled the UK Public Debt.)

3) Countries guess what they are going to receive for years to come to the project their spending. The fly in the ointment is the growth of the Economy. The more growth they guess the more they think they will receive (as more people are employed so more Income Tax etc), however less growth is less revenue and more expenditure in terms of Dole, alone. Throw in some capital projects eg Crosslink, new Nuclear weapons etc and that is the debt. Brown and Labour have had some flack recently for getting hospitals to fund developments by borrowing from the Private Sector ie a mortgage on a new wing etc......


Top
 Profile WWW FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 02 Nov 2011, 23:56 
Online
FISO Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 36987
Location: .. he thinks that he knows something which he doesn't, whereas I am quite concious of my ignorance.
Surprised wrote:
sted wrote:
Surprised wrote:
I guess.


You are an economist I claim my £5. :lol:


Very good :lol:
A true economist would have said assume rather than guess and then listed all his assumptions, none of which would be applicable in the real world.


One of the things I learnt on my Economics degree was that anyone on TV with "Economist" with their name was lying :wink:


Top
 Profile WWW FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:04 
Online
FISO Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 13375
Location: Location! Location!
Blog: View Blog (2)
FS Record: TFFOSM MotW in 2008 and MotM in 2003. 78th overall in TFFO for 2002/3 and 2003/4
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"?


Top
 Profile FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:07 
Offline
Dumbledore
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 5213
Location: Outside, fighting 3 big fellas and drinking beer at the same time.
blahblah wrote:

3) Countries guess what they are going to receive for years to come to the project their spending. The fly in the ointment is the growth of the Economy. The more growth they guess the more they think they will receive (as more people are employed so more Income Tax etc), however less growth is less revenue and more expenditure in terms of Dole, alone. Throw in some capital projects eg Crosslink, new Nuclear weapons etc and that is the debt. Brown and Labour have had some flack recently for getting hospitals to fund developments by borrowing from the Private Sector ie a mortgage on a new wing etc......


So. It's a bit like me presuming that my pay is going to rise through promotion etc over the next five years, borrowing money on the back of that to fund a new house extension (capital project), and then not getting the promotion?

I'd look a bit foolish.


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:09 
Online
FISO Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 36987
Location: .. he thinks that he knows something which he doesn't, whereas I am quite concious of my ignorance.
Yes, and why Politicians predicting daft growth when the Economy contracts look a tad daft (Osbourne).


Top
 Profile WWW FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:10 
Offline
Dumbledore
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 5213
Location: Outside, fighting 3 big fellas and drinking beer at the same time.
blahblah wrote:
I don't know if Italy gave the Banks a load of cash, but I assume so. (This doubled the UK Public Debt.)


I don't understand this....Have I taken it out of context?


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:11 
Offline
Grumpy Old Man

Joined: Thu Aug 17 2006
Posts: 1885
FS Record: Won TSO £10 comp 2008, retained title in 2009. FPL: 96th, 19th.
Why have debt? Check out how the US deficit has built up...

The NYT suggests:

New policies:
Bush = $5tr (war = 1.5, tax cuts = 2, bailouts/stimulus = 1, +misc)
Obama = $1.5tr (stimulus)

see:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

and
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph1.html?ref=sunday

This is all from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

The white house, not neutral (and recommending the above) also cover it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

The above does not make the $14tr figure - the rest comes from other effects of the downturn I think, like reduced tax revenues (personal and business).


Last edited by hancockjr on 03 Nov 2011, 00:12, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile WWW FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:11 
Online
FISO Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 13375
Location: Location! Location!
Blog: View Blog (2)
FS Record: TFFOSM MotW in 2008 and MotM in 2003. 78th overall in TFFO for 2002/3 and 2003/4
sted wrote:
So. It's a bit like me presuming that my pay is going to rise through promotion etc over the next five years, borrowing money on the back of that to fund a new house extension (capital project), and then not getting the promotion?

I'd look a bit foolish.


Also the builder would own your extension and you would pay rent to use it.


Top
 Profile FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:13 
Online
FISO Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 36987
Location: .. he thinks that he knows something which he doesn't, whereas I am quite concious of my ignorance.
I don't know how\why Italian debt is so high; but ours doubled with the Bankers Crash (36 to over 60% is close enough for me)

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downc ... r=c&title=


Top
 Profile WWW FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:15 
Online
FISO Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 36987
Location: .. he thinks that he knows something which he doesn't, whereas I am quite concious of my ignorance.
The Wars are a bit of a wildcard as the UK Govt seems reluctant to publish figures but at approx £300k per bomb on Libya even that will add up.......


Top
 Profile WWW FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 00:41 
Offline
Grumpy Old Man
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 28 2009
Posts: 3068
Location: The Arsenal Summer Spending Sweepstake chump!
Surprised wrote:
sted wrote:
So. It's a bit like me presuming that my pay is going to rise through promotion etc over the next five years, borrowing money on the back of that to fund a new house extension (capital project), and then not getting the promotion?

I'd look a bit foolish.


Also the builder would own your extension and you would pay rent to use it.

Then the builder would buy and sell it 4 times for 70%, 60%, 50% and 40% of it's value making a profit all the way then get the european bank to buy it back for 50%.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 09:45 
Online
Dumbledore
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 05 2005
Posts: 6475
Location: MTA (Mid Table Anonymity)
FS Record: Ultra ultra consistent (see above)
sted wrote:
2. Countries that are problematic can pay up to 6% interest on borrowing instead of the 0.3% that Germany pays (many people pay similar rates on mortgages)

3. Why do countries need to borrow? I understand that we did during the world wars, and I understand that that has been paid back. But to borrow just to keep afloat is surely comparable to me taking out 'payday loans' and we'd be better cutting our coats according to our cloth?


Aha but is and isn't the case - the PIIGS used to have to pay 6% (say) to borrow money which made it unattractive for them to do so. Then they joined the EU and by association with some of the sturdier countries they were lent money at rates much closer to the 0.3% you mention above. Rather than spending the cash on new capital projects / infrastructure they effectively went down the pub for a long time / attended disco's.

This left only disco / bar owners in the black - everyone else was skint and couldn't pay back the money they owed. Debt is like any other tradable commodity and people seeing a lot of hungover people wanted out - only no one would buy it off them except at huge discounts. Of course the lending parties were often the Germay's of this world.

They also needed new debt to pay for other things - now everyone has had finger's burned - so rates are back up to the 6% again (and more).

That costs a lot to fund.

Growth cannot meet it in its current form. They need to invest in capital and infrastructure projects. They need to borrow to do that or massively cut public spending.

Personally I think this would be a good time to invade Greece - how would they fund a war. Any one up for it - Sted?


Top
 Profile FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 10:33 
Offline
FISO Baron
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13 2005
Posts: 61559
Location: Chilling in a Fantasy Football free world
Blog: View Blog (9)
FS Record: Good at something
Maybe we could buy a few Greek islands? Some of the resorts are essentially English/British anyway and we are used to Europeans working in our bars and cafes so would it make any difference?

Would keep our tourist money in house and save the tourists changing money into Euros / Drachmas.


Top
 Profile WWW FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 10:51 
Offline
Grumpy Old Man
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11 2010
Posts: 1951
The basic principle is that of leverage. In simple terms, you can either use your own equity to invest in something or borrow from someone else. You can increase your return by borrowing and so a level of debt is actually more efficient than having no debt.

If you have £100k equity and can invest in something that provides a 10% return in a year, you can either just invest the equity and make £10k (10% return on capital), or you could use £50k of your equity and borrow the other £50k at 5%. At the end of the year, you get back £110k, repay the £50k plus interest of £2,500 - net profit of £7,500 or 15% return on capital. By using leverage based on fixed rate borrowing, you've increased your return by 5%. If you did the same with your other £50k equity you would have made £15,000 profit instead of £10,000 profit, i.e a 15% return on investments that only paid out at 10%.

In the context of Governments, equity is the amount you can raise by taxes etc. If you also take on debt, you can invest in larger capital projects which generate GDP. The extra wealth created by the investment is greater than it would have been without the debt and so you increase the implicit rate of return on investment (as long as you can borrow at a lower rate than the return on the investment). The wealth created pays for the debt and makes everyone better off, and importantly proportionally better off than if the debt were not used. That's the basic, Keynesian, theory, although obv it's a lot more complex than that.

Problems obviously arise when you get defaulters on the bonds that you issue, as they do in the self fulfilling prophesy of the credit rating agency downgrades making your debt more expensive (you can't borrow at the lower rate any more and the leverage effect reduces or even reverses - the corollary of leverage is that if your borrowing rate increases above the return rate the negative impact is accelerated just as the positive return is accelerated in the example above).

There is also the assumption that you can't just keep on borrowing to fund growth, partly because of diminishing returns on capital investment and partly as the risk increases and the cost of capital increases. A decent rule of thumb might be that if your debt:equity ratio goes over say 60% then the risk profile goes up, cost of capital increases and you don't get the leverage benefits, in fact you can end up borrowing more just to fund repayment of earlier debt (not in itself a problem - bonds are fixed term and continually issued to repay old bonds coming to maturity, the problem arises when you have to issue more and more bonds to cover maturing bonds without generating cash to use for investment - a debt spiral).

Governments are by their nature short sighted and tend to forget about the cyclical nature of economies. In boom times you should be reducing your overall debt - if you keep it at 60% of your rising boom-time GDP, it ends up at a higher% of GDP when you hit a recession and you can end up in a debt cycle. Typically Governments seem not to realise that and end up borrowing and spending in boom times and cutting back in recessions, which is the wrong way round.

That's all very simplistic, but attempts to explain why debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in theory, without really scratching the surface of why is doesn't always work in practice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 10:53 
Offline
Grumpy Old Man
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11 2010
Posts: 1951
oh - ps. When people 'discovered' leverage in the late 20's, it pretty much caused the Wall Street Crash and the great depression.

Theory and practice....

esp when mixed with greed.......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 12:34 
Offline
Dumbledore
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07 2008
Posts: 5368
hancockjr wrote:
Why have debt? Check out how the US deficit has built up...

The NYT suggests:

New policies:
Bush = $5tr (war = 1.5, tax cuts = 2, bailouts/stimulus = 1, +misc)
Obama = $1.5tr (stimulus)

see:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday

and
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph1.html?ref=sunday

This is all from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

The white house, not neutral (and recommending the above) also cover it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

The above does not make the $14tr figure - the rest comes from other effects of the downturn I think, like reduced tax revenues (personal and business).


Frightening, isn't it? If the US was to default, I'd suggest we all get supplies and keep ourselve locked indoors for a while....

Obviously, FF can carry on - the Premier League doesn't need a crowd, right?


Top
 Profile FPL Team Page  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any economists out there can answer a question?
PostPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 12:41 
Offline
Grumpy Old Man
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17 2008
Posts: 1943
Location: Mons, Belgium
blahblah wrote:
The Wars are a bit of a wildcard as the UK Govt seems reluctant to publish figures but at approx £300k per bomb on Libya even that will add up.......



NATO led so therefore we would only pay a % of costs.


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Bookmark and Share
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: