Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?
211–220 of 226 posts
Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?
#212Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gen-Z are absolute rockstars. I like to think that part of the surprise win for Dems in 2022 was boomers passing away (possibly accelerated due to anti-vax COVID deaths) and Gen-Z really coming out in the hopes of some sort of college loan relief. Hopefully down the road the millennials and gen-z become a large enough collective that they finally push out the garbage...although the establishment wont go down without…
> Gen-Z really coming out in the hopes of some sort of college loan relief. Do Gen-Z have enough brains to understand that any sensible college loan relief must be accompanied by stringent control how colleges raise tuition? As it stands now loan relief is an invitation to the universities to keep raising tuition without limits.
Humans being social animals makes me worried that its going to be a fighting retreat by those aware of the manipulation against these technologies being used to manipulate.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as the rest of the Nordics hate to admit it, Norway's economy is far more stable than those of their neighbours, including the Swedish one.
I wouldn't say far more. As long as oil is in high demand, sure, 50% of their exports are shipping reliably. But Sweden's GDP is 30% larger, much more diversified, and will withstand the eventual contraction of petroleum based income. Take a look at their respective exports: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norway_Exports_Treem... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sweden_Export_Treema...
Sweden has twice the population and what? Three times the landmass?
Sweden also does not have an oil fund where it invested much of the dino profits from the last 60 years. The Norwegian one won't last forever, but I'd bet it'll last longer than any of us.
Don't get me wrong; Sweden has a decent economy and the standard of living is still amongst top-20 on the planet. Norway just struck black gold and scored higher.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?
#2152008 was bad. This is much worse, in my opinion. At least the loans were backed by real property in 2008. Homes that will have value and in fact have came back way, way more valuable than the bottom of that crash. What we have now is a crash in financial instruments themselves. It's about supply and demand. The USA has been printing up dollars like crazy since the beginning of the Covid pandemic. Simple supply and de…
I don't understand what you're saying. I'm far from an expert, but the situation seems to be the opposite of your points? In 2008 we had crazy financial instruments that were derivatives of bad home loans. Now we have good loans, but a low interest rate on them so they aren't worth a lot compared to new loans at a higher rate. The thing that seems to get missed in all the hand-wringing is that these new loans at high…
Money supply went up, up, up, therefore inflation went up, up, up.
Now bonds are paying 5%.
SVB needs to sell its 1% bonds because they have to pay their actual depositors cash for payroll or whatever.
SVB goes to sell 1% bonds, which have been fine for forever.
Since new bonds pay 5%, SVB cannot sell their 1% bond because who in their right fucking mind would pay for a 1% bond when you can get a 5%.
How does SVB sell them? It cannot.
And now, the government is going to have to print even MORE money to rescue the bank depositors, throwing even MORE supply of money into our system, increasing inflation by even MORE. We are in a vicious death spiral, boys.
Normally, to my understanding, you have a certain % of deposits in different instruments. For example, maybe 30% in bonds.
It is very well known that if interest rates go up, value of bonds goes down. No surprise.
So what you do is hedge your bet. You put 30% into a financial instrument that goes UP when inflation goes up. So while one goes down, the other goes up, and you end with a net zero. Maybe $500 billion more, or $500 million less, but at least you don't get your ass handed to you. Like SVB did because they had like 70% in bonds and fucked themselves.
SVB lost $160 billion in 24 hours.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/svb-collap...
"Many of Silicon Valley Bank's investments featured treasuries, or government debt, which have historically been viewed as safe assets."
"Easy money policies coupled with pandemic-induced supply chain snares then led to inflation, according to many economists. As a result, the Federal Reserve began jacking up interest rates, which eroded the value of many of Silicon Valley Bank's assets."
"This is because higher rates meant that new bonds and treasuries earned more for investors than older ones. As a result, the older assets that Silicon Valley Bank stockpiled became less desirable and therefore shed value."
Same exact thing happened at Signature Bank.
It is NOT limited to SVB or Signature Bank.
"Banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized potential losses by the end of last year, according to the FDIC." For the same reason.
It's NOT a run, it is that value has been catastrophically been erased at banks. banks cannot pay their depositors. Even if there is no run, banks won't be able to give depositors money for rent, for mortgages, for payroll, for utilities. You get the message.
At some point, new loans cannot cover massive losses on the downside. If you lose 95% of the value of treasury bonds, a 5% loan is not going to do it to it.
Also, the banks won't even have money to give people loans, even if they wanted to. They can't even give current depositors money for payroll kind of thing.
We all need some luck here and how we can pull out of the nosedive that our jet airplane is in. Hope you are all puckered up in the sphincters.
Also, as I wrote, the risk manager went away, so there was no one to balance the risk. Nobody to say "No" we only can invest 30% into bonds and 30% into real property that goes up if inflation goes up, for example, so you get a wash. I don't know if it is 30%, I think I read that somewhere, but it doesn't really matter, that is the gist of it. Balancing different risks against each other to minimize risk and staying smooth and steady with assets.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?
#216Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gen-Z really coming out in the hopes of some sort of college loan relief. Do Gen-Z have enough brains to understand that any sensible college loan relief must be accompanied by stringent control how colleges raise tuition? As it stands now loan relief is an invitation to the universities to keep raising tuition without limits.
And the big wildcard for me will be the currently unanswered question of how easy will it be to use new technologies like ChatGPT, various image and voice generation tools/models, to create content that manipulates them directly or indirectly towards or away from things as desired by the current (and future) powerful and wealthy people who don’t want to lose their power or wealth. Humans being social animals makes me…
Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As I remember it the job market was doing well up until investments banks began failing in mid 2008 It was doing pretty similar to today in unemployment % terms until 2007, when that started getting worse too, with 6 years prior to that of declining incomes for virtually the entirety of the income distribution; if you call that “well”, then right now is doing great .
According to this site, the US unemployment are was low at the beginning of 2008: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE And according to this site, it was low in the EU region: https://www.dw.com/en/europes-unemployment-rate-hits-histori...
The local minimum of unemploymwnt before the 2007-2009 Great Recession waa 4.40%, reached several times between October 2006 and May 2007, with oscillations up to 4.5-4.6% in between. By the beginning of 2008 it was up to 5.0%. Yes, in general terms these are all “low”, but they are also all significantly higher than unemployment has recently been (last month it ticked up to 3.6% from 3.4%, that 3.4% tying the low reached in 1968-1969 and not seen in between.)
Saying that the “high” effective Fed Funds Rate of 4.58% is “causing unemployment” today with unemployment at 3.6% is somehow more true, and therefore distinguishing the current situation as worse, than, say, the 5.21%-5.28% effective rate over May 2007 causing unemployment when that was at 4.4% requires very slippery standards.
Re: Ask HN: Do you think this is the start of the new financial crisis?
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great idea! As someone who spent time volunteering for Bernie Sanders campaign, I'll wait here while you go do that: Good luck!
I was right there with you. We're collectively too stupid or too easily manipulated to enact the change we need.
Millions of us think in sound bites provided by propaganda.
Our universities teach flawed unsustainable economic theory as reality.
Our politicians are at the forefront of the science of dividing voters into two equal parts attacking each other and voting on non-essential issues.
Please see the work of George Lakoff on framing - it is crucial.