PIXNET Logo登入

keep learning, keep moving

跳到主文

Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving -- Albert Einstein.

部落格全站分類:財經政論

  • 相簿
  • 部落格
  • 留言
  • 名片
  • 7月 21 週四 201108:09
  • Panic of 1819

Failed banks, widespread foreclosures, impaired agriculture sector and manufacturing industry, large scale unemployment and homelessness.... these were some of the predominant characteristics of the US economy during the Panic of 1819 - the first major financial crisis in the American history. It was one of the most hard-hitting crisis that the nation had ever witnessed - largely because the national financial system was still in its infancy and never before had the Americans witnessed crisis of such magnitude in their country.
What was the Panic of 1819?
The Panic of 1819 was the first major financial crisis or economic recession that the US economy was subjected to. This crisis situation occurred towards the end of the Era of Good Feelings in the first quarter of 19th century. The buildup of this crisis had begun with the War of 1812. In 1818, the British investors turning their attention towards the Indian subcontinent for cotton and this turned out to be a major trigger for large scale panic among the masses, which eventually resulted in economic depression in the United States. It started with drastic fall in land prices across the United States, and went for the next three years till 1822. One thing led to another, and soon enough the entire economy had come to a standstill - even before the government could figure out what was happening.
What Caused the Panic of 1819?
Unlike the previous financial crisis which the nation was subjected to, the Panic of 1819 causes were rooted within the US economy. While the public debt of 1812 and Louisiana Purchase had its own share in causing the Panic of 1819, the most prominent cause for the same was an irresponsible banking system - with the Second Bank of the United States at its forefront, prevailing in the country during this period. In its attempt to raise money to pay off the debt which had accumulated after the War of 1812, the administration hiked the prices of goods - which, in turn, resulted in inflation. In the post-war US economy, the absence of a nationalized banking system gave state banks the power to print currency. With no monitoring authority as such, these banks pumped enormous amount of money in the economy - with no backing of any sort, and this eventually became one of the most prominent causes for inflation in the country.
When the Second Bank of the United States came into existence, it walked on the same path as the state banks - towards economic expansion, owing to the fact that this expansion added to nation's revenue. Only when it realized that this inflation is affecting the economy, it switched over from its expansionary stance to a deflationary stance - with the intent of curbing inflation in the economy, in 1818. In a bid to control inflation, the Second Bank contracted the money supply and called in all the outstanding loans - which, in turn, resulted in failure of many state banks. As the British investors turned all their attention to their new colonies in Asia, it resulted in large scale loss in the agriculture sector - which eventually resulted in a full fledged financial crisis in the nation.
What Were the Effects of Panic of 1819?
The Panic of 1819 marked the end of the policy of economic expansion in the United States of America. Similarly, it had long lasting effects on the banking system in the country. The new financial policies that followed the Panic of 1819 were ideal for the economic development of the nation. Panic of 1819 effects were most obvious in the southern and western states. In the field of politics, it allowed Andrew Jackson to strengthen his base in the nation. Most important of all, the Panic of 1819 was a lesson learned for American citizens who realized that the role of the government in their lives.
The Panic of 1819 finally came to an end in 1823, but that was just one of the numerous financial crisis that the United States was subjected to during the 19th century. Other financial crisis of this period were the Panic of 1837, Panic of 1857, Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1893. Even though the Panic of 1819 was not as intense as the Great Depression - which was the largest economic depression in the 20th century, it did did replace the foundation of US economy with a new- stronger foundation.
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(6)

  • 個人分類:Economy
▲top
  • 7月 20 週三 201111:03
  • Recession Vs. Depression

Before going into deeper analysis of the subject matter, I cannot avoid mentioning the favorite joke of economists on recession and depression. When other people lose their jobs, it's a recession. When you lose yours, it's a depression.. The joke involves some subjective judgment to differentiate recession from depression. Definition of recession and depression follows no ironclad rule. It can be differentiated only by judging the nature of economic downfall and its outcome. Both are similar in few aspects when negative impacts are taken into account. The difference lies only on the effects and the lasting effect of recession and depression. The former lasts for short period while the latter has long lasting effect. Recession vs depression has been studied by economists deeply and you can also get a better concept after reading this article. Read more on economic recession and depression - definition and difference.
Let us first study the history of depression and recession. The Great Depression was a severe economic downturn during World War II. It started in the US in the year 1929 and lasted till late 1930s. It had devastating effects and gradually showed far flung effects world wide. Economic slowdown with decrease in profit price and increase in the rate of unemployment were prominent during this term. Now that was the period when the globe was worst affected by long lasting depression. In December 2007, the US economy was affected by recession. This was a period of financial crisis. The year 2007-2010 is referred as The Great Recession. The effects were globalized with pronounced deceleration of economic activity. Read more on effects of the great depression.
Recession Vs Depression - Differences
Recession is usually measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It is general a slowdown of business activity for a particular period of time. It can also be defined as a contraction in business cycle and decline in Gross Domestic Product for two consecutive quarters. The National Bureau of Economic Statistics (NBER), describes economic recession in the following words. 'A recession occurs when a significant decline in the economic activity is spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible to real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale sales.' The signs of recession are reduced output, increase in the rate of unemployment, low corporate profits and increased rate of bankruptcies. The worst recession in the last 60 years was seen in the US that started in November 1973 and ended in March 1975, during which the GDP fell by 4.9%. Read more on causes of economic recession.
Depression is a severe form of recession that involves complete or deep decline in investment and output. All the effects of recession are seen in depression as well only taking a larger shape. The thumb rule for determining economic depression is decline in real GDP by 10% or more. Although there's no yardstick for defining depression, it is normally accepted that recession lasting for more than 3 years turns to be depression. The last depression in the US started in August 1929 and lasted till 1938 during which the GDP fell to 18.2 percent.
Difference between recession and depression can be judged by the time frame and economic conditions. Depression is sustained and a more severe downturn in the economy. Recession vs depression thus can be differentiated on the basic of its effect on the business economy, fall in the rate of GDP and the period of lasting.
Recession Vs Depression - Similarities
Whatever be the nature of economic downfall, either recession or depression, the effects on the economy and financial market is more or less the same. Abnormal increase in unemployment, shrinking output and investment are the worst effects of this slowdown. Rising bankruptcies, financial crisis, reduced amount of trade and commerce are also the outcome of recession and depression. Increase in rate of high volatile currency, fluctuations in money (devaluations) and price deflation accentuate financial crisis. These two conditions in the market also have wide reaching effects like low consumer confidence, disruption in retirement plans and fall in stock prices. These are the negative aspects which are common for both recession and depression.
I hope this article on recession vs depression has sufficed you all details about these economic calamities. Be it recession or depression, the ultimate effect is NEGATIVE and ample time is required for the revival of economic conditions.
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(61)

  • 個人分類:Economy
▲top
  • 7月 19 週二 201116:29
  • Marc Faber on Gold, Silver, Deflation and the U.S. Economy

 
Marc Faber on Gold, Silver, Deflation and the U.S. Economy
 
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(9)

  • 個人分類:Economy
▲top
  • 7月 14 週四 201108:50
  • 伯南克考慮 QE3救經濟









伯南克考慮 QE3救經濟






美國聯邦儲備局主席伯南克(Ben Bernanke)昨晚出席眾議院金融服務業委員會聽證會,首次表明有可能推出新一輪購債計劃,即市場期待的第三輪量化寬鬆政策(QE3),但強調只在考慮階段,推出的前提是經濟沒如預期在下半年回升。

伯南克一連兩日在國會發表半年度貨幣政策報告;他擔心近期的經濟疲弱可能較預期持久,通縮風險或會重臨,勞工市場近兩個月表現差強人意,遠較儲局預期疲弱,故有需要考慮再推刺激經濟措施。


伯南克考慮了三種方式,以進一步放寬貨幣政策︰第一種是儲局提供較明確的指引,承諾聯邦基金利率將維持低位一段長時間;另一種是,一如對上兩次,推出另一輪購債計劃,或增加儲局所持債券的平均到期日;最後一種是,儲局就銀行放在儲局的儲備金,將給予較少利息,從而令短期利率有下調壓力。


鑑於儲局購債計劃的成效,一直受到議員及外間的質疑,所以伯南克昨天也抽時間推銷一下購債計劃的好處。他指出,剛完成的第二輪購債計劃,即坊間慣稱的QE2,成功令美國長期債息降低0.1至0.3厘,作用相當於儲局調低聯邦基金利率0.4至1.2厘。目前聯邦基金利率的水平範圍為零至0.25厘。


伯南克重申近期物價上升,主要受短暫因素影響,如能源及商品價格上升,所以物價未來應會回落。他表示,如政府無法在8月2日提高借貸上限,為取得應急資金,政府惟有大幅削減多項供款,包括醫療保健、社會保障及軍隊薪金。


分析師稱 再推量寬阻力較大


盡管伯南克明示可能進一步放寬貨幣政策,但不少經濟師都認為,除非經濟相當疲弱及通脹顯著回落,否則不相信儲局會加推QE3,因為與推出QE2時相比,目前阻力較大,包括來自國內外的壓力。


伯南克昨天演說,其實對經濟亦有樂觀的一面。他仍然認為目前的經濟放緩只受短暫因素影響,包括能源價格高企,以及日本地震後供應鏈中斷,令全球製造業受影響。他重申經濟可在下半年回升,若是如此,則不需要較寬鬆的貨幣政策。


蘇格蘭皇家銀行首席美國經濟師Tom Porcelli認為,伯南克雖說不排除推QE3,但同時間認為目前的經濟放緩是短暫的,故未必需要再推刺激經濟政策。因此,這只算是口頭建議,並無實質承諾。




 


Fed官員Fisher﹕Fed已採取了足夠多的措施來刺激經濟
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(44)

  • 個人分類:Economy
▲top
  • 6月 30 週四 201115:02
  • 美國經濟比你想的還要糟糕


The Economy Is Worse Than You Think
2011/6/10 Wall Street Journal
Martin Feldstein
The policies of the Obama administration have led to the weak condition of the American economy. Growth during the coming year will be subpar at best, leaving high or rising levels of unemployment and underemployment.
The drop in GDP growth to just 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011, from 3.1% in the final quarter of last year, understates the extent of the decline. Two-thirds of that 1.8% went into business inventories rather than sales to consumers or other final buyers. This means that final sales growth was at an annual rate of just 0.6% and the actual quarterly increase was just 0.15% -- dangerously close to no rise at all. A sustained expansion cannot be built on inventory investment. It takes final sales to induce businesses to hire and to invest.
The picture is even gloomier if we look in more detail. Estimates of monthly GDP indicate that the only growth in the first quarter of 2011 was from February to March. After a temporary rise in March, the economy began sliding again in April, with declines in real wages, in durable-goods orders and manufacturing production, in existing home sales, and in real per-capita disposable incomes. It is not surprising that the index of leading indicators fell in April, only the second decline since it began to rise in the spring of 2009.
The data for May are beginning to arrive and are even worse than April's. They are marked by a collapse in payroll-employment gains; a higher unemployment rate; manufacturers' reports of slower orders and production; weak chain-store sales; and a sharp drop in consumer confidence.
How has the Obama administration contributed to this failure to achieve a robust and sustainable recovery?
The administration's most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion 'stimulus' package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.
As for the 'stimulus' package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand. The fall in household wealth by the end of 2008 reduced the annual level of consumer spending by more than $500 billion. The drop in home building subtracted another $200 billion from GDP. The total GDP shortfall was therefore more than $700 billion. The Obama stimulus package that started at less than $300 billion in 2009 and reached a maximum of $400 billion in 2010 wouldn't have been big enough to fill the $700 billion annual GDP gap even if every dollar of the stimulus raised GDP by a dollar.
In fact, each dollar of extra deficit added much less than a dollar to GDP. Experience shows that the most cost-effective form of temporary fiscal stimulus is direct government spending. The most obvious way to achieve that in 2009 was to repair and replace the military equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan that would otherwise have to be done in the future. But the Obama stimulus had nothing for the Defense Department. Instead, President Obama allowed the Democratic leadership in Congress to design a hodgepodge package of transfers to state and local governments, increased transfers to individuals, temporary tax cuts for lower-income taxpayers, etc. So we got a bigger deficit without economic growth.
A second cause of the continued economic weakness is the president's emphasis on increasing tax rates. Although Mr. Obama grudgingly agreed to continue the Bush tax cuts for 2011 and 2012, his budget this year repeated his call for higher tax rates on upper-income individuals and multinational corporations. With that higher-tax cloud hanging over them, it is not surprising that individuals and businesses do not make the entrepreneurial investments and business expansions that would cause a solid recovery.
A third problem stems from the administration's lack of an explicit plan to deal with future budget deficits and with the exploding national debt. This creates uncertainty about future tax increases and interest rates that impedes spending by households and investment by businesses. The national debt has jumped to 69% of GDP this year, from 40% in 2008. It is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach more than 85% by the end of the decade, and to keep rising after that. The reality is even worse since ObamaCare alone will cost more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years. The president's boast that his health legislation would not 'add a dime' to the national debt was possible only by combining that increased spending with proposed new taxes and with projected cuts in Medicare spending that will never occur.
Finally, there is the administration's incoherent position on the international value of the dollar. The Treasury repeats the slogan that 'a strong dollar is good for America' while watching the real value of the dollar fall by 7% over the past year, and while urging the Chinese to allow the dollar to fall more quickly relative to the yuan. The lack of a consistent dollar policy adds to the uncertainty that limits business investment and hiring.
The economy will continue to suffer until there is a coherent and favorable economic policy. That means bringing long-term deficits under control without raising marginal tax rates -- by cutting government outlays and by limiting the tax expenditures that substitute for direct government spending. It means lower tax rates on businesses and individuals to spur entrepreneurship and investment. And it means reforming Social Security and Medicare to protect the living standards of future retirees while limiting the cost to future taxpayers.
All of these things are doable. But the Obama administration has not done them and shows no inclination to do them in the future.
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(132)

  • 個人分類:Economy
▲top
  • 6月 30 週四 201115:00
  • QE2 - What do people say?

 
 
QE 2.5來了,QE 3還遠嗎?
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(121)

  • 個人分類:Economy
▲top
  • 6月 30 週四 201114:58
  • News about the End of QE2

QE2吹起的一個大泡沫 

2011/05/27 11:18 華爾街日報
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(382)

  • 個人分類:Economy
▲top
  • 6月 30 週四 201111:07
  • Christine Lagarde will lead the IMF

Christine Lagarde will lead the IMF
Jun 28th 2011, 17:54 by R.A. |WASHINGTON
THE International Monetary Fund has announced its selection of Christine Lagarde, currently the French finance minister, as its new managing director. Ms Lagarde bested the head of Mexico's central bank, Agustín Carstens, in the contest to lead the IMF. Her victory was assured when she earned the backing of America and China early this week. Ms Lagarde's term will begin on July 5.
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(28)

  • 個人分類:NEWS
▲top
  • 6月 30 週四 201110:56
  • The euro crisis--If Greece goes…


The opportunity for Europe’s leaders to avoid disaster is shrinking fast
Jun 23rd 2011 | from the print edition
  
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(47)

  • 個人分類:Economy
▲top
  • 6月 30 週四 201110:22
  • 「後金融危機時代」的三個麻煩 / 經濟日報

個人覺得寫的還不錯...
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
「後金融危機時代」的三個麻煩
【經濟日報╱社論】2011.06.28 02:22 am
(繼續閱讀...)
文章標籤

amy5259 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣(13)

  • 個人分類:Economy
▲top
«1...18192040»

FB

Hot

最新文章

  • 如何透過聊天機器人(Chatbot) 翻轉企業與客戶的溝通方式
  • Apple iWatch 動態 & 相關新聞整理
  • 儿童在线娱乐运营商“百奥家庭”下周上市,红杉大赚36倍
  • 中國互聯網
  • 下一個big thing:物聯網(internet of things)
  • TPG和復星醫藥聯手以3.69億美元收購美中互利
  • KKR reports a 6.8 percent stake in chipmaker Marvell
  • 黑石集團大中華區主席梁錦松將離職,明年2月起任南豐CEO
  • JPMorgan, US in tentative $13 billion settlement
  • Carlyle Among Firms Finding Taiwan Banks No Path to China

My Space

amy5259
暱稱:
amy5259
分類:
財經政論
好友:
累積中
地區:

文章分類

toggle PE/VC (2)
  • VC-Venture Capital (7)
  • PE-Private Equity (26)
toggle Investment Bank (2)
  • Investment Banks (22)
  • Private Banking (1)
toggle IBD (3)
  • IBD-Investment Banking (2)
  • Underwritng-(IPO/SPO/CB/ECB/GDR) (3)
  • Mergers and acquisitions -M&A (11)
toggle Consulting (1)
  • Consulting (13)
toggle Knowledge is infinite (9)
  • Marketing (2)
  • Finance (19)
  • Currency (1)
  • Economy (68)
  • personality (1)
  • environment (5)
  • Management (14)
  • CEO View (2)
  • Law (7)
toggle News-Tech (3)
  • 科技新聞 (10)
  • 科技新聞-資訊3C (11)
  • 電腦軟硬體 (1)
toggle News-Finance (4)
  • NEWS (75)
  • Commodities (2)
  • Mutual Funds related (12)
  • Equity Market (9)
toggle There is no royal road to learning. (5)
  • 個人學習札記 (23)
  • StudyAbroad (18)
  • 求職經驗談文章 (9)
  • 公關/廣告 (4)
  • Jesus (3)
toggle Web Designing (2)
  • javascript (3)
  • css (2)
  • 未分類文章 (1)

熱門文章

  • (936)歌劇--
  • (21,117)職前準備 》公關業徵才 脫掉高跟鞋的灰姑娘請進
  • (18,340)[經濟] The Economist 《經濟學人》常用詞彙大總結
  • (5,316)2010全球頂尖商學院排名
  • (5,869)交易成本經濟學(Transaction Cost Economics,簡稱TCE)
  • (20,614)IBM GBS前世今生
  • (20,287)[轉貼]奧美廿一世紀公關面試
  • (126)New Rules May Affect Every Corner of JPMorgan
  • (1,953)MSCI Bloomberg ticker
  • (80)REUTERS --Best of the week

參觀人氣

  • 本日人氣:
  • 累積人氣:

自訂側欄

文章精選

文章搜尋