We could start " Vegies growing hints " thread.
I must say for me the biggest problem are birds, grubs, slugs and caterpillars not to mention aphids or powdery mildew, they spoil so much that I have reduced back to some herbs.
For some reason parsley is quite safe in my neck of woods.
I also plant 3/4 of bunch of shallots every time I get new one. They sell them with roots and only ones from Aldi stores have problems to keep growing. I plant the smallest and they seem to beef up quite well.
While ago we used to have some spoilage as bunch of shallots can only last so long in the fridge.
Slugs and snails love them too, so pellets have to be placed around on regular basis.
I better stop here as; this is not the proper thread yet!
The I word
40 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: The I word
by G » Sat May 24, 2008 7:05 pm
- G
- Posts: 1268
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 8:09 am
- Location: Australia, NSW
Re: The I word
by benthonic » Sun May 25, 2008 9:56 pm
quote
"What are the investment ramifications? With global headline inflation now at 7% there is a need for new global investment solutions, a role that PIMCO is more than willing (and able) to provide. In this role we would suggest:
1) Treasury bonds are obviously not to be favored because of their negative (unreal) real yields.
2) U.S. TIPS (inflation linked securities), while affording headline CPI protection, risk the delusion of an artificially low inflation number as well.
3) On the other hand, commodity-based assets as well as foreign equities whose P/Es are better grounded with local CPI and nominal bond yield comparisons should be excellent candidates.
4) These assets should in turn be denominated in currencies that demonstrate authentic real growth and inflation rates, that while high, at least are credible.
5) Developing, BRIC-like economies are obvious choices for investment dollars.
this is conclusion from June Pimco column. It is a bit of a change from their previous position.
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+M ... e+2008.htm
basically saying that making decisions on erroneous inflation figures (for USA) is bad investment, and recognising that the inflation fudge is hard to fix, then they may as well put money elsewhere.
Implications
1. weight of US asset money will further weaken US position
2. does Aust also have a gap between headline and core?
3. Also in the article, asks the question "But the number is also critical in any estimation of bond yields, stock prices, and commercial real estate cap rates. If core inflation were really 3% instead of 2%, then nominal bond yields might logically be 1% higher than they are today, because bond investors would require more compensation" and concludes "A readjustment of investor mentality in the valuation of all three of these investment categories – bonds, stocks, and real estate – would mean a downward adjustment of price of maybe 5% in bonds and perhaps 10% or more in U.S. stocks and commercial real estate."
Because 4. as rational investors they aren't going to wait around.
If thats happening in USA, watch out R.O.W.
"What are the investment ramifications? With global headline inflation now at 7% there is a need for new global investment solutions, a role that PIMCO is more than willing (and able) to provide. In this role we would suggest:
1) Treasury bonds are obviously not to be favored because of their negative (unreal) real yields.
2) U.S. TIPS (inflation linked securities), while affording headline CPI protection, risk the delusion of an artificially low inflation number as well.
3) On the other hand, commodity-based assets as well as foreign equities whose P/Es are better grounded with local CPI and nominal bond yield comparisons should be excellent candidates.
4) These assets should in turn be denominated in currencies that demonstrate authentic real growth and inflation rates, that while high, at least are credible.
5) Developing, BRIC-like economies are obvious choices for investment dollars.
this is conclusion from June Pimco column. It is a bit of a change from their previous position.
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+M ... e+2008.htm
basically saying that making decisions on erroneous inflation figures (for USA) is bad investment, and recognising that the inflation fudge is hard to fix, then they may as well put money elsewhere.
Implications
1. weight of US asset money will further weaken US position
2. does Aust also have a gap between headline and core?
3. Also in the article, asks the question "But the number is also critical in any estimation of bond yields, stock prices, and commercial real estate cap rates. If core inflation were really 3% instead of 2%, then nominal bond yields might logically be 1% higher than they are today, because bond investors would require more compensation" and concludes "A readjustment of investor mentality in the valuation of all three of these investment categories – bonds, stocks, and real estate – would mean a downward adjustment of price of maybe 5% in bonds and perhaps 10% or more in U.S. stocks and commercial real estate."
Because 4. as rational investors they aren't going to wait around.
If thats happening in USA, watch out R.O.W.
- benthonic
- Posts: 3868
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 3:42 pm
- Location: Canberra
Re: The I word
by benthonic » Thu May 14, 2009 8:43 am
the argument: excess money printing (quantitative easing) will lead to inflation
the rebuttal
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/bu ... 38,00.html
excerpts ""
1. anti-inflationary impact of spare industrial capacity and unemployment. While unemployment is unlikely to reach the heights of the 1980s, the low level of inflation when this recession started means that wages will stagnate or even fall in the next two or three years. Also businesses will find it hard to put up prices.
2. The way monetary policy operates. Inflation is caused, in layman's language, by "too much money chasing too few goods". There will be no shortage of goods in the world economy for the foreseeable future. (see "excess capacity")
3. The government's borrowing binge. With public borrowing now running at unsustainable levels, authorities now see reducing government deficits as the priority after the recession. To do this, the government will have to raise taxes and cut public spending, both of which will curb growth and deflate the economy.
4. (a curious one) almost everyone assumes growth will be slower in the years ahead? Because conventional wisdom confuses supply and demand. If households increase their savings (whether by putting money into their bank accounts, increasing their pension payments or buying shares), this reduces their demand for goods. But assuming that those extra savings don't sit idly, but are lent to businesses that want to expand, supply of goods in the economy will increase. How is this divergence between supply and demand reconciled? This is where monetary policy comes in. An economy in which the savings propensity has risen permanently will need lower interest rates than in the past. Only by keeping rates low by historic standards, will demand and supply be kept in balance and full employment be maintained. Making sure that demand grows in line with productive capacity is now the main task for monetary policy - and will be in the years ahead. ""
the rebuttal
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/bu ... 38,00.html
excerpts ""
1. anti-inflationary impact of spare industrial capacity and unemployment. While unemployment is unlikely to reach the heights of the 1980s, the low level of inflation when this recession started means that wages will stagnate or even fall in the next two or three years. Also businesses will find it hard to put up prices.
2. The way monetary policy operates. Inflation is caused, in layman's language, by "too much money chasing too few goods". There will be no shortage of goods in the world economy for the foreseeable future. (see "excess capacity")
3. The government's borrowing binge. With public borrowing now running at unsustainable levels, authorities now see reducing government deficits as the priority after the recession. To do this, the government will have to raise taxes and cut public spending, both of which will curb growth and deflate the economy.
4. (a curious one) almost everyone assumes growth will be slower in the years ahead? Because conventional wisdom confuses supply and demand. If households increase their savings (whether by putting money into their bank accounts, increasing their pension payments or buying shares), this reduces their demand for goods. But assuming that those extra savings don't sit idly, but are lent to businesses that want to expand, supply of goods in the economy will increase. How is this divergence between supply and demand reconciled? This is where monetary policy comes in. An economy in which the savings propensity has risen permanently will need lower interest rates than in the past. Only by keeping rates low by historic standards, will demand and supply be kept in balance and full employment be maintained. Making sure that demand grows in line with productive capacity is now the main task for monetary policy - and will be in the years ahead. ""
- benthonic
- Posts: 3868
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 3:42 pm
- Location: Canberra
Re: The I word
by Judd » Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:20 am
From my meager (mis)understanding of economics, a little inflation can be a good thing but this is not.
Japan's economy slides into deflation
Leo Lewis, Asia Business Correspondent
From Times Online
November 20, 2009
Japan's economy has officially plunged back into deflation, condemning its struggling companies to a purgatory of falling prices and setting up a potentially explosive collision between the Finance Ministry and the Central Bank.
Today’s GDP report suggests that the Japanese Government is preparing itself for the horrors of a “double-dip” recession – a calamity which most economists currently believe can be avoided, but only if China and Asia retain their recovery momentum.
The Government’s grim declaration of a “mild deflationary phase” followed a week of fierce debate within the ruling Democratic Party of Japan over whether to admit publicly that an old demon has returned to the world’s second biggest economy.
Many private sector economists have argued since the beginning of the year that prices were falling systemically.
The psychological difficulty for Japan of admitting to deflation, though, is considerable: the economy only officially exited deflation in 2006 after nearly a decade in its clutches.
Prolonged deflation can be a hugely destructive force, scything profitability and compelling companies to cut staff and delay capital spending.
Today’s announcement is expected to deepen the chasm between the Finance Ministry and the Bank of Japan, setting the two arms of government in direct opposition to one another.
The former is keen to stress the fragility of the recovery, and believes that there are many “worrisome” factors still at large.
The Bank of Japan (BoJ), which today opted to leave interest rates at 0.1 per cent, is more sanguine. Following the announcement of a surprise quarterly improvement in GDP earlier this week, the BoJ upgraded its assessment of the economy, saying that it was now “picking up”.
That same GDP report, however, included an alarming reading from the domestic demand deflator, which underwent its steepest drop in 50 years during the July to September quarter.
The Government may insist that the BoJ eases monetary policy even further. The deputy prime minister, Naoto Kan, said that his government would “convey our views to the Bank of Japan,” adding that there may be more to be done on the monetary front as deflation continues to bite.
Regards
Judd
Judd
- Judd
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:58 am
40 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests