aliihsanasl wrote:You can't speculate about a bank, its against laws but from time to time some economists and money geniuses appear and say "get ready for a knockout" fine but how can you be prepared for a such a blow ?

These terrorists of economy in my opinion.

Thommo wrote:

aliihsanasl wrote:You can't speculate about a bank, its against laws but from time to time some economists and money geniuses appear and say "get ready for a knockout" fine but how can you be prepared for a such a blow ?

These terrorists of economy in my opinion.

Their advice is to sell stocks because they think the price will fall (same goes for oil). Hold cash, bonds or other investment vehicles that offer a better rate of return until the market bottoms out, then buy.

Whether they are right is another matter.

aliihsanasl wrote:Yes that's just an advice but what they're mentioning is a chaotic period as in the great depression, stock owners can believe and sell or don't believe and keep going. Whole thing remind me the religious nuts who yell "dooms day is near, get ready for it" or a better example is the flu pandemic in 2009 which raised the profits of drug companies billion dollars.

Critics claimed the WHO had exaggerated the danger, spreading "fear and confusion" rather than "immediate information".[25] The WHO began an investigation to determine[26] whether it had "frightened people unnecessarily".[27] A flu follow-up study done in September 2010, found that "the risk of most serious complications was not elevated in adults or children."[28] In an 5 August 2011 PLoS ONE article, researchers estimated that the 2009 H1N1 global infection rate was 11% to 21%, lower than what was previously expected.[29] However, by 2012, research showed that as many as 579,000 people could have been killed by the disease, as only those fatalities confirmed by laboratory testing were included in the original number, and meant that many of those without access to health facilities went uncounted. The majority of these deaths occurred in Africa and Southeast Asia. Experts, including the WHO, have agreed that an estimated 284,500 people were killed by the disease, much higher than the initial death toll.[30][31][32]

Thommo wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:It's also possible that this mouthpiece from RBS is trying to talk a bear market into existence to make a killing of his own.

You know that's basically a conspiracy theory, right?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:It's also possible that this mouthpiece from RBS is trying to talk a bear market into existence to make a killing of his own.

You know that's basically a conspiracy theory, right?

A conspiracy requires multiple conspirators. Cali's hypothesis only requires one person being an asshole. A single asshole cannot a conspiracy make.

aliihsanasl wrote:I wrote a longer one but browser shut down and lost it I wish we had auto save system.

Thommo wrote:
I'm reasonably confident I've seen Cali question suggestions and hypotheses before now for lack of evidence. This certainly falls under that category. Do we have evidence this person stands to personally profit? Do we have evidence he thinks he can influence the markets to such a huge extent?

Cito di Pense wrote:

quas wrote:You know those Biblical prophecies about armageddeon/second coming happening only when you least expect it? If people are predicting gloomy days ahead, then the crash won't happen.

You know what superstition's about. Step on a crack, break your mother's back.

On the other hand, you could look at fundamentals, like the mess that China is in, the mess that Saudi and Iran are in, and the ways that the defaults on loans in the oil production sector could hurt the banking sector. You know what happens when the banking sector is hurting.

Thommo wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:It's also possible that this mouthpiece from RBS is trying to talk a bear market into existence to make a killing of his own.

You know that's basically a conspiracy theory, right?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I'm reasonably confident I've seen Cali question suggestions and hypotheses before now for lack of evidence. This certainly falls under that category. Do we have evidence this person stands to personally profit? Do we have evidence he thinks he can influence the markets to such a huge extent?

I'm not picking sides. I'm picking nits.

crank wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:It's also possible that this mouthpiece from RBS is trying to talk a bear market into existence to make a killing of his own.

You know that's basically a conspiracy theory, right?

It's not a conspiracy just because a lot of people are acting similarly, as if in concert, because there's a shitload of people with similar motivations, working in the same system, getting the same signals, etc.

If people start to panic and everyone starts withdraw all the money they can, the bank will go bankrupt.

What are the most compelling arguments against fractional reserve banking?
4 Answers
James Kielkopf
James Kielkopf, Economist, former bank chief economist
556 Views
The most compelling -- and I think only -- argument I can think of against the lending practice of fractional reserve banking, where a lender or a lending system can effectively provide more loans -- create real, income producing assets on their books than they have in reserves of offsetting liquid assets -- is that it provides too much power in a society to bankers in private-sector financial firms relative to everyone else. This power, which can be observed in the ridiculously high compensation for banking executives relative to the actual work they do (i.e., not more than any other senior bureaucrat whose general work involves organizing relationships for people instead of actually creating or making real things or ideas for people).

A large part of this power can conceivably be attributed primarily to the privileged position such individuals have as executives in organizations that have been entrusted in our society to implement the otherwise mundane task of creating and destroying money, an enormously useful social contrivance to facility the efficient functioning of an exchange-based economy -- through a process of making loans and collecting payments from them. The fact of the recent financial crisis of 2007-2009 and resulting depression of economic activity in much of the industrialized world since then seems like a pretty good argument that such a privilege for bankers is not warranted and that it may even be counter-productive to the efficiency purposes of money in our economy in the first place.

Macdoc wrote:

If people start to panic and everyone starts withdraw all the money they can, the bank will go bankrupt.

dochmbi wrote:Should I be worried that the value of the euro will go down severely? I have some money on my account and am wondering if I should maybe buy some valuable metals with it or?