Log in

No account? Create an account
Блог Михаила Прохорова
Когда подорожают деньги? 
18th-Nov-2008 12:13 pm

Пару недель назад я изложил свою точку зрения на происходящие экономические процессы и попросил вас высказывать свое мнение по поводу перспективного соотношения стоимости активов и денег. Читал с интересом. Сегодня, как и обещал, даю мою позицию по этому вопросу. Вот она:

Не могу, конечно, сказать, что уверен на 100%, требуется еще время на анализ общей ситуации. Тем не менее, определенная логика ответа у меня уже есть. Для того, чтобы попытаться понять, что будет с деньгами по отношению к активам, необходимо иметь ввиду следующие факторы (убывание по мере снижения важности):

1. скорость обращения денег в мире;
2. склонность населения к тезаврации и переход на оплату наличными из-за недоверия к банковским расчетам;
3. новая система оценки стоимости (ценности) активов;
4. достижение уровня "дна" (размер заплаченной цены за это "дно") и динамика роста/снижения ВВП;
5. жесткость регулирования обращения инструментов виртуального мира.

Мой предварительный вывод заключается в том, что выделенные огромные средства уйдут в первую очередь на «зализывание» ран от понесенных убытков всей экономикой, что уже приводит к психологическому желанию «замедлить» скорость обращения денег и их производных, сделать их движение более видимым и контролируемым. В этом случае я не вижу больших проблем с регулированием уровня инфляции. Как только «новая» система оценки стоимости активов по отношению к деньгам достигнет «точки равновесия» (или точки достижения "дна"), начнется эпоха «дорогих» денег, относительное доминирование «реальной» экономики.

Еще раз хочу подчеркнуть, что это очень предварительный вывод, на который могут повлиять действия (бездействие) мировых властей в период удач или неудач по преодолению мировой эпидемии недоверия в глобальном мире. Нельзя исключать и обратного сценария.
Если что-то будет критично изменяться, то будем обмениваться мнениями и анализировать.

Всем удачи.
24th-Nov-2008 05:43 pm (UTC) - Re: it's all corruption, I tell you...
Hello there Paloma,
I wouldn't be so quick to completely put the cynicism on the shelf. First, you talk about the state of public transportation due to wasted funds in Chicago and I agree with what you said, but I have to ask you: what party do you think the people (responsible for putting Chicago in this state)are affiliated with? Yes, Democrats. And who did we the people of the US vote for-where's he from and what party? What you spoke of is only a few of many examples of a socialistic govt (albeit a local one) at work-the ruling officials burden the citizens with high taxes and ridiculous laws,(while giving themselves as well as their lobbyists a free ride through any existing loopholes of the laws) which over a period of years, slowly strips away the rights (and $) of the people. And the result? A big group of have-nots, while the ruling officials continue to hold all the keys until they can pass them off to others of their kind. And how do they manage to pull the corruption off? By using their "money-sucking" social programs, welfare systems and charities under the pretense of taking from the few honest people who happen to have money so that the poorest of the poor can benefit. Well all fine and dandy, provided that the poor (those who can barely feed their families much less keep a roof over their heads) can have access into these programs. But I guess you have to be on your deathbed to enter most of these programs because the fore-mentioned folks of my last sentence can't even have access to these programs because they're considered "too rich"! Yes, this sounds shocking and even unbelievable, but it's actually a very common occurrence in more US cities than we can count. I agree with you that these "money-sucking" programs should either be restructured or done away with but history tells us that Dems are never quick to do this and if anything, more of the inefficient programs spring up from a given one that does miraculously change-we can all hope that Obama will be different (and I really do for all our sakes) but nevertheless I'm keeping my cynicism until I see it. to be continued..

Edited at 2008-11-24 07:25 pm (UTC)
(Deleted comment)
30th-Nov-2008 07:03 am (UTC) - Re: it's all greed of ... ?
Hello Dear Socialistic Anonymous,
I really have to give you the award for having the most courage of anyone on the blog. Seriously, you are one brave SOB for approaching me again after I told you to leave me alone. I meant what I had said. On the other hand, I have to commend you for taking the time to look up HUD figures for my city of Columbus, OH. I figured you must really want to spill to me what's on your mind concerning my comment and then hear my thoughts again. So, to quote a very old religious figure: " ' ask, and you shall receive.' " The question is whether or not you will like what you're about to "receive"-consider yourself warned because I don't want to hear any crying/complaining from you about being offended due to what I tell you.
First, nicely done once again with the HUD figures. But the issues I had with them were these: the first one coming from the HUD explanation itself-the part that says: " 'Income limits vary from area to area so you may be eligible at one HA but not at another.' " WHY should they vary from one area to another??? After all, the determination of someone in the wealthy class vs. upper middle vs. lower middle vs. poverty are determined and calculated on a national scale. For example, someone who makes the $36,600/yr is considered to be in the lower middle class, just a couple K's above the poor (you might as well say "poverty") class on the national scale!! However, let's say that the person making this mentioned yearly income (who's living in Columbus, Ohio) loses her job and ends up finding one in Boston of all places! She really doesn't want to live in Boston because she knows that a $36,600 annual income will put her in the poverty class. Why? Well this leads me to my second point, which is that in Columbus she was paying about $750/month rent for a 2-bedroom apt. for her and her 2 dogs (not counting utilities) but in Boston she'll pay for a ONE-BEDROOM apartment ( rat-holed if she's lucky and not counting utilities) for about $1000/month. And with bringing in about $2000/month that's half her salary-oh my!! Again I ask, why such a discrepancy? Well one possible explanation is that each city has its own lobbyists, special interest groups, pork politicians, real-estate markets controlled by the (guess who?) socialist democrat politicians and those working for their causes-different people with the same "Dem" philosophies who (along with their lobbyists and others of their kind) hold all the keys and stay busy burdening the hard-working, honest citizens (just trying to make a living) with their taxes and laws just like I mentioned in my comment. You don't find many cities in America run by Republicans (the capitalists) because they a) don't want the job or b) aren't liked by the non-business owners (majority of city dwellers) who believe that the govt. should be taking from the hard-working, honest minority who just happen to have money (these people are typically the small business owners). Historically, social programs and high taxes have been the tools of democrats, NOT republicans. So why are U.S. cities so burdened by money-sucking social programs that obviously aren't benefiting those people whom they were supposed to benefit to begin with? One would think that if a social program is ineffective that it should be changed or stopped-well why does it still remain (or even worse, why does some other less-improved version of this program take its place??) Again, thank the democrats because they are the ones responisble for these philosophies/results. to be continued..

Edited at 2008-11-30 07:16 am (UTC)
30th-Nov-2008 07:06 am (UTC) - Re: it's all greed of ... ? part 2
Yeah, it's easy to blame a Republican president for the cities' problems (and yeah, he shared PART but not ALL of the blame) but the majority of the blame should go to the Democratic officials running your city! Yes, I am cynical of both parties, but mostly dems because in a "democratic" society you end up with mostly "have-nots" (sad but true) whereas in a "republic" (or capitalistic) society, you end up as EITHER a "have" or a "have-not"-your choice according to your constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But with all due respect for our newly elected president, I am hoping for all our sakes that he carries out what he says he will and that we Americans will end up being mostly "haves" instead of "have-nots" as a result of his "rescue" plans. I've mentioned before on the blog that FDR is the only Democratic president I respect, along with his wife (former fist lady Eleanor). It's a pity that no other Dem nor his wife has followed their examples yet. And I'll keep my cynicism until I see this-especially since it's hard to picture the new first lady as well as the former first lady (now being slapped with the job of our new Secretary of State) volunteering at a soup kitchen or visiting our troops stationed in various parts of the world. And it's especially hard not to be cynical about our new president and our new first lady especially after said new first lady flooded the press (back in the spring) with reports about how her husband burps, farts, and thinks of "pet names" for her and their kids! You tell me, is this a fitting example of a first lady?? I personally think not because there are many family issues which should be kept PRIVATE-especially these! But again I'll do my best to keep an open mind inspite of my cynicism.
Third, my comment was not posted with the thought of how the middle class should be housed by the government because the middle class can still afford to house itself whether in homes or apartments. I was not only answering my friend's thoughts about wasteful spending of city budgets by city officials, but I was also thinking more about the families of the lower middle class and the poverty class-issues like how would they use their $36,600/yr to send their 1-3 kids to college without federal funds? Or, how would a single person making $36,600/yr who wanted to make a career change afford schooling without some kind of federal grant/funding?? I commend you for thin king that $36,600/yr is a lot of money but I must burst your bubble by saying that in reality, it really is not that much money in many places in America-ESPECIALLY if you have children!
I thank my lucky stars that I am neither married nor have kids yet-in fact if I were to write up a family budget right before I married and started a family, I would do it assuming that I would start off having twins instead of just one baby because my chances for having twins are very strong-even then, a budget plan is just a PLAN. And we all know that a great deal of the time the best of "plans" get off-track. Curiously, I think you should write a book as to how you and a family could live on $36,600/yr since you think it's a "lot" of $! But of course, that would require you having to use your real name and we can't have that, can we?? This is it for me right now. Take care of yourself and enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Edited at 2008-11-30 07:21 am (UTC)
This page was loaded May 26th 2019, 10:01 am GMT.