?

Log in

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

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.
Comments 
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)
This page was loaded May 23rd 2019, 10:51 am GMT.