shurlock

How about the political axes to grind of this rabble-rousing lot? Whose pocket are they in? http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf For a quick and dirty write-up if you need a bit more time to get your head around the returns on core government bonds and how bond markets work more generally. Take your time http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/330931dc-c4ca-11e3-8dd4-00144feabdc0.html

And what about the times he's slipped with nobody around him? Doesn't quite fit your chest-thumping, our fans are hypocrites shtick.

Oh dear, johnny, you're all over the shop. You do realise that the commentator is referring to the whole bond universe, in particular, the riskier corporate sector, bonds with credit ratings of BBB, not far off junk? You do realise that only companies can issue convertibles. By contrast, gilts and US treasuries, of varying maturities, have yielded diddly squat. It's even true of basketcase Eurozone bonds. http://www.wsj.com/articles/chances-for-positive-returns-on-eurozone-government-debt-diminish-1429720411 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dcab178e-e290-11e4-aa1d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3YN4QMa5s And finally equity markets have been on a tear over the last 2-3 years. Schoolboy stuff

There's nought wrong with saving but there's also the paradox of thrift. When everyone is saving, nobody is investing and spending the same amount to keep the economy moving forward. What might be good individually is bad for society as a whole. We've been living through a period during which some countries (China, Germany, oil exporters etc), aided and abetted by undervalued currencies, have been generating huge savings and relying on the demand of others for their growth. It may sound perverse but, against this backdrop, the UK, US, Southern Europe and other deficit countries have been acting as consumers of last resort without whom economic activity would be significantly weaker. The consequences of the need to balance the large amount of global savings are hard to miss: bubbles in major economies, excess borrowing by low income households and/or potentially unsustainable fiscal policies by governments. Alas, too many moralists on the right who can't see the woods through the trees have gristled about the symptoms rather than the causes of this. Any solution will ultimately require surplus countries to get serious about generating their own demand which, in fragile countries like China, will entail huge structural and almost certainly painful reform. For many policymakers, it's easier to kick that can down the road. As for interest rates being low, you get things back-to-front. Interest rates have fallen steadily over the last few decades well before QE. Ultimately interest rates reflect the supply and demand for loans -and the relative demand for safe assets. On the supply side, demographic change and increasing life expectancy have pushed up savings (driving interest rates down); while uncertainty about current and future income, heightened by the crisis, has had a similar effect. It goes without saying, so has the need to pay down debt. On the demand side, a perceived lack of profitable investment opportunities, at least at home, has put a lid on interest rates by suppressing the demand for loans. Some even argue that the glittering new sectors of the 21st century don't need the same amount of investment that the heaving smokestack economy of the 20th century demanded (WhatsApp, which is valued at $19bn, was conceived and is maintained by 30 odd software engineers who like pap are probably splitting their time on a place like this). Finally, there has been a shift in preferences towards safe assets. Following the Asian Financial Crisis, many central banks in emerging economies piled into safe sterling and dollar-denominated assets as an insurance policy to stave off future, potential runs against their currency or banking system. Given the business they're in, pension funds and insurance companies and increasingly banks have a preferences safe assets, something which has been reinforced by the regulation introduced in the wake of crisis. The crisis also put to the bed the free market belief that the private sector can create safe assets: the financial technology producing risk-free assets out of subprime mortgages and other assets has been exposed as a sham -one reason why governments will have no problems in servicing their debts. They are the only game in town. You are right to the extent that rock-bottom interest rates have distributed wealth from savers to borrowers; but let's be clear, the victims are disproportionately poorer savers. Another consequence of low interest rates has been a hunt for yield - instead of getting shafted by low interest rates from savings accounts, many have moved their money to other higher yielding assets -notably, equities and properties which are disproportionately owned by the rich. The rich have had a great run over the past seven years thanks to asset price inflation. Of course, it is also a recipe for instability as it makes bubbles more likely while low interest rates masks the viability of many 'zombie' businesses and balance sheets as coupon obligations are low and easy to meet. The big concern is that, for all the reasons mentioned above, low interest rates are not only failing to stimulate a real take-off but that they are here to stay. In sum, sticking plasters come to mind, though actually understanding the problem is a good start.

Pap looks like a butthole surfers roadie. Confident look.

Agree context is critical. Anyone wanting to understand it should google 'global imbalances, deficit countries, consumer of last resort, excess savings' or any combination thereof. The problem is deeper than feckless governments and households running up unsustainable debts or indeed greedy bankers who blew up the system by taking one-way bets.

The other big difference is that the forward players interchanged a lot more under MP whereas they hold more fixed positions under Koeman. The attitude to possession is also fundamentally different. We ran out of steam towards the end once Jrod went down but I always felt we were more of a threat under MP. Poor finishing let us down whereas carving out opportunities has been the issue this season.

Still think we were more entertaining under pochetinno -at this time last season we had scored more goals than this season (and that's including the eight against Sunderland). We also tended to create more chances. But I think Koeman gives us a moyes-like resilience and consistency that is absolutely priceless in a league that's as unrelenting and hard-fought as the prem.

Don't think its all down to opportunistic diving - he was clean through against Stoke the other week but slipped without contact. think something similar happened against WBA. The last thing you'd expect from someone who's simply trying to steal an advantage.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/19/opinion/krugman-springtime-for-bankers.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1&referrer= http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-housing-bubble-tanked-the-economy-and-the-tech-bubble-didnt/

Les, this isn't the Manhattan Project. Anyway, if memory serves me correctly, Mané was well on Spurs radar before even MP or Mitchell joined them.

Now why would a party that is haemorrhaging traditional support on the left to the SNP, undermining its chances of an outright victory in the election, play up the SNP bogeyman? The world works in mysterious ways.

Absolutely hateful stuff which MLG not only is proud to be associated with but also wants to claim a monopoly over.

What an odd statement -why do you exclude Burnley? Either way, it's factually inaccurate.

Decent summary.

I blame seeing Paul Morley on the tube last night.

Yeh I get that - I guess it's the whole libertarian, politics of self thing which on a subterranean level is almost Clarksonesque. Agree, to go onstage requires a certain arrogance -of course, that's one reason I like Larry David (before he was canonised by Gervais and became a parody): his arrogance is mixed with gener awkwardness and doubt (dramatised perfectly by the pilot CYB, my favourite episode, where he pulls out of a big, life-changing standup show). Others mix narcissism with self-deprecation and pathos: Louis CK who's clearly been influenced by Hicks and explores similar themes (different time) is a good example. It's the difference between misanthropy and melancholy -and I just find myself warming to the latter.

Some of his stuff, on a visceral level, could be funny, though ultimately I found it hard to see beyond his libertarianism and narcissism.

To be fair, Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo is talking out of his a**e and missing the big picture.

If Carlsberg did rough pub teams and all that, it would be Coventry City in the mid-90s.

Can't you see the fundamental difference, though. Unlike the Tories, Labour knows that SNP would have to curb its behaviour. Excessively instability would almost certainly lead to a Tory cakewalk in any future election which would be the ultimate act of cutting one's nose to spite one's face. Never mind that the SNP has every incentive to avoid a reputation for opportunism and irresponsibility which would only confirm the fears of those who voted no in referendum and reflect poorly in the eyes of outside investors in Scotland. But, hey, keep believing in those monsters under the bed.

You make it sound like the SNP are going to win a landslide victory. That only happens when you set FIFA to amateur.

There are too many variables and unknowns to establish what would happen in equilibrium; but if demand for £2m> properties fell because of the mansion tax; it follows their price also fall, thereby increasing the increase the supply of lower banded properties. Surely the result would be to offset the inflationary pressures you predict? Of course, all this assumes that people only care about avoiding the tax. Never mind that it will be a fraction of their overall wealth and the windfall many have enjoyed over the last decade; never mind that many owners have an inherent preference to live in a nicer property in a more desirable location. Never mind all the other frictions to moving. By the way, I don't resent anyone. That's an odd suggestion. I just don't have any sympathy for those who cry injustice. As a matter of principle, that's not all homeowners -the likes of you and your father-in-law, half clad, sweatily renovating a property do partly deserve any increase in its subsequent value By extension, I would be quite happy to differentiate between those who've made a substantial contribution to the value of the property eligible for the mansion tax rather than those who've just surfed the wave assuming a practical and wieldy mechanism existed.

Agree. Probably the main difference between this season and last season.

Election uncertainty and the prospect of a mansion tax are only part of a multitude of factors affecting the slowdown in London prices - a trend that has been observable since early 2014 and that has hit most parts of the London property market, not just the high end -two observations that are hard to reconcile with your hypothesis. Either way, aren't falling house prices are a good thing? The facts speak for themselves: the number of London properties in the £2m> bracket are still in the overwhelming minority. And, finally, perhaps its a personal prejudice: but do I have much sympathy for middle class 50 somethings who've seen the value of their property 'rise exponentially' by sitting on their arses and, in the main, doing jacks**t to contribute to that rise, when all that's being asked of them is that they pay a fraction of that windfall in tax which can be used to build new homes etc? Nah not really.