Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Injin

  1. It's amazing that these people without the slightest idea are running things, isn't it? Talk about Intrinsic value from a man who runs a bank! Pure comedy.
  2. Terrifying that a man in charge of so much wealth hasn't got the slightest idea what he's talking about.
  3. DISCLAIMER - Errol thinks that charts don't work and that looking at the POG more than every 12 months is pointless.
  4. Oh awesome. Proof that gold isn't money and there is no demand for it. Cheers.
  5. Taleb in his new book antifragile very nicely outlines why you don't want to analyze the price of anything very often. The more you check, the higher your noise to signal ratio.
  6. Ok, cheers folks. Enjoy your pictures of rockets. And ignorance.
  7. Bingo. If you accept that value is a property of the human mind, you realise that gold won't help you as much as knowing about people will.
  8. You do have a point, but largely the disgressions have occured because goldbugs won't admit they don't know (and don't care) about value or having a strategy. A good proportion of the digressions are people trying to stop me asking simple questions by thinly veiled ad hominem attacks or attempts to rubbish what I do for a living. All you want is pictures of rockets, no actual thought and automatic assumptions of riches just around the corner. Of course there are two solution, the first being you lot answering questions honestly and stop attacking the questioner or me leaving the thread. Which do you prefer? And what does that answer say about you? p.s. Nothing presented here is theoretical. It all has massive imlications for practice. (In a way that pointing to a chart and *****ing yourself blind doesn't, by the by.)
  9. I agree, as far as I can tell, what the average goldbug has done is swap one token for another without changing their underlying thinking process. They believed unthinkingly in fiat, and once woken up to the dangers inherent in fiat* they simply move their faith onto something else. It's much easier than going through the painstaking task of working out when and where one was fooled. *here meaning paper money.
  10. NLP where it is quackery just takes long standing mainstream psychological ideas such as operant and classical conditioning, reponsiveness to suggestion and others, adds the transformational grammar ideas of chomsky and then renames it all and claims that they were invented by the founders of NLP. If I relabel gravity "positronic attraction theory" but use the current physics understanding it will still work. The ******** is in claming it's a new idea, or in claiming that it's mine. to be fair, in the published books, neither bandler nor grinder do that (some of the core NLP texts are expanded dissertation papers with proper attributation etc) however, there are a lot of hangers on that do indeed make quack claims and go for the relabelling route. Tony Robbins and his 213119 laws of power and so forth spring to mind.
  11. Yes, that's exactly what he wants. A giant game of w4nky biscuit with a solid gold coaster.
  12. Yes, empiricism can. Or, another way, NLP works. I got a few minutes into the vid - whoever made it and accuses Grinder of being pseudoscience has kind of missed the fact that he's a professor with (amongst other things) a PHD in linguistics.
  13. That's clearly what he's hoping, but it's that obvious the presiding might well have a shock for him. Not a good idea to try and tool the beak in such a public way.
  14. Demand is the ability of people to pay for things that they want. You can';t fix it with policy, only the absence of policy. Banking doesn't have much of anything to do with economic growth, other than stealing from it. Profits are unknowable and so are values.
  15. Why is seeking the nature of the demand for gold not relevent in a gold investment strategy thread? You make zero sense.
  16. Landlords solve the problem of what to do with displaced people. A better solution would be to stop displacing them.
  17. Find a stupid person. Ask them what their plans are for 5 years time. Now go and ask an intelligent person. Because the intelligent person has plans, you know the steps they will have to take to get their you can approximate their decisions. Because the stupid person isn't big on planning, you are scoobyless due to the constanmt arrival of new things into social discourse and the economy. You know they need to eat, but in 8 months time when they are eating a brand new cajun/halal fusion microwave meal that didn't exist when you tried to plot their behaviour you had no chance to predict it. What you think is that because you can make bell curves of peoples past behaviour, the bell curve can be extended into the future. It can't. Previous behaviour is not binding on anyone. Isn't random. Is predictably irrational. http://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Revised-Expanded-Edition/dp/0061353248 However, no one knows what the future holds. An intelligent person (long term goal) is less influenced by new things than the stupid person. You can't model the unseen. People operate in reality based on models they contain in their minds. Reality can't be defied, but it can be badly thought about. Example - schizophrenic thinks he can fly. He jumps off a bridge and obviously falls to his doom. The only thing you can predict is how physical forces will act on his body once he's chucked himself off - you can't predict that he will jump (because he's operating on an unreal model of how the world works which you can never have access to until afterwards.) Unless you think that people en masse understand how the real world works then you have to concede that their behaviour is not knowable ahead of time. Two things that can be done (indeed have to be done) to make your scenario halfway plausible. 1_ Give people en masse a model of the world (for example state educate them all with the same lies) which then makes their behaviour sortof knowable (for as long as they follow the model) 2_ Force them to do what you want. The unknowns then become 1_ How long people will keep following something that's wrong and against their own self interest. and 2_ How much force you can safely use before a backlash of some kind. On the example of housing - in todays 24/7 media world if a large cross section of the population decided to opt out of paying rents and mortgages, the peterloo solution isn't on the table. But you want to ignore these importnt factors and instead pretend that people are molecules, and their lives are decided by physical laws.
  18. I asked what the demand was, you answered who had demand. If I ask you why people like Rhianna, to say that HMV sell her records isn't an actual answer to the question.
  19. What leftwingers? What socialism? it's one thing knocking a system, it's another to get what it is so completely wrong.
  20. What theories? All I've done here is use rationality to debunk the general goldbug position and add some facts to that. At no point have I said gold is shite. I've even said gold will work as an investment strategy. Why don't you read what I actually write instead of seeing i'm not posting pictures of rockets and then automatically going off on one like a sulky teenager? Because it's fun.
  21. What we have now is a lot of things. Socialism isn't one of them. (Unless everything got nationalised last night and a military junta took over and no one told me or something, if it did do let me know.)
  22. For most of recorded financial history people wore rags and went hungry. There was no economics, no behavioural psychology, no computing, no states and crucially, no science in these sorts of modern sizes. Not saying it's different this time in the bubble sense, but it is in many others. Not that the thesis is wrong, but it's always going to be a bit of a jump from previous iterations of the system to the current one.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.