Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 1929crash

  1. The flaw in your thinking lies in the idea that the value of a precious metal is real and stable. It is neither. The value of gold in Spain and Europe decreased rapidly following the discovery of America in the 15th century because they dug loads more out of the ground in the New World and brought it back across the Atlantic. As for "real" value, surely the value lies in how much really essential things you can buy with it. Like food, energy, medicine etc. When, Injin, you can't buy any of these things - which depend ultimately on fossil fuels at some level you'll starve, go cold or die in pain. But at least you'll have the comfort of knowing the price of these things is low when measured against something real like gold or silver.
  2. Oil is a finite resource so your statement says more about the futility of much economic so-called thinking than anything else.
  3. In monetary terms, adjusted for inflation, the highest price of oil - before the present rise - was in 1979, after the Iranian revolution. The inflation-adjusted price in current values is just over $102, which we passed several months ago.We are definitely not at 1956 prices.
  4. I couldn't agree more. And that's without taking into account what might happen if the Bush/Israel Axis of Evil launch an attack on Iran. Straits of Hormuz blocked off . . .
  5. You brought up the subject of inflation in the first place. Yeah, that's what the critics of the J.M. Keynes, FDR and the New Deal said. It's instructive to compare the 1920s in Britain and the USA. We had mass unemployment which continued into the 1930s, while the USA had a 1920s boom, which degenerated into high unemployment in the 1930s. You seem to be in favour of perpetual high rates of joblessness.
  6. What makes you think that inflation is going to be solved by having a harsher than necessary credit squeeze? Inflation is rising, not because of the UK money supply, but because of the global rise in oil and gas prices, which is feeding through, via fertiliser and transportation costs, into higher food prices. Unless employers and consumers give up travelling, heating, lighting and eating, then firms and individuals are going to be throttled. I agree that unemployment is going to rise but we should be trying to land the plane on the runway with the minimum of casualties instead of accelerating into the field next door and exploding into flames. You may be right that if we had some saved up wealth we could create jobs, but I suspect that had we not destroyed our manufacturing base the last time monetarism was tried out in this country - in the early 1980s - we would be much better placed than our service-based economy to do so. I also suspect that if we hadn't pumped up our economy with debt over the last ten years then we would be going into this recession with much higher unemployment levels than we currently possess. You might possibly be right about Will Hutton declaring an interest but the fact that he hasn't does not destroy the validity of his argument. I think the use of the word "scum" is inapppropriate but that's what I've come to expect in Britain's yob culture. But thanks for pointing out my omission of the word "Not" - which of course completely changed the meaning of my first sentence.
  7. Of course they could just convert the loans into donations. After all, the idea behind loans was to get around the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). Gifts and donors have to be declared, loans and lenders don't. But we know the identity of the lenders now, so there's nothing to be lost by declaring them as gifts.
  8. It seems that most people on this thread think that putting money into the system to avoid a wider economic crash on the scale of the 1930s - or worse - is something to be welcomed. You guys and gals may have been prudent but you surely don't want to see a massive rise in unemployment? Is that a price worth paying? (apologies to Norman Lamont). You may not be interested in unemployment but be assured, unemployment is interested in you (apologies to Leon Trotsky). Leave off Will Hutton! :angry: :angry:
  9. I've been reading this site for a while, but what finally convinced me to join was the unjustified abuse and disgraceful language heaped on journalist Will Hutton for suggesting in a newspaper article that the British economy needs lower interest rates. I think people should listen to arguments and decide on their merits and NOT condemn people because they may or may not have a vested interest. I believe that logicians refer to these ad hominem attacks as the genetic fallacy - the idea that an argument can be dismissed simply on the basis of the identity of the person who said it. :angry:
  • 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.