Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Millaise

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I completely understand this approach. But there are consequences other than financial. Jordan Peterson connects depression in men with being at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy and, perhaps, this is why managers seem to report more optimism and job satisfaction in proportion to their seniority.
  2. It is sad that a company wanting to build decent quality and decently designed houses not only couldn't make any money, but lost a shed load. You'd have though that once they had three or so designs and a supply chain, they could have just rinsed and repeated at the various development sites. I seem to remember reading there were 'teething troubles' and disputes and delays on some of the projects, which puzzles me because I recall watching the Grand Designs episodes where he and his company built 'The Triangle' development in Swindon. It should have gotten easier from thereon in.
  3. The leaders of some oil-abundant nations wanted to start pricing their oil in Euros/Yen/gold etc. These countries were Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare
  4. The UK government could pay doctors, nurses, judges, soldiers, and teachers any amount they choose since they are not supply constrained in Sterling, but these extra wages would be sloshing around the economy, and taxes would need to be be increased to draw down the money supply. Governments hate raising tax rates because they are unpopular with the electorate, and, strangely, the more you are paid, the more you resent paying the tax. Over 500 civil servants and Quango leaders are already being paid more than the P.M., and the highest paid receives more than 5x that of the PM. And the UK chooses to keep more admirals on its books than it has capital ships, so its not as though the government disagrees with high pay in principle.
  5. Unfortunately, it seems if governments don't borrow, then the private sector has to borrow instead in order to provide the money supply necessary for an economy to function. Wynne Godley of Cambridge University has demonstrated this in his Analysis of Sectoral Balances. Which is better, a government borrowing, or the private sector borrowing at a higher rate? A sovereign government borrowing in it's own currency so that it can't go bankrupt, or the private sector that can?
  6. Interesting factlet: there is no instance of in a Western nation of airport passenger screening/scanning having detected a 80mb, other than in penetration exercises, and even in excercises 95% get through.
  7. Vendors always charge the maximum the market can bear, and this is determined by factors like bank lending policy, and types of jobs in the area. (Taxes paid by purchaser - Gifts to purchaser + Price paid by purchaser = constant). If stamp duty is reduced, the price paid rises with no benefit to the purchaser. Similarly, if the state aids the purchaser by gifting them money etc, the price paid rises in sympathy.
  8. Well there's no 'if', the money supply has been increasing inexorably...https://www.statista.com/statistics/320127/uk-banking-total-money-supply/ and money is created by private banks when someone borrows: the money never previously belonged to anyone. It is created by dividing zero into two halves, the credit half which comprises of some digits in an account database, and the piece of paper with a signature half with some obligation to pay or hand over goods to the bearer. The two cancel each other, but they both look like they have value and can be exchanged for things.
  9. Regarding the thread title MSM waking up, I've recently come across Larry Elliott. He is economics editor for the Guardian. Larry Elliott airs some surprising views for a Scott Trust publication, for example, he thinks resistance in cross-border trade is more desirable than frictionless trade. Here is one of the first mentions of UBI and MMT in MSM: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/17/as-recession-looms-could-mmt-be-the-unorthodox-solution-modern-monetary-theory Many of the comments are helpful.
  10. You have an interesting insight. I hope we can explore it further. A fiat currency is one that isn't, or isn't tied to, a real thing like precious metals, for example, and so faith in it is required. You are talking specifically about currency issued via debt, rather than as credit. People complain about currency issued as debt because it necessitates people going into debt, and bankruptcies are an essential feature because there is never enough currency to pay both the principal and the interest. Do you think the people who want currency created ex nihilo by government and issued or spent into the economy (e.g. https://positivemoney.org) might be misguided in that the debt is the necessary foundation of the faith?
  11. It's almost a reflexive reaction in people who know money printing is bad because they were taught about the Weimar republic in school history! School never bothered to inform pupils that bankers conjure money up by splitting zero. Odd is that. Venezuela is in a pit because of US sanctions. And US sanctions are there because, as with Cuba, the Bolivarian revolution and the redistribution of wealth can't be seen to have been remotely successful. The parts and latest tech aren't available to develop the oil fields, and the know-how has been lured from the country. Lately, we've seen foreign governments meddling to foster a coup. Is that even allowed? Noam on Venezuela
  12. To earn a penny, someone else must spend a penny; this is foundational MMT. Whither austerity? The analysis of Sectorial Balances shows that if the government cut back spending in order to "save", the public have to start borrowing money instead, and this costs far more.
  13. yes. The total charge ratio is rarely provided, and yet it is higher than the management charge which pays for the brains that formulate the portfolio. For example, it would include platform fees and statutory audit work. Then there are hidden losses that you might not consider a cost, for example, if you reinvest dividends by selection Accumulation (often recommended), then these have to be converted into shares. There is a dealing cost involved in this which you must bear, but dividends are coming in all the time, and there is often a minimum dealing fee. This can become painful. If you don't maintain a cash float in your account, then some of your shares are sold to fund the dealing charge to put the new shares in. There can be another charge for this. A tracker doesn't insulate you from this sort of creaming.
  14. https://www.futurist.com/2012/05/15/the-mission-reconnect-wages-and-productivity-growth/ Lots of metrics started to diverge from their long-term trends in the 1970s. Was it trickle-down economics; the repeal of Breton-Woods; the diminution of Glass-Steagal? Or something else?
  15. This is what we are conventionally told.You need to hear the red pill version. The hidden fund charges are are so great (ignore the number in the key features documents), inflation so high, and the the true long-term averaged fund returns so low (nothing like the 10% often quoted), that if you don't have employer contributions, you can be better off not paying into a pension at all, then in your last few years of employment, sticking everything you earn in.
  • 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.