HumanAction
-
Posts
895 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HumanAction
-
-
For those who think house price falls are likely to be in real rather than nominal terms - presumably you are expecting wage/salary inflation then? If so, when do you think this wage/salary inflation will begin? I'm not saying that you are wrong but personally I can't see significant salary inflation coming for some years yet.
The answer to this is dependent upon just how much inflation we actually get and how soon we get it. I'm firmly in the inflationist camp but I think it's hard to really know the answer to either question.
-
I'm surprised anyone still thinks we are heading into deflation. A quick scan out in the real world will confirm that monetary inflation is in fact showing up in prices, maybe not specifically in those prices measured by RPI or CPI but there are plenty of things going up in price right now. Naturally wage rises are going to badly lag prices and we will all end up worse off in real terms. Nevertheless even wages will start to rise eventually.
-
I'm almost resigned to seeing prices go up...
...after all, the BoE is still printing like mad and sterling is steadily dropping compared to the Euro (and likewise the USD).
Then again, when a pint costs a fiver, saying that the price of your house has gone up (again) will be pretty meaningless
+1
I think this is spot on. It isn't so much a recovery, more a symptom of inflation.
-
I think that what is happening is actually the beginnings of very heavy inflation, without govt actions we would be looking at a deflation but govt was never going to allow that to happen in an uncontrolled fashion, hence we have QE, unrealistically low IRs and heavily managed news outputs. The aim for govt is I think a very slow deflation or slight inflation but I doubt they can achieve their aim. Right now we appear to be at a point where the govt has already overcompensated in it's attempts to manage and has stoked inflationary pressures that they will likely not be able to control, they wont be able to stop QE, they wont be able to raise IRs and they have never been able to stop lying to people. If it all looks a bit lala that is simply because we are using a bonkers monetary system. People are not far from realising this now I think. When they do all hell will break loose.
-
Government stats (ONS)
Employment Rate 72.6%
Unemployment 7.9%
doesn't add up to 100. BIG gap there.
It's a huge gap and even if we recognise it we arent really seeing just how bad things are. There are plenty working part time or reduced hours who actually want to be working full time.
-
I'm only in the UK now because my mother is elderly and I'm the only child ( and only surviving blood relative ). At some point in the future I'll be relocating to Sth Korea where my wife is originally from. Outside of family there is really nothing keeping me here now, friends can always visit afterall.
-
"If you have an objection to what I actually said be sure to let me know. This is not about me denying objective facts, in fact I'd say you were the one who regularly engages in that kind of behaviour."
Never had any problems with any of Injins arguments for years.
to my mind he just says it as it is. I guess it's a bit like VanGough though. No one realised he was a genius while he was still painting. Truth will out as they say
Van Gogh was also mad....
-
No, money occurs because the opinions of people are subject to reality.
I know you don't like the idea of an objective reality which doesn't care about you either way, but it doesn't care about that either.
If you have an objection to what I actually said be sure to let me know. This is not about me denying objective facts, in fact I'd say you were the one who regularly engages in that kind of behaviour.
-
That's right.
Money occurs because of human actions in the real world, as I said.
All opinions are subject to reality.
Sophistry. Money occurs because of opinions formed and shared by large numbers of people, sure they act on those opinions but the opinions are always the first cause in the chain. The actions are mere consequences, though there might be a positive reinforcement of belief that derives from those actions. The reality in this kind of case is, if you will, subject to opinion. If people do not believe that money has value for them they will not trade for it.
-
No, prices are a matter of fact. The values which lead to those opinions are subjective, but if (random example time) Bob spends £10 on an icecream it's a fact.
We can reasonably deduce that -
Bob values £10 less than icecream (exactly how much is unclear.)
And icecream seller values £10 more than icecream (again exactly how much is unclear.)
And the fact that tells us this is the price they traded at, which is a fact and the process they used, which is also a fact.
Bob wont spend unless his opinion is that it is worth it to do so. Whoever the seller is wont sell unless his opinion is that it's worth it to sell. The price agreed for the transaction may be a fact ( though only after the fact ) but it was wholly dependent upon the opinions of a pair of humans. Human opinion created fact which is exactly what you deny. Furthermore the next transaction is not bound by this previous transaction but again will take place at a price wholly dependent upon another pair of opinions, who will again generate a fact out of human opinion.
-
No, the process is human action in a real, physical, bounded by laws universe, humanaction.
Just like the dictators still have to breathe and obey gravity, their mad opinions don't alter any other form of reality either. They can just get people scared into an anti empirical pretence.
So you think prices are not a matter of opinion then?
-
Sorry, I should have said perceived value. Demand for said monies could be created by whatever mechanism you feel fits - taxation - cultural acceptance - open market (I know which I prefer)
We agree on something, that our money has value that is only perceived. That'd be the sleight of hand I mentioned earlier, you know, the one that allows real wealth to be exchanged for something that is only perceived as wealth. Diminish the perception and the wealth remains, sure wealth degrades but so long as you can diminish the perception faster that the reality........
You deserve that wealth only while it is wealth. It will degrade. Others will create more of it. These things and more prescribe that you should - if the wealth is left in unfetted cash. Invest it with a reliable banker who will ensure it facilitates more wealth creation I would suggest. Of course said banker cannot be backed by a central bank. This is a distortion that makes savers lazy and irresponsible.
All bankers acquire the value of what has been stored with them. It has always been that way and always will be. Central banks exacerbate the problem but are not ultimately the cause.
Again - why are you entitled to store value? It's against mother nature.
Are you saying I cannot build a grain store? Cure meats? Put an item in a safe place for later use? I think you are overstretching here. If we could not store wealth we'd have been far less successful as a species than we are. Mother nature does not in fact object as you claim.
Looks where the money was invested - shiny cars and birthday dinners for mum at the Ivy. Not your mum either.
I dont disagree that our financial system does not encourage worthwhile use of wealth...... It encourages what is expedient for the bankers.
-
The constriction on people using other currencies
Though there is a connection between currency and land, i wasn't alluding to it.
Fair enough but I cant see how this helps you as it was my initial observation of why in reality your point was redundant.......
Not morally. If you exchange something for gold and then afterwards the price of gold reduces because somebody opens a gold mine - these people have not attacked you.
You chose a spectacularly bad example. Gold stocks are not heavily influenced if a new mine opens. Gold is also not money. Fiat currency is generally devalued by simple inflation of the money supply which is not so innocent as your examples.
But if people are free to use other currencies, then the currencies are in competition. People are making a choice to use a service / tool. Sometimes the service is not what they expect (oh dear)
Irrelevent to anything being discussed.
Nonsense, nobody is actually stealing anything. It is rather more like you buying a car for its exchange value and later discovering that the manufacturer will no longer supply parts and so the exchange value falls below what you expected (oh dear)
Currency debasement is I'd suggest not analagous to your example.
I wont reply further.
-
You only know prices by human action, humanaction.
The subjective values don't mean anything to this process, they only change what iis used in the process.
The process however, is immutable.
Yes but the process is human opinion determining prices. Appealing to the process gets you precisely nowhere, it's the thing that proves you wrong. In this case immutably wrong.
-
Nope.
Money is discovered by human trade. like other market prices, it's a discovery from action.
Natural phenomenon in all cell life.
Human trade is based on subjective human valuations, hence the market itself and all it's operations are ultimately simply a matter of human opinion, nothing more nothing less. In this case you simply illustrate that I am correct in noting that some things are true because people believe them to be so. Prices really were the perfect example to prove yourself wrong. I can only thank you for proving my point.
-
Money's value in the short term should be protected through managed scarcity.
So we have established that money does in fact have value. You do seem confused on the issue though as you also claim it's only paper.
That is its raisin d'etre. In the long term - no - it should not be protected.
Why not? If the generator of wealth does not deserve that wealth then who else is more deserving? If I hold paper why does it suddenly become moral to transfer that wealth to a banker or financier. Even if I am a fool it remains immoral.
It cannot be protected.
Historically I'd suggest that ultimately this might be true but value can be held for a considerable time period, centuries even. You are basically looking to mislead here as inflation is not some universal constant but is actually a consequence of currency debasement.
Wealth degrades over times - needs replacing - updating - demolishing.
Money seems to degrade in value at a massively faster rate than this though. I dont think this comes close to explaining where the value disappears to or the rate at which it disappears.
Why should you as creator of that wealth be entitled to enshrine it forever more? Why can you lay claim to wealth with money - that nolonger is wealth? It's barmy. If you want wealth - bloody go and buy some.
Not being funny but I have more right to it than a banker who did little of real value.
-
I'm suggesting that your imagined moral problem would not truly be caused by the banker and and the borrower, but on a restriction on everyone else.
Land right? Zzzzzzzz
Of course any currency can devalue and leave people holding the currency with less buying power than they had before. I don't think there is any way around that.
Currency does not devalue, it is devalued. The difference is significant.
You mean in the same way a car dealer may be negatively impacted if another car dealer opens nearby?
No, I dont mean any such thing, competition does not equal theft. Now if the second dealer was trading stolen cars cheaply you might have an analogy.
-
Humans are inferior to reality.
You are never going to understand reality if you think that opinions mean anything in the face of it, because they dont.
As I said, I fully understand that there are people with a head full of broken biscuits who need to be worked around. This just means that in reality there are people with a head full of broken biscuits who need to be worked around.
Reality remains and doesn't give a shit.
We are not talking about trees or the sky or any other natural phonomenon, money owes it's existence to humanity and human opinion which makes your ranting as off target as it is quaint.
I'd suggest checking your own ears for biscuit crumbs about now.
-
Wrong. You can either choose to agree with the statement or not or find some problem with it or ignore it
I find the statement largely false. I daresay some circumstance can be constructed where it would be true but that circumstance wont be reflective of the typical circumstance people find themselves in.
But the original point was whether somebody making a debt based agreement with a banker negatively affects others. If people have a choice about which currency to use, then morally it becomes a matter of people being negatively affected by their own choices, not by the banker.
Incurring a cost to change currency due to the need to avoid the consequences of the bankers action is not being affected? I cant be bothered to point out the obvious any more than I already have here.
-
Money has no value. ITS PAPER. You just think it has value. It the short term I would support you. Beyond that you are on your own.
Ignoring that you aren't going to swap my blank paper and ink for an equivalent weight of £50 notes you appear to say that you also believe that money 'has value' in the short term? Then the question becomes 'Where does this value go in the long term'? If it relocates to a new owner how would you describe this 'transaction'? Surely it does not just vanish?
-
If people can use other currencies...
Just normal costs of making choices - there will be benefits and costs associated with using any currency at any particular time. If i choose to speculate in oil and at the same time somebody produces a lot of it, i will also be negatively impacted.
See that if in your post? Thats the problem. For the most part the whole thing falls at that very first conditional clause. Which makes it all pointlessly tangential. As for the attempt to handwave the costs incurred. I'd imagine that if you take a step back even you can see how absurd that is when it's the very issue you want to quibble over?
-
Mmmmm....maybe you should replace 'money' with 'chicken' in your inner discourses then maybe you would realise that no one can steal it from you with due process being on the table.
It's value or wealth that gets stolen, not money. Money is being used as the distraction that keeps people from noticing what is actually going on. Sleight of hand.
Ask yourself - what could my tenner have bought me this week. Then ask again, what could it have bought me today. Then ask yourself - why didn't I buy it?
Perhaps I neither want or need whatever it is this week. Perhaps I anticipate a need tomorrow that is best filled tomorrow.
-
But money is nominal promises
If they return the promises - no default.
Money of this type cannot remain money for long. It's why fiat currency usually gets abandoned after hyperinflations. If money doesnt store value it isnt worth having and if its not worth having no one will want to accept it in exchange. You can get away with stealing just a bit ( hence 2% infdlation targetting ) but take it too far and people stop going along with the game and start using something that will store value.
-
Not really.
I need to understand reality if I am to understand reality.
Yes, people believe shite and that changes their decisions.
Yes, this means you have to adapt.
No, that doesn't make them correct.
Humans are part of reality, you are very very naive if you imagine that you can understand reality by ignoring part of it.
Public Must Learn To 'tolerate The Inequality' Of Bonuses, Says Goldman Sachs Vice-Chairman
in House prices and the economy
Posted
Thank you. I needed a laugh to start the day.