Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Where is my pen?

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Where is my pen?

  • Rank
  1. lower deficit = lower interest rates is a perfectly sensible remark. the price of credit (interest rates) are determined, as with anything, by the relationship between supply and demand (of credit) if government is not deficit spending (or deficit spending less) then there is a reduction in demand for credit, hence a tendency to lower interest rates. the picture is complex, however, because government is interfering with the credit markets in a very profound way - in fact, they are almost entirely falsified - by the ability of government, through the bank of england, to create money in unlimited supply for the purpose of lending. this is how the supply of credit always seems to overwhelm demand and cause interest rates, at least for those lucky enough to be able to borrow on favourable terms, to collapse to any level that is required to win elections. ...but you must understand the longer term consequences. our house price consumer borrow and spend economy is based on a credit boom initiated and protracted by government intervention through the creation of money. no one knows when the day of reckoning will arrive, but arrive it must and here is how:- "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” - von mises
  2. this is sad but true! the fault with hpc was failure to recognise that markets exist at the sufferance of government. markets depend on government and thus are ultimately controlled by them. sad but true.
  3. that is unfortunately what they are pushing us towards. it will be a very hard world indeed with only an ad-hoc currency market to support trade. and all because the government has destroyed its own creditability whilst bloody mindedly refusing to support any competition to fill the vacuum as the fiat system is implodes.
  4. it is sad isn't it (the article, i mean) the bailouts were despicable (although inevitable, as we gold bugs knew all along) but this does not mean we should allow the rot to continue to spread.
  5. honestly guys, where do you dig up this trash from it's like a nut house on here sometimes.
  6. i am not. i think this view, which i have heard time and again, is extremely mislead. please read human action by von mises. it will sort your head out and teach you all about money and credit. ps Perhaps there is some serious flaw in the rationale of the money reformers that I'm missing yes there is! it proposes to replace the current fiat money regime with an identical one, only put in the hands of people for whom we can trust more to safeguard our interests. please! allowing competiting currencies and ending the government monopoly on what we are forced to call money is the only (and obvious, you would think) solution.
  7. this is really the point. if it is a mistake, then those making the mistake will ultimately pay for it. on that score, may be he is right, as you say. however, where he is wrong is in demanding special protection to prevent him losing his job. that is really shitty. what makes him so special? and he has the cheek to call me a moron!
  8. yes, well it was mislead thinking from the start. when you think about it, markets can only exist because of government anyway (it is the most basic purpose of having a government in the first place), so it is a strange fancy that somehow governments are slaves to them i'm afraid that governments are in control ultimately. it is the job of economists to persuade governments of the many advantages of freedom over regulation. but it is individually profitable to lobby for regulation hence the system is doomed to failure without strict limits on the scope of government.
  9. look, if you really believe that outsourcing is a mistake, then set up business in competition and prove it.
  10. this all sounds exactly the same as in the 60s when people used to joke about japanese electronic goods... this arrogance in the domestic IT sector is hilarious. i am look forward to cheaper IT products as i look forward to progress in general.
  11. it is not a matter of opinion it is a market fact. there are other people willing to do the same job for less. stop trying to convince me that i should have to overpay for my IT products just to keep you in the manner you have become accustomed.
  12. and while we're at it, your no.1 is also dishonest. here is why. you say on the one hand that the rate of interest on your savings is too low. this is pure irony! you say one thing but then do another when making your actual asset allocation. if savings rates really were too low, then you would not deliberately chose to hold cash on deposit at banks offering these rates. you see, when i say something, i actually mean it. if i thing a product is too expensive, then i do not buy it, and when i say interest rates are far too low, i do not put my money into cash deposits, but instead purchase other assets, such as gold bullion.
  13. like i say, you only want free markets when it suits you personally. off shoring is wrong? come on mate! look at it from my point of view. i should not be forced to pay higher prices for my IT products when there are cheaper alternatives just to keep you in an overpaid job. get real. you are like many people, you simply do not understand even what you're asking for.
  • 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.