Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About scottbeard

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    South East England

Recent Profile Visitors

6,820 profile views
  1. Yes exactly. Value as denoted in some currency or other. Great to have a discussion that ends in both people understanding each other
  2. Yes, I have perhaps got in a muddle. So let's take a deep breath: - Whether something is a problem or not is a matter of opinion. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think. - Bring it back to the original question I was asked "are 60,000 deaths per annum from COVID a problem?" This was asked to me as a trick question - if I say "Yes" he will say "See! So you agree with me that we need lockdowns and vaccinations forever?" and if I say "No" he will say "You evil man! You think 60,000 people dying is OK! What if it was you and your family in the 60,000?" So I just calmly said whilst I agree 60,000 people dying is "a matter regarded as unwelcome" before deeming it a "problem" I need to know whether it's a thing I think we need to "solve" or not, and for that I need to know the proposed solutions and their risks and benefits.
  3. Actually the phrase "Medical technocrats decide what the masses should be scared of, and persude gov's to implement policies to counter their perceived risk." Sounds to me like a pretty accurate description of the situation. The only difference is the tone of language used and whether it is seen as a good robust process or a worrying one. I could tweak the wording to read "Medical experts form a view of what ordinary people should (and should not) be concerned about, and seek to influence government policy to tackle areas of concern identified." That's exactly the same to me in practice as what @nightowlwrote. I could simplify still further to say: "Since neither ordinary people nor governments are medical experts, they ask doctors and scientists for advice on what to do about medical matters." I could also have fun with nightowl's biased language applied to more mundane matters where again it doesn't sound as worrying as he seems to make it feel: "Food science technocrats decide what biscuits the masses should be tempted to eat, and persuade supermarkets to stock their perceived treats."
  4. No no no - unsolved problems are problems of course. Things with no solution possible, or whose only possible solutions would cause even worse outcomes, are not problems. Obviously if I lose my return ticket home that’s a problem from the moment I lose it until the moment I solve it, including before a solution is found! My point originally was that COVID is only a “problem” if you think we need to do something about it. If you think there is either nothing we CAN do or nothing we SHOULD do (because lockdowns etc are worse than the disease) then it isn’t a problem. In other words you need to know if it must be solved before you can deem it a problem. Definition below:
  5. No. If a bad thing can't be solved it's not a "problem", just an inconvenient fact of life. Whilst you debate possible solutions it could be perhaps described as a "potential problem". The fact that you can't afford your bus fare home - that's a "problem". The fact that one day you will die....well there is no solution to that so it's not a problem, just an inconvenient fact of life. If you think it's messed up, take it up with the Oxford English Dictionary. I don't make up the words, just use them.
  6. Maybe. Perhaps @Arpeggiowill explain what exactly he meant by "way of life" rather than just saying it's now clear he was right. All I see is: - We had a pandemic - We put in place legislation to deal with it - This pandemic is less of a problem now, but the Scottish parliament want to leave the legislation in case they need it again eg in another pandemic It really boils down to how much you trust those in authority - if you trust them you don't mind them having powers all the time, and if you don't trust them you don't want them to have powers ANY of the time. If someone was suggesting we need a lockdown now, I'd be concerned. Having lockdown legislation isn't really a big deal either way, because if it lapsed they could always bring it back so it's not as if there is any practical difference between it sitting there all the time or not.
  7. I shouldn't really have to. Most normal people would I have thought understood why this judgment is inherently much worse news for women than men. To be honest, if you don't get it you are probably just beyond help so I'll leave it there.
  8. There is less stuff in the world (Tesco and everything inside it is destroyed) and the same amount of money, so the value of some other things will go up (for example, the local Morrison's probably just gained some new customers so they could put their prices up and still sell just as much).
  9. You've lost me. Things have value if people are prepared to pay for them, and have no value if people aren't. That's all there is to it. If people change their minds about what has value, that thing loses value - but other things gain in value, as if they're paying less for whatever is out of favour they have more money to spend on what is in favour. If the money supply increases all things gain in "value" as measured in that money (and vice versa) whilst remaining unchanged in true value. That's all there is to it.
  10. You're confusing real and financial things here. Let's say I accidentally damage or lose something, maybe I drop my gold wedding ring down a drain and its lost. That ring's value falls to zero....but every other little bit of gold in the world becomes FRACTIONALLY more valuable, since it's now SLIGHTLY more limited in supply, but there is the same amount of MONEY in the world. However, if MONEY disappears the opposite is true. Let's say I burn a £50 note. Now it's every other £1 in the world that has become more valuable, meaning that there is less money chasing everything and the value of absolutely everything in the entire world (measured in GBP) falls slightly. With such small items it's hard to believe, but when you see it applied on a grand scale you see it more easily: It's a bad year for the Wheat harvest. There is less Wheat in the world. Wheat prices skyrocket. People spend more on bread, and less on everything else. Bread price goes up, everything else comes down. The government does QE and pumps billions of pounds into the economy. The price of everything rises. (And vice versa)
  11. I mean she could, yes, in that example. But since only women can get pregnant and therefore need an abortion, by denying them the right to do so they are manifestly disadvantaged vs men. If the US had instead ruled to ban treatment of testicular cancer, I'm pretty sure the argument "this doesn't disadvantage men because women can't get treatment now either" would be equally feeble.
  12. Well not exactly, since every BTC that is sold is also bought by someone. When the price of one thing goes down, the two main reasons are: 1) people are spending more on other things instead (ie BTC down, other things up) 2) there is less money around altogether (ie everything down across the board) We actually have an interesting situation in the world currently with a bit of both where a lot of real things (petrol, food, gas etc) are going up in price a lot, reducing the money left to spend on BTC and financial things (1) as well as the fact that money printing has stopped and interest rates are rising, causing (2) as well.
  13. Your view on inflation is shared by some senior analysts at my firm (although not by the market at large at this point). I would dispute that "a massive crisis is coming" though since if you are right the whole point of the delay is to avert one. If interest rates went up to 12% tomorrow yes, that would cause a massive crisis. If they rise 1% a year for 12 years, not so much.
  14. If people can live on Universal Credit (as many do) they can surely live on 3 days' wages if they literally buy NOTHING than an average family in 1955 didn't have. AS LONG AS (and it's a big caveat) their housing costs were sensible (eg council house / housing association, as many people were in the 1950s) and not the outrageous cost that many places are today to buy or rent privately. However, I for sure can't be bothered to work through the numbers to prove it, so if you have time to work them through and DISprove it please go for it, I'd be fascinated! Other than houses almost everything costs a lot less in real terms though than it did in the 1950s, so I would be very surprised if it doesn't add up the way I hypothesise.
  15. Honestly I’m still struggling to understand what you mean by a “way of life” that’s any different to pre 2019? There have been diseases since I was a child. There have been vaccines since I was a child. The only thing that was new in 2020 was lockdowns. The increase in deaths reported by US insurance companies is the only point in your post that really interests me, but more professionally than personally, since the mortality I observe in my work for under 60s hasn’t really shown an increase but then I haven’t looked at 2022 yet.
  • 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.