Another One Bites The Dust

[DeepLurker]

It took me 5 minutes to realise that the way to be considered an intellectual on this site is to type lengthy posts full of incomprehensible, meaningless jargon.

Anyone who actually writes in plain English and tries to explain anything in terms everyone can understand is considered to be a cretin.

Sorry for commenting on this after 2 days... I don't check on this board too often ATM.

Just wanted to say a big +1 to the above comment; I've always been annoyed by the posts of Scepticus (and others e.g. ParticleMan) who use lots of big words. I hate having to re-read a post several times and still not understand it.

The use of jargon would be relevant if this was a specialised forum just for economists; but it's not, a lot of posters - such as myself - come here to learn. Anyone who uses jargon hasn't understood his public, and quite frankly should not be here.

PS I've found that in life a very good rule is to work with people who have the ability to explain complicated concepts in plain simple English. If they can't do that, then it's a good bet that they haven't fully understood the problem themselves. Just my 2p's worth anyway.

[Frank8]

Sorry for commenting on this after 2 days... I don't check on this board too often ATM.

Just wanted to say a big +1 to the above comment; I've always been annoyed by the posts of Scepticus (and others e.g. ParticleMan) who use lots of big words. I hate having to re-read a post several times and still not understand it.

The use of jargon would be relevant if this was a specialised forum just for economists; but it's not, a lot of posters - such as myself - come here to learn. Anyone who uses jargon hasn't understood his public, and quite frankly should not be here.

PS I've found that in life a very good rule is to work with people who have the ability to explain complicated concepts in plain simple English. If they can't do that, then it's a good bet that they haven't fully understood the problem themselves. Just my 2p's worth anyway.

+1

[noodle doodle]

+1

I've always had the view that the difference between an intellectual and an intelligent man is that the first explains simple things incomprehensibly, whilst the second can explain complex things clearly.

[Zngland]

I've always had the view that the difference between an intellectual and an intelligent man is that the first explains simple things incomprehensibly, whilst the second can explain complex things clearly.

I'm going to miss the chap.

Was he Cynicus?

[Game_Over]

Thanks for the votes of support guys.

I was beginning to think I was a lone voice in the wilderness.

As an expample a simple point made in plain English

Why should people who have worked hard all their lives and saved a bit of money for their future security bail out others who were greedy and feckless and did absolutely f*ck all to 'earn' the money they thought they had made on property?

According to the Nu Labour apologists amongst us, the person with savings is a bloated capitalist and the person with debts is a victim of the greedy 'banksters'

That pretty much sums up hundreds of bloated posts made by certain people here in one sentence

IMHO.

[Bloo Loo]

Not muddled thinking at all.

What has happened is people bought houses for say 150k and 1 year later they were worth 200k

Someone else spent 20 Years working to save 50K.

What everyone is now saying is that instead of the house price falling back to 150k 'losing' their owners 50k

the person who worked for 20 years and saved the money should lose their 50k instead.

that actually, is a good summing up.. the money for nothing merry go round has collapsed.

[Traktion]

Thanks for the votes of support guys.

I was beginning to think I was a lone voice in the wilderness.

As an expample a simple point made in plain English

Why should people who have worked hard all their lives and saved a bit of money for their future security bail out others who were greedy and feckless and did absolutely f*ck all to 'earn' the money they thought they had made on property?

According to the Nu Labour apologists amongst us, the person with savings is a bloated capitalist and the person with debts is a victim of the greedy 'banksters'

That pretty much sums up hundreds of bloated posts made by certain people here in one sentence

IMHO.

It's not about who deserves what. It's about how the mechanics of monetary system.

It's not some evil people plotting to ruin hard working people, it's just what will happen if savers don't spend.

If people don't spend, people can't get hold of the money to repay their debts. As a result debts will be defaulted on and if money isn't printed, savings will be lost.

I don't know why you're taking it so personally. I couldn't be further from a Nu Labour apologist, yet it feels like you're lashing out at me and others, just for explaining the problem and the inevitable consequences of it.

To put it in a single sentence: someone can't repay you an item they owe you, if the said item is being held by someone else.

EDIT: reworded.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Traktion

[Traktion]

I'm going to miss the chap.

Was he Cynicus?

IIRC, he was asked this a few months back and he denied the connection. It seems like a bit of a coincidence, mind!

[Game_Over]

It's not about who deserves what. It's about how the mechanics of monetary system.

It's not some evil people plotting to ruin hard working people, it's just what will happen if savers don't spend.

If people don't spend, people can't get hold of the money to repay their debts. As a result debts will be defaulted on and if money isn't printed, savings will be lost.

I don't know why you're taking it so personally. I couldn't be further from a Nu Labour apologist, yet it feels like you're lashing out at me and others, just for explaining the problem and the inevitable consequences of it.

To put it in a single sentence: someone can't repay you an item they owe you, if the said item is being held by someone else.

EDIT: reworded.

A crash was / is inevitable IMO

But who pays is not.

And you are not explaining the problem and the inevitable consequences of it, you are justifying your decision that those who were prudent should pay for those who were irresponsible.

As I said in a previous post if a house doubled in value in a year nothing was done to generate this additional wealth, wheras 'savings' are delayed consumption resulting from actual productive activity.

If savings are destroyed to prop up house prices then the savers labour is being stolen to pay for the house owners entirely unearned profit.

Someone will have to pay, but who pays is not inevitable, it is a political decision IMO.

Savers are always exposed to risk wheras borrowers never are because if they lose the money they have borrowed they have actually not lost anything because it wasn't their money in the first place.

And as far as I am aware no posters have been harmed during the making of this thread.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Game_Over

[Number79]

Thanks for the votes of support guys.

I was beginning to think I was a lone voice in the wilderness.

As an expample a simple point made in plain English

Why should people who have worked hard all their lives and saved a bit of money for their future security bail out others who were greedy and feckless and did absolutely f*ck all to 'earn' the money they thought they had made on property?

According to the Nu Labour apologists amongst us, the person with savings is a bloated capitalist and the person with debts is a victim of the greedy 'banksters'

That pretty much sums up hundreds of bloated posts made by certain people here in one sentence

IMHO.

I dont think that anyone believes it is fair or would disagree with you. The fact is though that this is how the monetary system works and the only chance to stay afloat is to get off the merrygoround and put the cash into an asset that will keep pace. Most thought the answer was bricks and mortar and they were right for a while, so much so that our whole economy ended up linked with that asset bubble.

Inflation is not a new phenomena so it is difficult to have much sympathy for anyone who has been saving cash in the bank for 20 years, the government has been reaming them from the day they opened the account.

[Number79]

As I said in a previous post if a house doubled in value in a year nothing was done to generate this additional wealth, wheras 'savings' are delayed consumption resulting from actual productive activity.

If savings are destroyed to prop up house prices then the savers labour is being stolen to pay for the house owners entirely unearned profit.

surely the str and the saver are both affected the same, it may not be fair but anyone with a cash surplus is losing out.

[Traktion]

A crash was / is inevitable IMO

But who pays is not.

And you are not explaining the problem and the inevitable consequences of it, you are justifying your decision that those who were prudent should pay for those who were irresponsible.

As I said in a previous post if a house doubled in value in a year nothing was done to generate this additional wealth, wheras 'savings' are delayed consumption resulting from actual productive activity.

If savings are destroyed to prop up house prices then the savers labour is being stolen to pay for the house owners entirely unearned profit.

Someone will have to pay, but who pays is not inevitable, it is a political decision IMO.

And as far as I am aware no posters have been harmed during the making of this thread.

You can intervene with taxation, perhaps tax those who have benefited most from the boom or some such, but you can't extract the money from the indebted if they don't have it. This is why I have suggested a LVT, cutting red tape for investment etc.

No one is trying to justify taking wealth from those who have earned it. You could buy anything you like with the cash from gold, to houses, to tinned food. It's your wealth and you have every right to preserve it. By holding credit though, it will devalue, unless the indebted are able to get hold of money to repay their debts.

[Game_Over]

I dont think that anyone believes it is fair or would disagree with you. The fact is though that this is how the monetary system works and the only chance to stay afloat is to get off the merrygoround and put the cash into an asset that will keep pace. Most thought the answer was bricks and mortar and they were right for a while, so much so that our whole economy ended up linked with that asset bubble.

Inflation is not a new phenomena so it is difficult to have much sympathy for anyone who has been saving cash in the bank for 20 years, the government has been reaming them from the day they opened the account.

Well this is why saving money has never been risk free which is what people seem to be claiming. There is actually no where to put savings that is anywhere near 'safe'.

It is actually borrowing that is now risk free because if you lose the money you just go bankrupt and start again having not lost anything in the process.

Perhaps we should bring back debtors prison.

[pandora's box]

Thanks for the votes of support guys.

According to the Nu Labour apologists amongst us, the person with savings is a bloated capitalist and the person with debts is a victim of the greedy 'banksters'

IMHO.

Oh dear, you have fallen into their trap... but only just.

The object of your sentence should be the target of your wrath. Until it is, we can't move forward.

[Number79]

Well this is why saving money has never been risk free which is what people seem to be claiming. There is actually no where to put savings that is anywhere near 'safe'.

It is actually borrowing that is now risk free because if you lose the money you just go bankrupt and start again having not lost anything in the process.

Perhaps we should bring back debtors prison.

Unfortunately, many assumed saving was risk free that cash in the bank is as safe as houses. There is nowhere safe, I agree, you pays your money and takes your chances. Ignorant or not, those that saved in the bank placed their bets and took their chances.

I think only those with little to lose can go bankrupt, most others would have income and assets that can be taken. Although, I never understood how so many seem able to do it and have huge debts wiped while continuing the same life and keeping everything.

[Game_Over]

You can intervene with taxation, perhaps tax those who have benefited most from the boom or some such, but you can't extract the money from the indebted if they don't have it. This is why I have suggested a LVT, cutting red tape for investment etc.

No one is trying to justify taking wealth from those who have earned it. You could buy anything you like with the cash from gold, to houses, to tinned food. It's your wealth and you have every right to preserve it. By holding credit though, it will devalue, unless the indebted are able to get hold of money to repay their debts.

You can extract the money from those in debt by seizing their assets

And this thread is about Scepticus, whose big idea is negative interest rates - basically taking peoples savings if they don't spend them.

The fact that this would ultimately result in economic stagnation seems to have eluded him.

[Game_Over]

Unfortunately, many assumed saving was risk free that cash in the bank is as safe as houses. There is nowhere safe, I agree, you pays your money and takes your chances. Ignorant or not, those that saved in the bank placed their bets and took their chances.

I think only those with little to lose can go bankrupt, most others would have income and assets that can be taken. Although, I never understood how so many seem able to do it and have huge debts wiped while continuing the same life and keeping everything.

You set up a limited company or put everything in your partners name and hope they don't run off with the milkman.

In my opinion making debt risk free is what got us into this mess

NOT making saving risk free - because saving isn't risk free as rampant inflation could wipe out peoples savings overnight whilst at the same time reducing others debt.

[Number79]

You can extract the money from those in debt by seizing their assets

And this thread is about Scepticus, whose big idea is negative interest rates - basically taking peoples savings if they don't spend them.

The fact that this would ultimately result in economic stagnation seems to have eluded him.

If you seize their assets then what? do they become a state liability that savers and tax payers support anyway?

The romans did a similar thing, having debased the currency they made hoarding coinage punishable by death to force spending. Inevitably it led to asset collecting as a means of wealth preservation, it did keep the coinage in circulation though.

[Game_Over]

Oh dear, you have fallen into their trap... but only just.

The object of your sentence should be the target of your wrath. Until it is, we can't move forward.

bankers operate in a legal and regulatory environment created by politicians

Bankers may flaunt regulation but only if regulation is made deliberately weak or not enforced

And they may break the law if they know that they will never be prosecuted

If you are saying that the bankers control the politicians then the only way out is to elect people who cannot be bought

And if this is not possible the problem is not bankers - it is democracy itself

[Game_Over]

If you seize their assets then what? do they become a state liability that savers and tax payers support anyway?

The romans did a similar thing, having debased the currency they made hoarding coinage punishable by death to force spending. Inevitably it led to asset collecting as a means of wealth preservation, it did keep the coinage in circulation though.

They are a bigger liability if you don't seize their assets.

At the end of the day, it all depends if people believe we got into this mess by having too much debt or by having too much savings.

I can see the argument that in Japan the fact that no one ever spends money has caused economic stagnation

but in this country it is glaringly obvious that the problem is debt and that the level of savings is too low.

[pandora's box]

bankers operate in a legal and regulatory environment created by politicians

Bankers may flaunt regulation but only if regulation is made deliberately weak or not enforced

And they may break the law if they know that they will never be prosecuted

If you are saying that the bankers control the politicians then the only way out is to elect people who cannot be bought

And if this is not possible the problem is not bankers - it is democracy itself

That is one excellent retort. I know this because I cannot rebuff it with my customary one sentence platitude.

Unfortunately, this post cannot remain unanswered, as it contains the essence of all that is wrong with Western society today.

I hope someone else will take on the challenge, as I am rather tired.

[Number79]

If you are saying that the bankers control the politicians then the only way out is to elect people who cannot be bought

And if this is not possible the problem is not bankers - it is democracy itself

There is no democracy. The populace is a given a vote, to chose between candidates A and B and expected to believe that there is a democratic process. Who chose A and B and put them forward in the first place? A choice between same and same put forward by the elite is no choice at all and certainly isn't democracy.

[Game_Over]

There is no democracy. The populace is a given a vote, to chose between candidates A and B and expected to believe that there is a democratic process. Who chose A and B and put them forward in the first place? A choice between same and same put forward by the elite is no choice at all and certainly isn't democracy.

I suppose the problem is the alternatives have proven to be even worse

We may be bankrupt but no one is dragging us out of our beds in the middle of the night

Not yet anyway

[pandora's box]

There is no democracy. The populace is a given a vote, to chose between candidates A and B and expected to believe that there is a democratic process. Who chose A and B and put them forward in the first place? A choice between same and same put forward by the elite is no choice at all and certainly isn't democracy.

So there is no democracy - I agree.

What we have is a MERITOCRACY i.e. a system in which the government is chosen by the elite.

Does anyone care to disagree?

[Number79]

If too many debtors default, the banks will fail. You then have two options:

1. Give people a haircut on their savings (which could be substantial, depending on whether there was a bank run first).

2. The government bails out the banks, likely with more printed money.

Both erode your savings.

All your posts here have been clear but I like this best as a crystal one.

Edited September 10, 2010 by richyc