SHERWICK Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 At risk of sounding like Injin I have to ask where, precisely, did I make any mention of your OP being a trolling attempt? Did you not write the word 'seconded' in response to someone saying "Yes, I think this post should be shunted to the "Troll Forum"." ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 Seconded. I am surprised that Injin took time to respond to such an obviously provocative post, the thread has turned into an entertaining read tho' Just to remind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 This whole thread is just an attempt for SHERWICK to troll Injin, you can tell the level of intelligence of this person by the fact he capitalises his name to make it stand out. He probably doesn't like it that Injin's posts are quoted more than his hence this thread is an attempt to grab attention. Hmmmmm. Let me see: Injin: · Posts: 33,123 · Joined: 15-September 07 Me: · Posts: 4,114 · Joined: 28-December 04 I would hope that Injin gets quoted more often than me. Otherwise he really is wasting his time here! 33 thousand posts in 3 years is incredible!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatdog Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Did you not write the word 'seconded' in response to someone saying "Yes, I think this post should be shunted to the "Troll Forum"." ? Correct! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatdog Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Just to remind you. Yes, I got it the first time around, honest. So, what is your point? I really don't understand why such a pedantic desire to unravel a post could be of such importance to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DungBeetle Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Injin posted his/her theory on unemployment & business failure earlier: The largest cause of unemployment is the central bank lending at interest. amount of money - x amount of money required to pay debts = x + y y = amount of failed businesses and unemeployed. Anyone have any thoughts on the above? As usual Injin will claim he is right without presenting any facts. To be honest I switch off these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsgate Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 How about you giving us your's . In the last 50 year's we have gone form having to import labour as we had more jobs than people , to 8 million adults wihtout a job. So apart form telling us it is all about the masses just wanting to smoke and watch crap T.V. Give us your thoughts. Can't we just export some of the unneeded labour. Start with some of the ones we most recently imported. Especially the ones that never seem to get jobs at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 Correct! So how about a small apology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 Yes, I got it the first time around, honest. So, what is your point? I really don't understand why such a pedantic desire to unravel a post could be of such importance to anyone. It's an attempt to explore whether or not Injin is right in the OP. I don't think he is. He, bizarrely, thinks he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 It's an attempt to explore whether or not Injin is right in the OP. I don't think he is. He, bizarrely, thinks he is. I know I am right. Although it wasn't really a complete picture, as I have already admitted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted November 10, 2010 Author Share Posted November 10, 2010 I know I am right. Although it wasn't really a complete picture, as I have already admitted. So you're right, but you typed the words down wrongly..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 So you're right, but you typed the words down wrongly..? No, i'm right but was general. I didn't bother outlining the bond market aspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) Wouldn't a hard default on the bonds affect everyone in the country, not simply the bond holders (via higher interest rates for all)....? (Yes, yes, I know that savers would finally be rewarded with higher interest rates). There will be winners and losers either way we cut it. Our economy needs to rebalance itself to be sustainable, which means less wealth in the hands of the few and more in the hands of the many. I worry that running the printing presses and keeping rates low will result in business destroying inflation, as commodity prices rise, pushing input costs up. How to tackle this high inflation could be nigh on impossible - if rates are left low, inflation will continue to go up (making long term planning difficult, harming business, while gutting the middle classes). If rates go high, hot money will flood in, due to carry trades, fuelling asset bubbles (themselves, sucking money into malinvestment) and making the problem worse. If our printed money heads off to foreign shores, it could help reduce our trade deficit, by watering down foreign surpluses*. In this respect, we would be killing two birds with one stone - reducing our trade deficit, while rebalancing our national distribution of wealth too. I worry that we may be building up a bigger problem for later**, by letting the presses run. * Surpluses which could be said to have been maintained by currency manipulation, which is still having a negative affect on our economy. ** If our rates are to stay near zero indefinitely though, I can understand the argument that the hot money won't come back too though. P.S. I doubt savers would benefit either. There is little yield to extract, which is why we are where we are with zero rates, peak debt etc. Edited November 10, 2010 by Traktion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.