QE: More to do?
For once, the Monetary Policy Committee has pulled off a positive surprise.
When the Bank's policy-making committee said last month that they wanted to wait and see before deciding to continue with quantitative easing, the markets reeled at the policy's "imminent" demise.
Officials said we shouldn't jump to any conclusions about the future of QE. They really would "wait and see". But private and public remarks by some officials led people to suspect that they would put the policy on pause.
Earlier today, I did say it was quite possible that the Bank would decide to spend another £25bn, but spend it more slowly. In the event, they are spending more than I thought - another £50bn. But they are going to spend it more slowly.
I'm no conspiracy theorist. I don't think they planned to wrongfoot the market. But given what I said earlier about the policy's potential to affect confidence, it will have been no bad thing, from the MPC's perspective, that traders were expecting them to do less. The yield - or interest rate - on ten-year government bonds fell 15 basis points (0.15 of a point) in response to the news.
To date, the Bank has been spending about £25bn a month. Now they are going to spread £50bn in purchases over three months. It's possible to read too much into this - officials themselves like to emphasize that QE is not an exact science.
By taking three months, rather than two, they can put off another decision on QE until the November Inflation Report. But you can at least conclude that they don't think the economy's need for cash is quite as urgent as it was before.
What does this decision tell us about the Bank's view of the economy? Well, to state the obvious, it thinks that QE has more to do.
The Bank has been sceptical of the early estimates for GDP in the past - their growth forecasts show a range of possible final outcomes, for the past performance of the economy as well as the future. And indeed, the Bank - along with some other commentators - may well expect the disappointing second quarter estimate to be revised upwards.
But today's statement suggests they have taken that first estimate seriously enough to revise down their forecasts for past and future growth - at least for 2009. Despite today's encouraging news about rising car sales and, possibly, rising house prices, the Bank's policy makers probably believe there is still greater risk in doing too little than in doing too much.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Like the ambassador handing round his chocolates, with all this QE they are really spoiling us.....
Complain about this comment
Yet more bailout for reckless borrowers and another kicking for savers and non homeowners.
Complain about this comment
Stephanie wrote:
"the Bank's policy makers probably believe there is still greater risk in doing too little than in doing too much"
Are these the very same policy makers that gave us the credit boom and the credit crunch?
The needed sacking six months ago and they still do today. They just haven't a clue! The bubble economy has burst. They are trying to re-inflate a busted balloon.
They must insist on structural changes to regulation and in the way they regulate the market - but they are not doing so and are simply letting (the now fewer) monopoly banks suck the Nation dry - it will not do!
Complain about this comment
Not completely convinced by your assertion that this is a "positive surprise".
1) It is not entirely a surprise (after all you and others blogged about how it might happen)
2) The UK monetary authorities agreeing to further print money, is in no way a positive story
a) it means at best the BoE outlook is even grimmer than before;
b) and at worst, since all of it (bar 2% or so) has been spent so far on Gilts, effectively funding massive govt borrowing, the accusation of the zimbabwefication of our money just got a little bit more plausible
Please tell me what is positive about that.
Complain about this comment
More currency debasement. The inflation genie is hard to put back in the bottle. Will they stop at nothing to win this election?! I almost hope they do at this rate...
Is the word "debt" not in Brown's dictionary?
Complain about this comment
Is it just me or is it not something to congratulate the BOE over? If we hadn't got into this mess in the first place I would have been more complimentary. Economists have to remember that the government are spending our hard earned money on car scrappage deals etc. QE has helped destroy our currency and the only thing to be happy about is that the whole world are in the same position.
I see nothing the politicians and BOE have done to help get us out of this mess. Short term cash but long term pain. Who knoews how much the banks have in toxic debt yet? Please question the banks on off balance sheet holdings. The rumour I heard was HBOS had £18b off balance sheet toxic debt and that was way before the forced takeover. What's happening Stephanie?
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that QE has crossed some kind of line today from getting the banks to lend again and staving off deflation, to pumping enough money into the system so that the cost of that credit is reduced to the borrower. QE is in danger of becoming some kind of Magic Pill that can be used over again whenever the BOE wants to boost the economy! After all we have been told for months that the cost of borrowing money is going to rise for consumers in the future, but now that the future is here and credit IS costing business and household borrowers more the BOE says... hold on, we don't like this, things are not moving quick enough, lets just create more money, simple!! The reason the cost of borrowing is set to rise is that banks need to re-build their balance sheets, so why not just create even more new money so the banks are fully re-capitalised now and we can go back to the good old days of unlimited cheap credit for all. Why not stop there? Why not create even more money to pay back all the billions we are borrowing as a country at the moment, then there will be no need to put up taxes and cut public spending because that might slow down any future recovery? Once you start creating money its very hard to stop. Who cares about what it might mean for the economy in say 5 years time, as long as it all looks rosy now thats all that matters!!
Complain about this comment
This is just not good enough again. The problem with this sort of thing is that the only people who know how to benefit from the money and actually get their hands on it are the very people who have caused this problem and will only use it to continue to become wealthier while we become poorer. I think conspiracy theories are probably not far off the truth and true power brokers in this country are just looking after themselves. With both this and the absolute despair in the politicians at the moment, it is truly becoming a quite depressing place to live. Just who exactly is getting their hands on all this money? Where exactly are my taxes going? What on earth am I getting from the public sector for all the money I am made to hand over every month?
Complain about this comment
After the governments acolytes' sneaky announcements over the past couple of weeks that things were improving , this kinda puts things back in perspective ; the economy is still in trouble, may in fact be sinking further into trouble and here we have the incompetents who got us in this position pretending they are still in control. I suspect that the government is now in a position where it will cut and run in the autumn and call an election in the forlorn hope that it can salvage a few seats for the comrades.
Complain about this comment
Still no explanation, I see, of whether QE is genuinely a voluntary monetary stimulus policy, or if it would be more realistic to see it as a necessary, forced printing of money in order to enable the programmed gilt issues to be sold.
Is this an irrelevant distinction, or is keeping the cat in the bag more important than helping people to understand the truth of what's going on?
Complain about this comment
The basic concept of supply and demand with the addition of manipulation. With production down as demand is down, the need for money by business is down. The bankers, maintaining their posture of self-interest, are not loaning money and purposely keeping the economy down as a threat to the government about enacting banking regulations. This requires that those few borrowers be financed through the government/bank process. I still think it was a mistake not to have had public hangings of bankers. Economies world wide would be progressing if governments had held the bankers accountable and sent many to jail and some to the gallows. Maybe put them all in jail and let them work from there and they will be released based on improvements in the economy, sort of like their current bonus system, only these would need to be earned.
Complain about this comment
Positive surprise? This is a ridiculous way to behave. All it has done is panic the markets. Sterling moves 1.5% lower as we speak! The official line is that they would probably rather do a little bit more than a little too less. This is rear view mirror thinking. If anything what data we have had recently (to the extent that any data can be be relied on with any degree of certaint) has been neutral to positive. The unofficial line is that Greedy Gordon can now get his hands on even more cash so that he can spend it on more meaningless jobs, higher wages, unproductive projects, social security and so on so forth. IT IS INCREDIBLE HOW ONE MAN (GORDON BROWN) HAS SINGLE HANDEDLY COMPLETELY WRECKED THE UK ECONOMY. I am completely depressed. Anyone who votes this man next year should be charged with treason!!! UK R.I.P
Complain about this comment
I'm a bit confused by the reasons put forward by some for another load of money to be printed and thrown at the economy.
It seems that inflation is still too low so this money is needed to boost the inflation rate to reach the BOE's target of 2%.
Seeing as they already admit they don't even know what the last £125 billion has done yet it seems a dangerous game to play pumping even more in.
They may get a lot worse than they bargain for. When will the computer say NO?
Complain about this comment
You only have to look at what happened to the pound/euro rate at noon today to see what QE really means - devaluation. But I am sure that QE sounds better - particularly with an election just over the horizon! Who else remembers Harold Wilson's famous 'This does not mean that the pound in your pocket has been devalued'?
QE is nothing less than printing paper money (or electronic cash) without the assets to back it up. (ie the gold Gordon sold).
Complain about this comment
This will devalue the money in people's pockets and make everything we purchase more expensive. Already the Pound is down against every other major currency except the South African Rand!
£50 billion is almost £1000 for every person in the country - if they had actually given it directly to us, then there may not be much complaining, but they didn't - they just gave it straight to the banks.
I agree with Post #5. This is not prudent economics - it is just a desperate attempt to win an election.
Complain about this comment
As I posted before, QE is simply a means to mantain a status quo. At the end of all this the fiancial elite will maintain it's dominance at the expense of the those encapsulated in the economy.
There's nothing new under this sun :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_beads
Complain about this comment
I just would like to know where I can see the Governments budget (in detail) for the past year or so. Is this possible? TC
Complain about this comment
Funny that, and here I was thinking that the worst is over and the recovery is on its way, at least that's the myth the media has been spinning us.
The fact is that we are now on the verge of a total economic collapse due to years of abuse within the entire financial sector, encouraged by governments of all persuasions and a gullible public, creating phantom wealth, bogus prosperity and an unsustainable standard of living.
The only reason for the so-called good news of late is QE - both here and in America - has facilitated a temporal stasis, but rather like a brain-dead patient on life support displaying signs of life, as soon as the stimulus is turned off the economy will disintegrate.
Enjoy it whilst it lasts.
Complain about this comment
We have been printing jobs for years (champion of street football, diversity consultant, HIBS, the tax credits system management, quangos, ever more complex legislation that needs people to look after).
Perhaps QE is just the monetary realisation of the same phenomenon? We dont have enough useful stuff to do since we became so mechanised so we may as well create something out of nothing and see what happens.
Isn't that how the universe started?
Nobody seems to question that.
lets just keep on printing and see if the rest of the world ever notices that we dont have much that is of any use to sell anymore.
If they get twitchy just tell em its part of a big metaphysical experiment.. a kind of social large hedron collider and it is in all the worlds interest that it is allowed to continue without question.
Does anyone understand the value of anything anymore anyway?
Nobody will notice for a few years in the current confused climate by which time we will all be rich again and will have bought our way out of this using money we printed.
Neat huh!
Sound like a plan?
Complain about this comment
In all the post Stephanie I like this bit most of all
`..officials themselves like to emphasize that QE is not an exact science.'
Exact science? More like a reckless gamble. The final throw of the dice in the very faint hope of recovering what has been lost.
We have had the City, Gordon's paid stooges, and most of the media who should know better running around for the last few days shamelessly shouting that the worst is over and all this will be forgotten in a year or two. But now we hear that we still need some more lead in the economic pencil.
In one way I am saddened that we have even more QE as I don't like it as a policy at all but wonder if there is any alternative. On the other this puts the braggarts in their place.
The so-called recovery is nothing more than a response to all the money this government has pumped into the economy from out of the taxpayers' future to make up for the calamity it inflicted on the country. What the bank is telling us is that the bounce is just that and there is a clear risk that it will soon be over.
Double-U here we come!
Complain about this comment
Stephanie,
Why would rising house prices be considered postive news? It just means more money is required to get a roof over your head.
So I detect your personal opinion coming into this? Maybe you want your house price to rise, but I want to be able to buy a good standard home at a fair price.
Why is it that the BBC constantly shoves rising house prices being a great thing down our throats while paying lip service to the social consequences of poor and unaffordable housing?
Complain about this comment
For all those sad folk, struggling to get by in these difficult times, READ this short, serious and not for the faint-hearted recipe:
"How to make money?"
Complain about this comment
all this is about is to engineer a plato for GB to call an election.
Then when the mountain of debt is tackled we will plunge over a cliff.
I hear the IMF are getting their visa ready.
Complain about this comment
It would be useful if with these figures for QE there was some suggestion of what contribution that new money makes.. how much money is in the economy atm? - is this a drop in the ocean, a percentage point contribution or more??
Stating that the BoE has printed X doesn't suggest anything.. maybe it's deliberately obscure but if so that is a bad mistake, it doesn't do anything to help confidence.
Complain about this comment
It's alright the government using all our hard earned money to help the economy but who is going to look after the pensioners who are relying on their savings whilst interest rates on savings have plummeted.
Complain about this comment
When the Bank's policy-making committee said last month that they wanted to wait and see before deciding to continue with quantitative easing, the markets reeled at the policy's "imminent" demise.
>>>
They lied - they must have already planned this contoured QE exercise - and it does not inspire much confidence if the bank's policy making committee's main suggestion is 'wait and see' - we're all sitting around hoping and praying that these are the guys who can make a difference?
Presumably, at some stage the QE money will run out - but what exactly is the money being spent on now - it sounds to me like its simply electronic money being shifted within different electronic accounting systems within a select few investment banks (with the usual banking favourites taking massive fees on the transactions)?
Complain about this comment
The most exciting thing this year is Nissan's decision to make electric cars next year.
Unfortunately it's not considered exciting.
Complain about this comment
MrTWeedy
"
The French sell newly created euros and buy dollars already in existence. This new demand for a limited supply of dollars increases the value of the dollar against the euro."
Very interesting quote.
Thinking about it, you have to say "not necessarily." The French will import the spark plugs and the US banks will just end up with more assets in French vostro accounts, but only to the extent that US banks or other FX dealers are willing to hold Euro denominated assets.
Having said that, if Euro assets are growing in value, then it should be easier for people wanting to buy USD to sell EUR as the FX traders will be more willing to hold EUR assets, as the EUR assets can be used to speculate on the EUR market.
So no, it's the other way round -the EUR will probably rise against USD
Complain about this comment
I am amazed that you have managed to put a positive 'spin' on this! So, the fact that they are planning to spend the money more slowly makes it a good thing does it? Erm ......you must have really been scraping the barrel to dream up that one. Meanwhile it is worth remembering that on the same day as the extension to QE is announced, the European Central Bank has reiterated the need for retaining 'price stability' and for proceeding with 'prudence and caution'. Our lot have decided on the opposite course of action. They are obviously intending to inflate my pension away completely. Luckily my vegetables are coming up well.
Complain about this comment
I wish someone would put the QE topic to bed. It's dull. It's boring. It's simple: they just want to recapitalise the banks, and they know the banks will hoard the money. It's deflation and there's no demand for debt, so the banks are just using it to clear their sheets. So can we now forget QE and move on? This QE is just a bank-saving stop-gap. Let's put it to bed and deal with the future.
Complain about this comment
#23 IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
'all this is about is to engineer a plato for GB to call an election.'
---------------------------------------
I beg your pardon!
Being an engineer, I'm glad you managed to spell that word correctly...but 'plato'. So GB is planning to engineer a Greek philosopher to call an election!
There's a bright guy on Peston's blog who doesn't know the difference between 'there' and 'their'...after I mentioned the difference he then went on to use the word 'their' instead of 'they're'.
I just want to hit my head against a brick wall!
Has our education system deteriorated that much?
I fully agree with your sentiment in your though.
Keep posting!
Complain about this comment
Greetings from the DPRK. As you may know information is censored in the homeland - although we are yet to reach your western levels of indoctrination.
Post #27 bemoans the fact that Nissan and their electric car production is not considered interesting. Consider this; The technology has been around for a while now, but is routinely suppressed by your freedom loving governments and oligarchs. Why else would GM develop an electric battery and sell the patent to Texaco? Who are Zenn Motors? Do they produce electric cars? and are they routinely impeded from doing so by the Canadian government. This also is not considered interesting.
Post #31 offers English classes to our beleguered citizens, and ends with the enigmatic statement "I fully agree with your sentiment in your though." Phrase like this is very interesting, but regretfully does not appear in DPRK English phrasebook.
Your money printing is very good idea, the Dear Leader is very happy and offers services of DPRK printing presses if you need help to print more, or just want to print faster. Korean printers are devoted to their work, and can supply testamonial from a Mr. Mugabwe if interested.
Complain about this comment
Did I miss it? Where can I find the answer to the questions we asked the last time we discussed QE:
Where did the money go?
What effect did it have?
I don't think that I can find the answer and it looks like the BoE doesn't have the answer either. Therefore, why the hell are we pumping in (or is it out) more money?
The BoE can't say if banks are retaining this money to support their blance sheets (a hands-off it's mine approach) or if it's disappearing overseas to support the parent companies of UK subsidiaries.
From what I read on here and other places, it doesn't look like it's having any noticeable effect within the UK economy. Seems like more and more doing less and less.
Complain about this comment
#32
I love Radio DPRK. Bring it on.
Complain about this comment
Quantitative Easing is printing money and placing it into the economy. Like anything that has a value, the more of it you create - the less value it begins to have. The theory of Keynesian economics being carried out here does precious little, in real terms, to help those it was intended for. Instead we see with devaluing of a already fraction fiat based currency the forced response of inflation. This, in turn, drives prices up to those that are frozen or losing money. The banks increase a balance sheet at the cost of the people.
Would we dare to look to Austrian economics school under such people as Ludwig von Mises or the like? Would we dare to challenge the status-quo for the benefit of the economy and the people? This helps to perpetuate the booms and bubbles that got us into this mess. Just the other day a "saved" bank with defaulting loans was proposed to be divide into assets and debts with the debts, in the near future, to be sold off. Will history repeat itself and AAA rating be supplied for toxic debt? We "saved" a bank that, by rights of prudent economics, should have failed.
How much more debt can the every decreasing working class, without the ability to higher tax accountants thus avoiding such tax, survive before we implode? With fewer people working the burden increases steadily and the interest on such loans straps itself to our child and our children's child.
Steve
LPUK Member
Complain about this comment
Great. More inflation. These clowns need to read some von Mises.
Complain about this comment
#36
How can the banks hoarding all this money be inflationary? The MPC has so far pumped £125 billion into the economy via QE and there's been a massive REDUCTION in bank lending. As #30 said, this exercise is helping nobody in the real economy but is rather repairing bank balance sheets and facilitating fat bonuses. Surprise, surprise. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
So the Bank's answer to all our problems is to spend even more money that we haven't actually got.
Brilliant!
Let's hope the money markets don't find out, because that might cause the value of sterling to drop. Best not draw attention to it.....
Complain about this comment
Stephanie - in your last QE posting you suggested that it might be the stock of QE that mattered and not the rate at which it increases. If this were the Bank's view, would they be making a point of the slower rate of spend this time round?
I suspect that the Bank believes QE has a behavioural/psychological effect as well as its direct effect on the money supply and on the incentives of banks. It's fascinating to analyse the effect on expectations and the "wrong-footing" idea, but we can guess, second-guess and fifth-guess them; I think it will be hard to know the Bank's thinking for sure until the minutes are published. Or even then...
Complain about this comment
And those who say QE is the same as creating inflation and devaluing the currency, you are in good company. Virtually all economists, and everyone at the Bank of England, would completely agree with you. This is not a controversial point and they would not regard it as a criticism!
QE does not enrich banks - quite the reverse. If the banks hang onto the money, they will make losses on it. They can only make a profit from QE if they lend the money out to businesses - which is exactly what we want to encourage.
I do agree that the Bank should consider buying corporate bonds with its money instead of gilts; but even if it doesn't, the policy will still help.
Complain about this comment
#28 MrTweedy
You still out there?
It also reminds me of information theory... One guy I know who is very much into laissez faire capitalism and Austrian thinking was talking about the importance of free price systems, his rationale being that all kinds of signals are embodied in the 'price,' that hardly any 'managed' system could hope to deal with. I remember vaguely thinking that it sounded rational but I would have to think about it some more. Well, I did, and the fact is that information in signals depend on who his listening. (You can find out more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory ) Signals can combine to form noise, or cancel each other out. Whether or not something like price, or changes in price, can communicate anything at all really depends on a variety of things, and I imagine that free prices often obscure signals
With the multiplier of asset speculation, growth in the EUR market is likely to make FX traders demand EURO. This growth will be accompanied by demand for USD (spark plugs). The question is how do these two signals combine? How do FX traders (eg: banks) react to growth in the Euro market and increase in demand for US products as a result of that growth?
In all probability in this scenario the dominant influence would be the hot money coming in to the Euro market, multiplying through the banks, fuelling further growth, and further demand for Euro assets.
Complain about this comment
When are we going to stop kidding ourselves that QE is a proactive policy to reflate the economy, rather than this being a side effect of the BOE extending its own overdraft because it was about to run out of money with which to buy gilts? The real story is an unreformed public sector leaking more money than the government has in tax revenue or can reliably and cheaply raise in the private markets. If those at the top are too stressed out to take the difficult decisions necessary to sort out the mess they've overseen then its time for them to step down.
Complain about this comment
#31 some times my english gets the better of me, whilst working hard
and blogging at the same time. But my maths has never let me down
thats more than can be said for GB+co and some analysts. where the number clearly do not add up.
Complain about this comment
#37 It will get out eventually. Just watch the price of bread, milk, beer etc over the next few years. Watch gold and silver too. They could curb it with higher interest rates and selling the garbage they buy but who would be silly enough to buy corporate and government debt at the moment?
Who thinks these guys get that savings are the lifeblood of an economy?
Complain about this comment
A good essay by Jim Willie worth a read:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/willie/2009/0806.html
Complain about this comment
#44
There's a difference between real and nominal prices. It doesn't matter if we have deflation or inflation - one of them is going up!
Complain about this comment
#45
Thanks for the link. Not read it in full yet but love the comment:
"in 1971 Nixon broke the gold standard and permitted the USDollar to float on a cloud of arrogance and on a wave of liquidity that is best described as debt mixed with counterfeit."
Seems to be along the same lines as Michael Hudson's book Super Imperialism:
"Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire, was the first book to describe the global free ride for America after it went off the gold standard in 1971, putting the world onto a paper U.S. Treasury-bill standard."
Senator Ron Paul also isn't afraid to levy this charge too!
Complain about this comment
FrankSz
I've posted a reply to your nostro vostro comments back on the original thread ("A Large Sucking Sound").
The economy is full of competing forces acting in opposite directions. The strongest force will move a country's currency in a particular direction.
This is why it is difficult to predict the outome of any particular stimulus. Lloyds makes a loss, share prices go up. Then RBS makes a profit, and share prices go down....
Expectations and speculation have a big influence. Such things are not fully rational, but they will even out over time.....
I would like some safety limits put in place through legislation.
We don't let people drive on the roads without first passing a driving test, but we have no such safety limits protecting the world of finance and insurance.
Complain about this comment
Erm...is this serious?
How can printing money to fund government borrowing in the middle of a debt crisis, when our government has huge amounts of government debt outstanding - and still wants to splurge huge amounts on public expenditure - be a positive thing?
I wonder at what stage of the decline of the UK the BBC will begin to report accurately rather than being a propaganda mouthpiece for a failed government...
Complain about this comment
I would recommend:
The Coming Collapse of the Dollar and How To Profit From It
by James Turk and John Rubino
if you want a truly eye-opening account of the future, rather than the patent nonsense peddled by "economists" like the author here (who is even so celebrity focused to create her own term Stephanomics).
Face facts - our economy is grossly overvalued in terms to what it actually represents, and when people understand this, the mother of all crashes is coming.
Complain about this comment
So the BoE are going to 'print' another £50bn over 3 months to buy Gilts...which is roughly what the Government are having to borrow every 3 months.
Wonder what will happen on the Gilts market when the current QE funds run out ?
Not difficult to see what's going on here, is it ?
Complain about this comment
7 million man years to clear off QE debt.
At a salary of lets say, 25k pa. and assuming that nothing is spent on anything as the salary all goes to payback
4 years = 100k
40 years = 1 million
40,000 years = 1 billion
A total of 175 billion of QE out there, so
40,000 years x 175 = 7 million man years
Now who do I thank for this wonderful scheme to waste such a bundle of human activity ?
Complain about this comment
Doesn't exactly take brains to PRINT money do it? MAKE it? Someone should tell them how money_is_made.
GC
Complain about this comment
Comments 42 (edwdprice), 49 (DialSquareDomination) and 51 (Queasy_Money)
Phew! There was me thinking that Liam Halligan and I were the only two people left in the world who actually recognise QE for what it is. And then, as if by magic, along come three more who have not been hoodwinked by the propaganda.
I've no objection to the BBC Economics Editor writing about the possible benefits QE may have on the economy at large, but I don't think it's exactly quality reporting to fail in doing so even to mention the fundamental reason for it's introduction, and to write as though the maybe beneficial side-effects are really all that matter. We're not five-year-olds - we know that the purpose of eating carrots is not to enhance nighttime vision. Tell us it straight, for heaven's sake. Then public discussion might have some purpose.
Complain about this comment
The best alternative to QE is universal tax credits and income tax reduction. Then we could all pump money back into the economy, or into the banks in reducing our debts. Let's call it a "Poll Tax Credit" - give something to everyone!
No, that won't happen. Sharing the gain is for the banking brothers; pain is what we ordinary mortals get to share.
Complain about this comment
#48 responded there too
Complain about this comment
"52. At 10:21am on 07 Aug 2009, strategycall wrote:
7 million man years to clear off QE debt.
At a salary of lets say, 25k pa. and assuming that nothing is spent on anything as the salary all goes to payback
4 years = 100k
40 years = 1 million
40,000 years = 1 billion
A total of 175 billion of QE out there, so
40,000 years x 175 = 7 million man years
Now who do I thank for this wonderful scheme to waste such a bundle of human activity ?"
But remember the cost of keeping G.Brown in office is priceless.........
Complain about this comment
#49
Robert Peston seams to be moving more to an "It's getting rosey" position. To the average listener the main gist of his reporting yesterday seemed to be 'Still some grey clouds.. but essentially we (i.e. the banks) are getting there'. He was also rolled out on early Breakfast TV. Maybe GMTV soon?
I have to say it really did seem quite a turnaround. Perhaps now HMG is closed for their (hope I spelt that right) summer holidays we'll see more of him giving us a boost.
Complain about this comment
I would like to echo what Post 21 has said ...
"Why would rising house prices be considered postive news? It just means more money is required to get a roof over your head ... Why is it that the BBC constantly shoves rising house prices being a great thing down our throats while paying lip service to the social consequences of poor and unaffordable housing?" ...
And http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/08/land-of-free-but-whos-paying-for-it.html is also very pertinent to this subject too.
Complain about this comment
QE will NOT work for one very substantial reason -IT HAS NO CLEAR OBJECTIVE.
It is not SMART and therefore can only be speculated upon and not measured.
It is a monetry instrument directed not at 'true value' but only at money! Anybody seen any of this 'new money' in their businesses or on the High Street. Is QE only working because things could be worse?
Complain about this comment
#31 BankSlickerminustheR - "There's a bright guy on Peston's blog who doesn't know the difference between 'there' and 'their'...after I mentioned the difference he then went on to use the word 'their' instead of 'they're'."
Oh, the joys of over-reliance on spell-checkers !! :-)
Of course, this has nothing to do with the government dumbing down our kiddies' education or the current PC/fascist thinking that kiddies should be allowed to spell phonetically instead of grammatically !!
Thank God, my kiddies are out of this; it's my grandkiddies I have to worry about now !!
Complain about this comment
#33 FDD - "Where did the money go?"
Well the money is "created" and then used to purchase more government debt - Gilts !! This is then treated as real assets and sold on to suc..., err, I mean, wise investors !! Meanwhile, the printed money is used to pay for the vastly inflated government spendings in order to buy -
(1) the complacency of the Civil Service
(2) electoral votes in by-elections
(3) (false) belief of the "lumpen proletariat" in the "green shoots of recovery"
To paraphrase the words of a song from the Flower Power era - "Where have all the QE gone ?" The chorus/refrain is so, so apt - "When will they ever learn ??"
Complain about this comment
#38 "Let's hope the money markets don't find out, because that might cause the value of sterling to drop. Best not draw attention to it....."
Go to Oanda.com and look up the history of GBP/CNY exchange rate over the last 2 years !! It makes for very interesting reading. While you are there, look up the historic FX rates for USD/CNY and EUR/CNY for the same period !!
This is an FX rates site that is trusted by various FX traders !!
Complain about this comment
#62 ishakandar,
so what happened to the promise to use the 'money' to buy "quality" commercial paper?
Complain about this comment
The BBC website administrators, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that I shall, henceforth, be known as "you" !!
I wonder what message from which God had made them decide so ??
Complain about this comment
#64 FDD - "so what happened to the promise to use the 'money' to buy "quality" commercial paper?"
You mean you actually believe their promise ??? WOW !! Can you lend me 100 million quid ?? I promise to pay you back whenever I can !! :-)
Complain about this comment
In #5 thecoopster asked "Is the word "debt" not in Brown's dictionary?"
Probably, but he may see the word in the context of the Church of Scotland verions of The Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who debt against us".
Would that it were that easy, but in our present predicament that really is pushing forgiveness beyond its elastic limit...
Complain about this comment
#67 "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who debt against us".
If I remember what was hammered into my thick skull during my school days, it's - "Forgive us of our *trespasses* as we forgive those who *trespass* against us" - and is immediately followed by - "And lead us not into *temptation* but deliver us from *evil*" !!
Will the Good Lord lead us away from the *temptation* of conspicuous credit-funded consumerism and deliver us from the *evil* of "QE" now ??
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8188942.stm
The chart at the bottom makes interesting reading !! Please note that the two banks still making consistent profits are the same two who have *NOT* taken the Queen's shilling !! Wherefore are the nay-sayers who insist that the size of the banks is the root of this credit crunch evil ??
- Ishkandar (not "you", as this site seem to think I am)
Complain about this comment
#69 ishky
Now we have a REAL problem because I am also YOU. But I know that I am NOT you. Therefore if I am ME and also YOU at the same time then who the heck are YOU? It's all very confusing!!
Interesting that in The Lords Prayer the request for forgiveness is limited and conditional. It asks that our 'trespasses' are forgiven in the same way and to the same degree that we forgive others who have "trespassed against us". I have no idea why the Scottish churches chose 'debt' as the translation. I think the more modern interpritation of 'sins' is clearer.
Complain about this comment
Hello, hello, hello...Pyongyang calling.
Greetings British men. You are barking up the wrong tree. Your QE is not relevant except that it shows your wagons are firmly hitched to the USA, or the former USA as the Dear Leader prefers.
Soon now our brothers in China will demonstrate their ability to escape from the trap you have so diligently set for them. The sun rises in the East, and as our Chinese brothers say "sometimes little man eat more than big man, but eventually big man eat little man" The big man is hungry, although not for US$
http://www.leap2020.eu/When-China-prepares-its-Great-Escape-from-the-dollar-trap-for-the-end-of-summer-2009_a3582.html
Complain about this comment
I agree with many of the comments - including post 71 above ... IMHO simplifying things to 'printing money' and trying to 'spin a recovery' simplifies the story a lot more too ... take a look at http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/08/printing-money-inflation-and-spin.html for instance ... and as post 71 quickly points out ... it won't work (for very long, if at all) either ... and there's a lot worse still to come too ... it's just a shame we're currently opting for 'spin', instead of adopting 'solutions' that will work!
Complain about this comment
Ishkandar and FDDave, posts 69 and 70
It is quite straightforward really, you are both this week's cyber Walruses.
The Beatles explained it all about 40 years ago in 'I am the Walrus'
'I am he, and you are me, and you and me and we, are all together'
Coo Coo Cachoo
Complain about this comment
#71 RadioDPRK - "Soon now our brothers in China will demonstrate their ability to escape from the trap you have so diligently set for them. The sun rises in the East, and as our Chinese brothers say "sometimes little man eat more than big man, but eventually big man eat little man" The big man is hungry, although not for US$"
If your "Dear Leader" ever allows you to read about the history of Korea, you will find that for the last 3,000 years, China and Japan have been going, "Whose turn is it to invade Korea this century ??" :-)
Of course there was an interregnum when neither China nor Japan ruled Korea. I think it was about 100 years from around the end of the 13th century to the end of the 14th century when Korea was ruled by the Mongols !!
Therefore, considering that the DPRK is not exactly flush with cash or food, you might want to be a little more circumspect about the Chinese !! Just a bit of friendly advice !!
Complain about this comment
#70 "Now we have a REAL problem because I am also YOU. But I know that I am NOT you. Therefore if I am ME and also YOU at the same time then who the heck are YOU? It's all very confusing!!"
I know I am *ME* but the Beeb says that I am "you" !! So who the hell are *WE* ??
Still, to paraphrase Descartes - I stink therefore I am !! :-)
Complain about this comment
#73 "It is quite straightforward really, you are both this week's cyber Walruses."
Eeeee !! I hate fish !! Can't I be some other animal, like a nice cuddly tiger, instead !! :-)
Meanwhile, I hope the Beeb can sort this rather confusing metaphysical, existential problem soon !!
Complain about this comment
#75
"Still, to paraphrase Descartes - I stink therefore I am !! :-)"
That was the philosophy of Harry Enfield's Wayne Slob :)
Complain about this comment
£££££££££££
Just testing to see if Aunty had solved that problem as well !
Complain about this comment
#78 FDD - "£££££££££££
Just testing to see if Aunty had solved that problem as well !"
Wouldn't do me much good since I have a foreign keyboard !! However, I can write Chinese/Kanji with this thing !! :-)
Complain about this comment
To all those heralding the arrival of the £ sign to this site...it will shortly become irrelevant!
Complain about this comment
Try this one ¥
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8189661.stm
Forget about "green shoots of recovery", this is a whole rain forest of it !! 20% annualised growth will have most developed nations salivating like Pavlov's dogs !!
Perhaps the fact that they have less of a credit-fueled consumer culture out there helps !! They certainly didn't go around "queasing" (quantitative easing) their economy !!
Complain about this comment
Hi Stephanie
Can you tell us who the sellers of the gilts to the BoE are under the Asset Purchase Facility and what they are doing with their liquidity.Simple question really, asked several times of you.Other commentators in other media seem to have more facts on this than your posts are prepared to disclose.Why dont you give us the full picture?
The committee stated why they were increasing the purchases : the recession and lack of credit have limited the supply capacity curtailing growth potential. Surprised that you give no analysis on their reasons. WE can all see that the banks' lack of capital is derailing QE.
Complain about this comment
This is Pyongyang calling. The Dear Leader does not desire that Radio DPRK enter into petty debates. This holds true even when imperialist lackies such as poster #74 egregiously falsifies and seeks to diminish the glorious history of the DPRK.
No, the sole purpose of RadioDPRK is to warn the opressed masses in the West that the end of the US$ hegemony is imminent.
http://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1249628400.php
Prepare yourselves and defend yourselves as best you can from the coming carnage, time is of the essence. Banish from both your minds and your hearts the false siren voices that would lead you ever deeper into the wilderness.
Complain about this comment
Timing is critical. Further quantum easing of a substantive nature in the UK before the US takes the lead could send the pound into free fall against other currencies. The US should go first and then it will be safe for others to follow. If the US economy does not turn around, no amout of QE will save the UK or anyone else. The US is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
The mechanisms by which the US government and others have tried to reinvigorate their economies by reducing interest rates, granting loans to failed banks and other financial institutions, and by direct spending has proven very inefficient at getting money into circulation. Whether relying on banks as often unwilling intermediaries to make further loans to borrowers or having to wait for government contracts to pay out for services and products rendered to it in targeted markets and then have the money disperse throughout the economy, the response has been sluggish and late. About all you can say for it is that it was better than doing nothing but not much else. We are still stuck with banks that have unknown quantities of dirt still under their rugs and looming disasters in at least four other known areas; consumer credit, commercial real estate, a bond market bubble, and European bank vulnerabilities in Eastern Europe.
IMO what the US government should have done was rather than trying to prop up hopelessly failed banks which allowed them the luxury of paying whopping bonuses at taxpayer expense and not knowing if the taxpayers would ever be paid back was to compete against them as the bank of last resort. So if a business loan was say 6.25% from a bank but a qualified borrower couldn't get a loan, he'd get one directly from the government at say 6.75 or 7.00 percent. This would have put the banks on notice that if they didn't lend, someone else with limitless pockets would and the non financial sector would not be held hostage to criminal negligence and incompetence of the banks. If they went broke so what. Their assets would have been sold off for what the market thought they were worth and new banks would eventually be chartered free of toxic assets. They could take over the government loans and the government would slowly get out of the banking business as the financial industry re-invented itself. The shareholders who did not hold their boards of directors to account for their mistakes would lose their investement, the execs would be unemployed on the street where they belong, and the taxpayers would be whole. But no, we are in the same bind we were in last fall with what may only be a temporary reprieve depending on how many other toxic assets we don't know about they hold. Suddenly the banks don't like capitalism anymore. In capitalism, failure means bankruptcy and nobody is too big to fail. The mechanisms governments have chosen to mitigate what they precipitated themselves has merely compounded one disaster by adding another.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Stephanie,
I'd be grateful if you could let us know where you obtained the latest M4 figures from. I can't see anything more recent than Q1 '09 / May '09 on the ONS website. Would also be useful to know which particular set of figures you are looking at. I've taken a keen interest in 3.1H Sectoral analysis of M4 and its sterling lending counterpart (11.8) pg 65 of the latest FinStats July09 report.
Lending (by banks & building societies) to other financial institutions (AVHW) has risen from £54bn in 2004 to £289bn in 2008. That's a multiple of nearly five times! Meanwhile lending to non financial corporations (AVHX) is a paltry £17bn. Another curiosity is that in 2008 there is a negative (?) lending of £42bn to the household sector (secured on dwellings AVHY).
Is it just me or is the real "credit junky" not the humble UK householder (AVHZ £3.6bn) but our beleaguered financial institutions?
Complain about this comment
The reasons for QE should be fairly simple really? Government and BoE try to look effective in the short term (but all in effect at the short, medium and long term risk of the taxpayer)- a matter of convenience for bureaucrats.
QE is a further 'back door' bail out for the banks which allows major financial institutions to shift huge amounts of money around in the economy without anyone really getting their hands dirty in the process in terms of making the money 'working capital for UK businesses generating income, employment, demand.
Besides the obvious potential for boosting the economy I think that there is a hidden agenda with QE regarding boosting UK GDP figures before the next general election (so as to reduce statistical recessionary effects) and so the BoE is happy to be seen to be justifying its position and having a major role and the government sees it as showing it is doing something - even though no one will say where the money is going.
My guess is that the main beneficiaries are merchant brokers, bankers, and analysts (many or most being non.doms) who will be generating large bonus demands on QE for shifting/shuffling large sums of money between merchant investment bankers.
QE could be very good if the money is spent effectively on stimulating demand in the wider economy but where is the evidence that this is being done?
The inescapable logical conclusion is that the way QE has and still is being operated is mainly for statistical GDP 'fiddle'/political purposes. If QE does not work - we'll see hoards of highly paid wise-men (and women) telling us that the global recession is still worse than anyone has imagined.
The money would have been better spent setting up new ethical UK focussed banks so that consumers can vote on their feet and close their accounts with 'bad banks' and put our money where it matters most. Bad banks can then be 'smashed up'. Shareholders of banks should bear more risk.
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce and nautonier are the latest voices to ask the real questions regarding QE. Basically, what is QE really intended to do (not the PR fog that is being transmitted) and where is the money going?
Before QE was even mooted, many of us on both this blog and Peston's were calling for a Keynesian type stimulous package. Brown even declared governments intention to call forward infrastructure programmes. What has happened to those programmes? I don't hear of major works being started. Whilst the credit crunch was still supposed to be a US problem, the Uk acknowledged that it needed to invest in new nuclear stations. Now I know that Hinkley was chosen as a sight. I also know that the major groundworks for Hinkley C were completed when Hinkley B was being built built. But I still don't see any major building activity!
Since 1980, the UK has had a steadly increasing imbalance within its economy. We all knew it but were passified by talk of a "post-industrial society" and supposedly growing consumerism (how did we all buy goods and services prior to 1980?). When the crunch bit, why were these issues not addressed? Why are we spending future resources not on fixing the problem but merely recouperating the enfent terrible which caused the problem in the first place?
Complain about this comment
3 - John_from_hendon
"The needed sacking six months ago and they still do today. They just haven't a clue! The bubble economy has burst. They are trying to re-inflate a busted balloon."
....you can't sack dictators only overthrow them. There is no accountability left in Governemnt, banking or politics.
Complain about this comment
Post 90 - your point is well made and http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/08/death-of-poweromics-coup-de-text.html arguably adds more to this point too. IMHO modern communications will eventually change everything ... including 'power', 'politics' and 'economics'.
Complain about this comment
Liam Halligan has said that one third of gilt sellers are foreign investors. Is that right?
Complain about this comment
No.92 "Liam Halligan has said that one third of gilt sellers are foreign investors. Is that right?"
I'm not sure but I wouldn't be surprised since the confidence in the £ is very low and still sinking !! Therefore, foreign investors are "going when the going's good" !! If the US carries on its money printing policies, the same will happen to it too !! That's why the Chinese and the Brazilians are very worried about their US Debt holdings !!
Complain about this comment
The old man of Westminster
Turned the Bank of England into a money printer
It printed all day and all night
Foreign investors took flight
And petrol went up to £5 a litre
Complain about this comment
#89 fdd
Problem is all our nuclear engineers have retired or gone abroad. We will depend on our dear French neighbours to build nuclear (if we can ever afford it) but they cannot pronounce "Inckley" so are probably lost on the way there.
The flower of our youth are either watching (or appearing on) day time television or whiling away the hours on their Playstations awaiting the next JSA cheque.
I doubt I'll be around to see the look on their faces when the screen goes blank and the power is cut off, but you never know.
Complain about this comment
#95
There hasn't been a nuclear power plant desgned and built in the US for over 30 years. All of the people who had the knowledge to design them to the satisfaction of the NRC are retired, dead, or have forgotten much of what it takes and it wasn't passed on. No French or other engineers are qualified to design to US standards because they are different from IAEC standards, there is a language barrier, a stark difference in technical philosophy, and the Amerian standards are remarkably tough. I know, I worked on one that was cancelled partway through...in 1977. It was among the last under design. GE, Westinghouse, and others can dig out the old drawings of the reactors and find them, tweak them, build them but the plant as a whole is a much larger project, one in which the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) is only one component. Nor could you take even already competent engineers (there are relatively few of them left in the US compared to the way it used to be, the result of negligence, indifference, and stupidity on the part of industry and government in building and maintaining critical infrastructure, the underlying foundation of real wealth) and train them in anything like a year or two. If the US government made 100 billion available today to build 20 or more nuclear power plants, I would be surprised if even two or three really got off the ground in the next three to five years. It should be recalled that even in its heyday, projects failed badly. Shorem on Long Island east of New York City was completed but never was allowed to start up because an acceptable emergency evacuation plan couldn't be devised. Why didn't they think of that before they designed and built it? One billion dollars wasted. It spelled the demise of LILCO, the Long Island Lighting Company, the local electric utility.
Nuclear power engineering is not like IT where you can train someone in one to three years and they are writing code. This takes far more skill from a far more diverse and complex team. The value of these teams when they existed was vastly underestimated. Now that they are gone, the only available source of new large scale non CO2 generating energy is no longer available. Meanwhile, American nuclear power plants which generate 20% of America's energy, more on a KWH basis than France, are aging and will soon begin to reach the end of their usable lives. At that point, the only thing to do will be to decommission them. There are no substitute sources available except fossil plants. Even hydroelectric power which has been taken for granted may become unreliable as weather patterns change and lakes that are fed by rainfall and melting snowpacks every year the plants depend on dry up. There is no possible way for renewable energy and energy effiency to come close to filling the gap between what is needed and what will be available. The mantra that energy effiency and "green energy sources" will save the planet has to be one of the biggest hoaxes environmentalists have ever perpetrated. They never give you actual numbers, just their vague generalities. The future IMO looks rather grim. This has been made into a political football mostly by European environmentalists instead of a worldwide scientific and technologial emergency the way depletion of the ozone layer from CFCs and radioative fallout from nuclear weapons testing was and the way it should have been 20 years ago. As a result, it may be too late already. The impact this will have on economics? Devastating and irreversable.
Complain about this comment
R.I.P. G.D.P.?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10zencey.html
Zencey is a rare case where such a dissenting voice is able to gain mainstream media attention. His article got me thinking about GDP, profits, bonuses etc. and how we got into this sorry mess. Then it dawned on me that western society has overdosed on rigid goal-directed behaviour:
"Diagnostic control systems are the backbone of traditional management control, designed to ensure predictable goal achievement." (Robert Simons Levers of Control 1995).
I propose that to understand where we have gone wrong with our economy (and indeed corporate mgt) we need to understand the underlying control mechanisms. I am reminded of the concept of a 'Diagnostic Control System'. This is defined as a formal information system for measuring and controlling particular organisational outcomes. They are designed to achieve specific and predictable goals without constant management attention, and are exemplified by the following characteristics:
- Measuring the output of a process
- Comparing performance against predetermined standards (e.g. benchmarks & targets)
- Possessing the ability to correct deviations (i.e. a deliberate management intervention – usually in the form of financial rewards)
Promoting wealth (either in a national sense: GDP, or a corporate sense: profits) in this manner explicitly demands the implementation and achievement of a defined outcome, by adopting the maxim "what gets measured, gets done". However, implementations such as this often involve the creation of targets, thus falling foul of Goodhart's law which states that:
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
What often happens with such systems is that they promote a highly short term focus and often result in cheating ('gaming' the system). A failure to acknowledge the complexity of wealth and quality of life has created the temptation to treat it simplistically, such as a single management metric (GDP, share price etc.). Approaches such as this are shown to result in unintended and highly destructive consequences (Simons cites examples such as Enron & Chernobyl).
Unless the measures of this outcome are objective (independently verifiable) and complete (in that they capture all relevant actions and behaviours) then unintended consequences can occur. In other words, the stated outcome or target may be achieved, but at the expense of other (potentially more serious) mandates.
A diagnostic system's strength, therefore, can turn out to be its own undoing.
Complain about this comment
#96
I thought Westinghouse were heavily involved with the AP1000 reactor, and expect a lot more work in China where dozens of nuclear plants are operating or planned? The French are there too with the EPR.
Having said that, there is no doubt that the Chinese will take the lead in the world in years to come. If we don't get our act together in this and other fields, we'll all have to start learning Chinese.
Complain about this comment
Like the hybrid car, it is likely that nuclear energy will be a stop gap in power generation. I truly believe that the timing and economic conditions are right for the next major technological breakthrough. What it will be and when it will come 'on-stream' I cannot tell.
Until then we must take urgent action to secure our base-load power supply as a strategic necessity. If coal has now become the climate change champion's bete-noir (surely there is more that we can do in 'scrubbing' technology?) then nuclear has to be the major option. At this point it doesn't really matter that we have to import technology that we were at the forefront of.
Having said that, can anybody answer my original question - WHERE HAS THE QE GONE?
Complain about this comment
No.99. foredeckdave
My dear Foredeck.
According to latest analysis by IMF:
The BoE, through QE, is now in possession of 15% of the total gilts market.
The BoE has pledged asset purchases worth 8.6% of Britain's GDP.
The money itself has gone into commercial banks' safety capital, and also found its way into the investment banking arms of the same banks, who have used the funds to generate profits from speculating on shares, bonds, currencies, commodities, derivatives, etc.
There is little profit in lending at present; so banks aren't concentraing on this side of their business. Despite this, house prices have inched up due to QE.
QE is causing price inflation, as (i) we have some imported price inflation through the weak sterling, and (ii) we have asset price inflation in the stock market, commodities, housing market....
Complain about this comment
#99
WHERE HAS THE QE GONE?
Are you serious? Everyone knows it has gone to pay the government's deficit. It's just the same as clipping the edges off silver or gold coins, or forging money - currency debasement.
Where did you think it went, to the banks like our bailout money?
Or to stimulate the economy?
Complain about this comment
nO 96 - "Meanwhile, American nuclear power plants which generate 20% of America's energy, more on a KWH basis than France, are aging and will soon begin to reach the end of their usable lives."
If America gets 20% of its electricity needs from aging nuclear reactors and between one third and one half from Canada, then America will soon be in deep doo-doo if the nuke plants stop producing and Canada stops selling energy !! What can America do to fill such a big gap ??
What happened to the more than 1 trillion $ spend in quantitative easing ?? Was any spent in this direction ?? I know that Britain's queasing was spent appeasing the Gods of High Finance !!
Complain about this comment
#99 foredeckdave. You are too late Dave, and anyway no-one is listening. The UK will experience shortages of power from about 2017 onwards. You cannot build new nuclear in this timeframe - not that anyone is trying.
You could build gas, but strangely investors do not see this as a good business opportunity - what with the price of finance and all that. I think International Power made the same point.
Coal is going to close because the "scrubbing" is oh so expensive and emissions limits keep tightening, so best not to bother. Anyway they are EU limits. Maybe if you were German and owned a lot of coal plants in the UK and Germany you could close all your UK plants in order to keep all your German plants running and enable you to meet all your aggregate emissions limits.
How lucky for the UK - its going to be nice and clean, unless the wind blows from the east, and also nice and dark.
Complain about this comment
No 103 "How lucky for the UK - its going to be nice and clean, unless the wind blows from the east, and also nice and dark"
Not necessarily so !! Some nice young people might light their way home by setting fire to the cars along the way !! :-)
Complain about this comment
#104 I think you have finally identified the fabled third way. Pay unemployed people to set fire to cars and then have all the owners of burnt out cars automatically qualify for entitlement under the car scrappage scheme. If they only set fire to cars at night then it will also mitigate the effects of power cuts.
Complain about this comment
I see from the BBC that France and Germany have come out of recession...two countries that refused to follow GB's economics.....no vat cuts and no quantitative easing...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8198766.stm
Complain about this comment
#106
This is a technicality, nothing more. 0.3% growth is only marginally different from 0.1 decline. What's more the fundimentals which led to the depression have not really changed. Giving someone in a coma a blast of oxygen and a shot of adrenalin that momentarily brings him around to semi-consciousness doesn't mean his brain tumor that led to the coma has been cured. Governments have been desperate to put a happy face, a spin to quell fear and panic anyway they can. From where I sit, looking at the economy, business, capital spending, consumer confidence, the housing market, wages, unemployment (they tell you it's a lagging indicator but with many more people out of work than the statistics show and many others underemployed there will be more mortgage, business loand, and credit card defaults, less consumer discretionary buying) the economic downturn is actually getting worse. Just remember that those who say we are coming out of recession or that the worst is over are the same people who told us 18 months ago that we weren't going to have one in the first place. They were wrong then, I have no confidence in their assessment now. If it's true, I'll believe it when I see it with my own eyes. When the flood of e-mail and newspaper inserts advertising deep price cuts on their merchandise I see every day slows. When the job postings on major job advertising sites starts picking up again and when the phone begins to ring every day with headhunters trying to lure me to a new job the way it used to resumes.
Complain about this comment
#105 armagediontimes
Your idea just reminded me of a letter in the latest copy of Private Eye.
To paraphrase what the letter said:
The ancient windmills in Holland, Norfolk and Anglesey were not solely for the purpose of milling grain. The vast majority were not actually windmills, but were wind-pumps, used for pumping water from the drainage ditches into the waterways to reclaim land for agriculture.
These wind-pumps became derelict as they were replaced by motorised pumping stations.
The irony of all this becomes clear on arrival at Yarmouth, when you are greeted by the site, out to sea, of a massive wind farm generating electricity, mainly to supply electricity to the pumping stations that replaced the windmills!
Great eh!
You just couldn't make this stuff up! (well, I couldn't anyway)
Complain about this comment
A PLEA TO THE BBC
This is in the Economic healines for today:
"France and Germany exit recession
The French and German economies unexpectedly grew by 0.3% in the second quarter of 2009, ending their recessions."
Not only is this statement inaccurate but it is highly misleading. Neither France nor Germany can exit recession based upon 1 quarters results - it takes 2 quarters results to enter recession and 2 quarters results to get OUT. Also, this are initial returns are wil be revised as more data becomes available.
My plea to the BBC is to stop publishing propoganda and to be more accurate in what they publish.
I have to agree with Marcus in #107. It is far more likely that these figures result from technicalitites rather than reflecting a true change in the economic position.
Complain about this comment
Just skimming through. Back from Balaton and off to Germany tomorrow for a weekend of debauchery and sin.
#98 - Hodgeey
Gen 4. Pebble-bed reactors - no reason not to build them. I'd have one in my garage if I could. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
#Everyone else
Hi. QE is a dull topic. Can we change it?
PS: MrT - What about the carrots? As soon as one person has an abundance of carrots, the price goes up for everyone else. Is this something we want? I wonder if capitalism limits inequality or encourages it? What do you think?
Complain about this comment
No. 108 "The irony of all this becomes clear on arrival at Yarmouth, when you are greeted by the site, out to sea, of a massive wind farm generating electricity, mainly to supply electricity to the pumping stations that replaced the windmills!"
If you think that's bad, try this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8197287.stm
For years, India bleated at the world to save it from drought but any money and effort to help is immediately, if not before, negated by the locals pumping even more water out of the ground for their own uses !!
In effect, the world is subsidising India's population explosion and prosperity !! And when it gets too much, these guys just migrate to other countries and start all over again !! So much for effective use of funds !!
Complain about this comment
#110
PBRs, the best news I've had all week.
You should have stocked up with the d&s at Balaton, it costs more in Germany.
Complain about this comment
#110 Frank,
"QE is a dull topic."
Only if you don't have to try and live with the consequences!
Complain about this comment
No. 110 "QE is a dull topic. Can we change it?"
Since you think queasing is dull, how about a novel way of solving the demographics problem - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8198583.stm
Just leave 'em behind on the plane !! :-)
"off to Germany tomorrow for a weekend of debauchery and sin."
So, instead of R&R (Rest and Recreation), you'll have F&F (Fornication and Fun) !! :-)
Complain about this comment
okay okay,
i must apologise for breaking the houserules twice, by posting a few links to ilustrate important news about some discoveries people have the right to know, but i understand now they censured me those links just because the source is not wiki or the same people than this site. well, i thought in Spain we lived a really hard lack of communication freedom during the franco period, but i see than nasa has now taken that seat, and got every news, television and radio taken by their necks and only let them talk about what nasa considere non-inconvenient.
also apologize for my bad english,
starviwer
Complain about this comment
good comment Marcus Aurelius
go on like that, let people know the truth
starviwer in the famous searcher
with some word pression.
Complain about this comment
gosh, its too late, cannot write properly
i meant to type starviewer, with the same word pression
Complain about this comment
FrankSz
Your carrots are subject to elasticity.
If you want QE to be exciting, buy yourself some equities.
Capitalism accelerates both wealth inequalities and standards of living.
Bigger inequality but better standard of living for all.
The rich man owns an Aston Martin, I own a Mercedes, the poor man owns a Ford Ka. There is inequality, but the Ford Ka still overtakes me on the road.
However, without wisdom and guidance, capitalism tends towards convenience culture, as it seeks to exploit basic human laziness. We end up working harder just to be able to afford to be lazy (work long hours to buy microwave ovens, dishwashers, satellite sport for sofa addicts).
Which reminds me to ask, does England have a chance of winning the Ashes at the Oval?
Will it be a leg break, a googly, a bosie, a doosra or a wrong 'un?
Complain about this comment
Before we all go nuclear......
Remember how energy / work begat energy / work. First came vegetation, which sucked in solar energy. Then animals came along and ate the vegetables. The Humans came along and ate vegetables and animals, and increased in population owing to our control over these resources and our ability to shape our environment. Then we used the animals to do some of our dirty work. Then we discovered coal. Well we could extract this new energy source first using human power (mining), then by exploiting draft animals. This did us quite well for a bit. Then we realised that we could use some of the coal to run steam engines. This meant we could restore inefficient mines by draining out water and digging deeper. Then along came gas and oil, both of which took minimal energy to extract at first (the stuff almost exploded out the ground). But ever since it has taken more energy and effort to extract, owing to the principle of high-grading.
For a potted history of our energy / resource evolution see "Unearthed" by Kenneth Sayre:
http://ocw.nd.edu/philosophy/environmental-philosophy/unearthed
The key thing is that oil can extract oil. But nuclear power can't build nuclear reactors. I would estimate that more than 95% of the energy / effort needed to build and supply fuel to nuclear reactor needs some form of fossil fuels. If we assume in the future that there is no fossil fuels, do we really think that we can build / reproduce nuclear reactors using only the output energy from the reactors?
This is the fundamental energy question of the 21st Century.
P.S. # 115 gigyo38
I've been on the wrong end of the mods too, but mainly for linking to pdf files (even for linking to Google's HTML conversion of pdf files!). Seems they don't like this format, even if it is Gvt statistics or academic literature. Keep on persisting - perhaps post us some hints a la JJ style!
Complain about this comment
No.119. Hawkeye_Pierce
We already have nuclear powered submarines, some nuclear powered ships, and soon we'll have nuclear powered airliners (link attached).
Nuclear powered JCBs will be just around the corner.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5024190.ece
Complain about this comment
No 118 "Your carrots are subject to elasticity."
Wow !! Bendy carrots !! Totally banned by EU rules !!
Complain about this comment
No 120 "...and soon we'll have nuclear powered airliners (link attached)."
Great !! Now we can all glow in the dark while flying to Australia !! :-)
Complain about this comment
#120 "and soon we'll have nuclear powered airliners...."
So the article starts with "experiments conducted during the Cold War have already demonstrated that there are no insurmountable obstacles to developing a nuclear-powered aircraft".
Hmm... interesting. But using my cunning detective skills I discover that he actually means the ones where they "tested a nuclear-powered jet engine on the ground" (i.e. not actually in flight), and "also carried out flight tests with a nuclear reactor on board a B-36 jet with a lead-lined cockpit .. The reactor 'ran hot' during the flights but the engines were powered by kerosene."
So by the time we finish the article we get a clear picture of this futuristic plane: it needs a reactor that's cased in armour plating at the end of the wings with parachutes to jettison them if there's a problem, the cabin needs to be coated in lead, the worst case scenario is that radioactive material would be spread over only a few square miles, and anyway the plane needs to be carrying kerosene along after all as this has the best power to weight ratio.
Only a few minor problems to iron out then.
Where can I get tickets? Virgin Nuclearantics?
Complain about this comment
No.123. Hawkeye_Pierce
The nuclear powered airliners may take another 30 years to catch on, but the choice is either:
(i) Foreign travel in a lead lined box, with parachutes on the engines in case they have to "fall off" in order to prevent "fall out"; or
(ii) Stay in Blighty and holiday in a coastal town they forget to pull down.
To be honest, I prefer to holiday in Britain; so I'm quite glad the rest of the population habitually flies off elsewhere on EasyGoJet and leaves me in peace.
Complain about this comment
No 124 "but the choice is either:
(i) Foreign travel in a lead lined box, with parachutes on the engines in case they have to "fall off" in order to prevent "fall out"; or
(ii) Stay in Blighty and holiday in a coastal town they forget to pull down."
On the third hand, you could *sail* to your destination. It might take a lot longer but you can still get there eventually !! And since the price of wind is unaffected by queasing unless you have a politician on board, in which case, the hot air generated will probably make the journey that much faster !! :-)
Complain about this comment
#126 ishkandar,
You haven' thought this one through carefully. As a former yacht owner I can testify that whilst the wind might be free, very little else is!
Now we know that, at some point QE will engender inflation. That inflation rate is likely to be higher than the norm for marine activities - it nomally is. Therefore the means of employing the wind will be even more costly.
On an even more pedantic note. The RYA would recommend that you started the log for the voyage as "Leaving X and Heading For Y" - you may never get there!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
No 126 "Now we know that, at some point QE will engender inflation. That inflation rate is likely to be higher than the norm for marine activities - it nomally is. Therefore the means of employing the wind will be even more costly."
Shurly not more expensive than nuke-powered airliners ?? :-)
For a start, it'll be more comfortable and less stressful !! No check-ins, no "security" personnel feeling you up, no long waits at the boarding gates, no fascists at the immigration desks wanting to know if your grandfather was a criminal, no scrums at the baggage retrieval carousels, no scrambles for the last remaining airport taxis into town, etc.
Not having been a yacht owner, I would have no idea of the cost of running one but having sailed around in the East in a mate's junk, I'd have thought the cost is not that high, especially if you don't need silk beddings and gold bathroom fittings !! :-)
FYI, I'm *NOT* a Russian oligarch so I wouldn't know what the cost of these yachts would be !! :-)
Complain about this comment
@126 foredeckdave
As a former yacht owner, you will know that if you find a cheap or even free berth, do your own cleaning and maintenance, then costs are minimal.
You can even live on the boat and raise your family on it whilst travelling the world; a much better proposition than being stuck as a slave in a house in blighty some would say.
Complain about this comment
... completely off topic but...
Is there any chance for a mobile-friendly version of this blog?
Complain about this comment
No 129 "Is there any chance for a mobile-friendly version of this blog?"
Just being pedantic but my laptop is very mobile and this blog is quite friendly to my laptop; aside from insisting that I am known as "you" !! :-)
Complain about this comment
#128 hodgeey,
If you can find a cheap or even free birth in any popular sailing area then you are indeed very very lucky!
The round the world option is not for everybody. Also circumnavs do come to an end so this option is normally time constrained. As for UK liveaboards it would appear that very few are really long term options.
Complain about this comment
Just to make things more interesting, it's ASEAN+6 now, including China, ROK, Japan, India, Australia and New Zealand. Since, between them, they comprise of nearly half of the world's population and a large chunk of its wealth, there is much room for growth !!
And what is Britain doing to grab a slice of that action ?? Answers on a postage stamp addressed to Lord Mandy, please !!
Complain about this comment
#131
I have a twin keeler, so the nearest quiet beach does fine. You can find cheap berths in France so who would want to liveaboard in the UK anyway?
The idea of putting up all sail and heading south has great appeal.
Complain about this comment
QE = Quantitive Easing
QED = quod erat demonstrandum
Stephanie - it must be nice to be educated. Latin understood at the drop of an "aitch" - terms from the Square Mile understood without resort to search engines and if I understand ten of every 50 words you and The "Pestonator" write - I am pleasantly surprised.
So Japan now - and Germany etc - signs of - and whisper it - RECOVERY?
Oh yes. Can you spend £50 billion or even £25 billion other than slowly?
We are not Bolts of Lightning after all. Well done, Usain - you think you are SPENT after World Record achieved - again?
In the time it took you to run 100 metres - we spent several hundred thousand I suspect. Ever so slowly.
Subject: QE - colon -more to do question mark (a leafed hen sprints)
Anagram: Peters kin - No clan - Moor father - loaned mosquitoes – QED
Complain about this comment
Who goes for either - or questions ?
Ok here is one for you
Given that the last reportage of economic events on this Blog was on 6 August, can we assume that
Either
a) since that date there has been no economic news or economic activity considered worthy of recognition or mention by the BBC *
Or
b) the Monty Python ex-blog sketch will shortly be performed
(...this blog has ceased to be...)
* we need of course, to assume that the UK recovery model getting thumped by the French,German and Japanese models is not considered to be an issue by the BBC as they haven't considered it worth mentioning on this economics blog.
Complain about this comment
ishkandar (#132) "And what is Britain doing to grab a slice of that action ??"
In my experience (and study of that of others') to have any chance of solving a problem, one has to be able to accurately identify and analyse it first. Some of my past posts to this blog have clearly been received with considerable hostility (or just avoidance). That does not surprise me.
Whilst I think I've accurately identified the source of the problem, I have yet to many with the courage to actively discuss it - blogdog permitting.
MrTweedy has come closest to date in my view.
Complain about this comment
#136 JJ
Have you read David Harvey's "A brief history of neoliberalism"?
I've only skimmed the first few pages on Amazon's "Look inside" feature, but am tempted to purchase it:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0199283273/ref=sib_rdr_dp
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce (#137) "Have you read David Harvey's "A brief history of neoliberalism"?"
No. I'll have a look. But I urge anyone interested to just look at the demographics I've been referencing for some time, along with the mean scores and other paramters I've frequently cited, as 'intelligence' is a FACTOR as is 'personality'. More people need to understand what FACTORS are and they need to understand how behaviour is analysed regardless of intentions etc. Most of biology is based on non human animals. Other animals don't 'conspire', and nor do humans where it matters. It's just collective outcome or consequences of behaviour. Too many people stop looking at what matters because they are distracted by intentions. Ants don't 'intend' to do what they do.
Complain about this comment
Let me guess - 'Factors' are another brick in you tedious structuralist edifice with which you are going to bore everybody rigid ?
Complain about this comment
JJ...et al.
You are all waisting your time on this blog and all other blogs!
Direct action will only resolve this country's problems.
...only an engineer, with nothing to lose, will solve them.
Trust me!
Complain about this comment
#140
"...only an engineer, with nothing to lose, will solve them."
Care to be a bit more specific? Are we talking about qualified engineers or those people called engineers who "yesterday I couldn't spell it and today I is one"?
Unfortunately I met a number of engineers (even in safety critical environments) who couldn't be trusted to organise a p***up in a brewery!
Direct action is not the way, it merely gives space to the JJs of this world.
Complain about this comment
No 141 FDD - "Unfortunately I met a number of engineers (even in safety critical environments) who couldn't be trusted to organise a p***up in a brewery!"
I believe that I know a few like that. I think a few are known as "Sanitary engineers" who perform the important function of keeping the local toilets clean !! :-)
Complain about this comment
THERE'S NONE SO BLIND....
superiorsnapshot (#139) Factors are statistical dimensions or continnua derived from multiple correlations of measures over variables. In the case of 'intelligence' these are 'cognitive' behaviours. Factor Analysis is a statistical data reduction technique (another is Cluster Analysis).
Here's something else for you and FDD, to ponder. There's a part two.
Now....consider a situation where people do not readily see the consequences of their actions. How might criticism of, or feedback on, their behaviour be taken? Note... they would not see such feedback as accurate, would they?
Complain about this comment
Vanity of Vanities ?
Given that...
...There is huge dissension amongst the BoE committee members about how much to pump or mot pump into the economy via QE, assuming that any of this makes a difference - and yet the blog editors have no comment
and given that
desite QE pumping, Banks and the IMF are predicting quarterly Bank losses, impairment charges and further delays in recovery - and yet the blog editors have no comment
and given that
France, Germany and Japan are seeing better prospects than the Uk despite the BoE QE multi-pumping - and yet the blog editors have no comment
Which leads to the question of what on earth is the rationale for having a BBC economics blog which ignores economic matters ?
...other than as a vanity project which carries no value outside of that vanity
Complain about this comment
The current situation regarding QE and the markets, etc (for the US Fed, read Bank of England in the UK):
"Real buying is just that - real buying from real retail investors who believe in the forward prospects for the economy and business, not funny-money Treasury and MBS buying by The Fed from "newly created bank reserves" funneled back into the market via high-speed computers. The latter is nothing more than a manufactured ramp job that will last only until "the boyz" get to the end of their rope (and yes, that rope does have an end) as the fractional creation machine does run just as well in reverse and as such "the boyz" cannot allow trade to run the wrong way lest it literally destroy them (10:1 or more leverage is a real bitch when its working against you!)
Beware the unwind of this mess; unfortunately bubbles, when blown, have a nasty habit of detonating with surprising force and reverting not just to the mean but well beyond it."
Complain about this comment
#143 JJ
I really don't need any instruction from you regarding Factor or Cluster Analysis!
Complain about this comment
No.146. foredeckdave
I bet it brings back fond memories of the Kaiser Criterion.....
Complain about this comment
#147 MrT,
I was thinking more in terms of multi-dimensional scaling actually :)
Wonder if JJ would like to share some opinions on the law of Inertia of Large Numbers or Statistical Regularity? A little light anesthesia could be beneficial!
Complain about this comment
No 148 "I was thinking more in terms of multi-dimensional scaling actually :)"
Is it the one where if you get fat, i.e. scaled in three dimensions, you can be as fat yesterday as you are tomorrow (the fourth dimension) !! :-)
Then again, not having studied Mathematics, what do I know about it ?? :-)
Complain about this comment
#149 ishkandar
Nah! that's the one that takes you to the 5th Dimension -hahahaha!
Complain about this comment
foredeckdave (#146) "I really don't need any instruction from you regarding Factor or Cluster Analysis!"
You'd have to be able to read and follow links first.
Complain about this comment
#151 JJ
If any of your dijointed ramblings were worth investigating then I may consider following them. To date you have not posted anything worthwhile to peruse.
Complain about this comment
#152 FDD
I've only skim read the first few pages of this book on Amazon's preview feature:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0199283273/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-page
It seems to suggest that the modern concept of freedom / liberalism has been co-opted as a means of social control by the financial elite. Unlike the JJ POV I doubt that it bluntly accuses certain races of perpetrating this plan, or that dysgenic policies are covertly supported too. But it does acknowledge many of the symptoms that JJ alludes to.
It may be more credible and convincing as a result.
Complain about this comment
#153 Hawkeye
Thanks, I will have a look. It may take a while to respond but I will look.
I have to say that I am highly suspicious of 'grand-design' conspiricy theories. They are easy to fabricate, time-consuming to disprove and always demand the thinking of some evil genius.
Studies of startegy, both military and commercial, would suggest that are rarely intensional in the long term. To be useful they must contain many elements of Emergent Strategy ( I would refer you to the work of Mintzberg and others). Therefore the present situation appears to be more the consequence of un-intentional consequences, complexity and sophistry than deliberate co-option. However, I will look at your refernce with as open a mind as posible.
Thanks
Complain about this comment
....and back in Economicaland
Japan and Germany retract on their earlier statements of recovery from a couple of days ago
'Well we know we said recovery had started but you know how things are these days - never trust a forward looking statement from a government or fiscal expert for more than 24 hours'
Meanwhile Brown wanders lonely as a cloud o'er hill and dale somewhere in the Lake District planning his great political fightback whilst the tax receipts slump, public sector spending rises again and national debt is set to balloon.
'Its only money - yours not mine of course'
Additionally Merv seeks to 'create' yet more of the QE funny money stuff so he can give it to whoever he wants without telling anyone where it is going, or for what purpose, although everyone knows who will finish up paying for it.
And the Economics Editors get down to the serious business of making plans for next years list of things to do before going on holiday
Cancel the milk and the newspapers
Switch off the gas and get the cat boarded out
Arrange coverage for the economics blog
Tell the public we won't be doing any economics updates
'Too much hassle telling people - so let's not bother with the last two.
Who does the BBC blog reading public think they are anyway, real people or something ?'
Complain about this comment
153.....Hawkeye - Or maybe consider technics (e.g a highly developed modern economy) as a synthesis of thought (interior) and technical achievement (exterior). The resulting system behaves in ways that parallel genetic evolution, indeed it may seem to have become self sustaining.
These ideas are prefigured by Michael Polanyi who wrote at length on Tacit Understanding : knowledge as a 'stereoscopic image' resulting synthesis of intentional thought and exterior (sensual) impulses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi
Bernard Stiegler takes this thought forward in Technics and Time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technics_and_Time,_1
This work carries on the work of Derrida, in particular the identification of Anamesis ( internal memoration as source of pure knowledge) and Hypomnesis ( external technological means of memoration - e.g writing, computing, technology ) and the synthesis of the two -differance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance#Diff.C3.A9rance.2C_life.2C_technics
Of course I realise these references lay outside the closure of economics ( and require an open mind ),and that your time and energy maybe at a premium but nevertheless hope they may be of help ?
Complain about this comment
#154 FDD
In a way, I agree. I see it as opportunism (an innate human characteristic), which I guess would manifest as emergent phenomena. The following examples are of events that in their inception may not have been strategically planned nor predicted, but which led to huge benefits for the instigators:
- Nixon breaking the gold standard in '71 paving the way for (unjustified) dollar hegemony (see Michael Hudson)
- China exploiting the West's desire for gratuitous consumption of pointless tat (we pay for their massive infrastructure and industry development – they ditch us at the altar – see post #469 on Peston's blog)
We do tend to retrospectively think that people, nations, creeds etc. had strategies or plans in place. But in simple terms, success bred success – emergent opportunism.
When the self-interested opportunism of key individuals (e.g. elites) works in synch with society and the natural environment, then great nations and wealth can be built. This manifests as an evermore complex society, but the cost of this is a drain on economic surplus. When the elite exploits this surplus (one that is generated by the productive class), then collapse is brought ever closer (see Tainter http://dieoff.org/page134.htm ).
Far from easing, societal friction is hotting up, potentially leading to a sudden sharp shock. See this link and others on Peston's blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/08/what_rbss_results_say_about_qe.html#P84545675
Complain about this comment
# 156 SSS
Some heavy-going links there. Would this suffice as an elevator pitch of the view you are espousing:
"Freedom, democracy, technical know-how, global integration etc. are all good things as they are the signs of a progressive (i.e. evolutionary superior) species. We are successful owing to our highly adapted and complex social structures and problem solving capabilities. We should pat ourselves on the back for the achievements of science, economics and politics over the last few hundred years as any deviation from this is a retrograde step."
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce (#153) "It may be more credible and convincing as a result."
There's nothing like a nice 'just so' story to keep everyone distracted from what's really going on...;-)
Complain about this comment
Addendum (#159) Do ants conspire to build ant-colonies or bees hives?
'Conspiracy Theory' theory is just an effort to stop people from thinking critically ;-)
Deception is nature's way of faciliting competition for resources. The agents need not 'know' what they are doing or how contingencies select their genes and thus their behaviours.
Complain about this comment
If you mean view as in firm position - then no.
I'm interested in the interaction between thought and technology as technics, its evolution and consequences.
Stiegler's thought is that technics is the defining characteristic which sets humanity apart from the animal kingdom. For him technics part and parcel of human thought.
For him the abilities such as awareness of mortality, anticipation, creative freedom, development of new skills all follow from technics. This puts human evolution on a separate track to other non technical organisms. The synthesis also puts the evolution of technological systems on a parallel to organic genetic evoloution. Both are interlinked.
Our technological evolution is part and parcel of our being, and as such it may be possible to view global economic integration in these terms.
Naturally the amount of high speed communication technology, and cross border interlinkage could act to subsume political territories. We could be correct in pointing the finger for our present economic woes at elites. But the cause may be more one of 'evolutionary hiccup' than 'evil genius plot'.
Anyway you can read the links if your interested.
For my part I am wary - I feel too much rests on what is essentialy a belief system. It may however be useful to economic understanding.
Complain about this comment
#160
"Deception is nature's way of faciliting competition for resources."
Say's who?. More realistically scarcity is nature's way facilitating the need for competition of resources.
The link itself is merely your usul diatribe - yawn!
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce (#158) he's referencing rubbish. It's rubbish from a logical/linguistic point of view, i.e it's meaningless. The book you referenced basically re-states what you'll find in 'Commanding Heights'. Just follow up the ethnic grouping of the protagonists and ask questions about statistical likelihood. How did 1% of the population acquire so much power in Weimar Germany, 2% in the USA and 0.5% in UK? The answer is deception and resource predation via 'Social Democracy' - trace it back to Disraeli for some very recent history. This was how the Tsar was toppled at the end of WWI at the behest of the German High Command (see Churchill the same source/year). The above was kept quiet at the time because of fear of backlash in East London given the deaths on the Western Front.
Complain about this comment
foredeckdave (#162) Trivers and most people who know anything about biology and behaviour.
Complain about this comment
#164
As the relationship between biology (in your case gene theory) and behaviour is based upon incomplete knowledge then you are once again either over-egging or over simplifying your case.
From cognative studies we know that behaviour is influenced by thoughts, memories and feelings. Now you are a long long way away from defining or replicating them them with your genetic investigations.
So Trivers and those who you claim "know anything about biology and behaviour" should really learn to qualify your claims. You are a very silly individual when you present theory/opinion as fact.
Complain about this comment
foredeckdave (#165) "As the relationship between biology (in your case gene theory) and behaviour is based upon incomplete knowledge then you are once again either over-egging or over simplifying your case."
Science is an unended quest in pursuit of ever more comprehensive conceptual frameworks whereby we predict stimultion of our sensory surfaces to live safer, more secure lives. As such it is always unfinished business. That is why we do rsearch. One might have expected one how allegedly has a PhD (such as yourself) to have known this.
"So Trivers and those who you claim "know anything about biology and behaviour" should really learn to qualify your claims."
Yet you appear to have no doubts that you are correct, and you provide no evidential/empirical support for what you post, just your own overwhelming sense of self-confidence and authority.
What is any rational reader likely to infer?
Deception and group competition works by entryism. One group, phenotypically similar to a larger gorup, is not recognised by the latter group's defence systems as it appears to be one of its own. The latter's resources can then be used to support the invasive, colonising group's interests.
The PanAM flight was destined for NYC. Have you noted the extreme stress response to the compassion shown?
Complain about this comment
Is Stephanie on holiday with Robert in the BBC Butlins? These DIY blogs are getting boring.
Complain about this comment
Addendum #166) Many people fail to learn as they age because they don't know how to question what they already hold true. Most people have 'beliefs' which are false, but can't see how this can possibly be true. They think that 'telling the truth' is an act of not censoring/censuring what they believe....
Complain about this comment
hodgeey (#167) "Is Stephanie on holiday with Robert in the BBC Butlins? These DIY blogs are getting boring."
Maybe you should post something worth reading then, or look for an alternative source of stimulation like a newspaper or book?
Do you feel entitled to be entertained by others and complain when they fail to do so? If so, why?
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce (#153) One for you...
Complain about this comment
#163 JJ
By "commanding heights", do you mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commanding_Heights:_The_Battle_for_the_World_Economy
If so, then wouldn't "The Prize" by Yergin be a better read?
P.S. What's your view on Vygotsky?
Complain about this comment
155. At 1:55pm on 20 Aug 2009, strategycall wrote:
"Japan and Germany retract on their earlier statements of recovery from a couple of days ago"
Ha ha ha - I didn't realise this - how very interesting....I wonder if France will follow suit.
You know things must be bad when the French finance minister rang the radio station (in France) from her HOLIDAY to bask in the glory of a 0.3% growth rate.
Is this the desperation of the authorities?
Why did no-one point out that following 'the biggest bailout and fiscal stimulus in history' - there was a possibility that there would be implied growth?
This has been followed up by the story this morning in the Metro which claimed 'recession over in 40 days'. Interesting how Economists have now become so accruate in light of their historic inaccuracy - that they can now predict the recession to the day.
If the GDP declines for 3 quarters this year, then shows a slight growth for Q4 - before falling again Q1 next year - under the 'rules of Economic bablery' the recession will start from scratch.
Does this sound like a good measure? Will the country all find work in Q4 and then loose it again in Q1 2010?
They are desperate - and it's showing.
Just view this opinion on how the Spanish banks have 'avoided the recession'
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/08/21/68016/are-spanish-banks-hiding-their-losses/
Lying is always defeated by logic - we all knew there had to be a massive devaluation of assets and huge losses - so are we expected to believe the stimuli has dealt with these - or do we actually believe it's only delayed the inevitable?
Complain about this comment
#169. At 10:27am on 21 Aug 2009, JadedJean wrote:
"Maybe you should post something worth reading"
How about a virtual tour round Jaded Jean's properties?
http://msjean.com/jvtour/
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce (#171) "What's your view on Vygotsky?"
Read/study Skinner, Herrnstein and Quine instead as they empirically describe what is. Some may not recognize this, but that's why they should study it.
Complain about this comment
#172 wotw,
A search of the Google News section for 'Japan Recovery' or 'Germany Recovery' shows both the cautionary vioces from the BoJ and the Bundesbank (and others), as compared with the enthusiam of the Political classes.
A battle of 'words' perhaps in which political wishes seeks to wrestle with the reality of the fragility of any recovery sustainability.
This Trustnet Article might have it right in that recent 'recovery' indicators might be little more than a statistical blip.
http://www.trustnet.com/News/Research.aspx?id=38549
Similarly there is interesting comment here regarding precaution regarding Germany Recovery from Weber of the Bundesbank and the European Central Bank (the article is in English)
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2028132,10,german_recovery_may_not_be_sustainable_yet-weber,item.html
ps your FT link identified an interesting scenario
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce (#171) Commandng Heights
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall (#172) "Lying is always defeated by logic - we all knew there had to be a massive devaluation of assets and huge losses - so are we expected to believe the stimuli has dealt with these - or do we actually believe it's only delayed the inevitable?"
How often have you heard 'it's all about confidence' aka lying to oneself and others? 65 consecutive quarters of growth averaging 2.5% a year, based on a service sector economy heavily weigted for the financials, and we know they did it by passing the toxic parcel to the unwary abroad, so.... what chance recovery, and what could it mean given we don't produce anything? The QE money has gone into the banks and what is accounting for the stock market surge? We have been knobbled over years by those who can't do anything but spin.
A confidence building exercise should be based on real skills and productivity but this is just shoddy 'bootstrap psychology', the very nonsense (like celebritism) which created all the problems in the first place. In fact, it was/is the problem. Until peole cotton n to who has been peddling this, it can't improve. Those responsible are not in touch with reality. Seriously.
Alas people don't change - they arrived/ascended into their destructive positions because that's what they did/do best. They are magicians and thespains at heart not social engineers. They laud 'freedom' as anarchism. To change what's wrong one has to replace such people, and they won't go willingly, and many won't want them to go either as they don't know how to do anything else. But that's what changing people really means, replacing or purging...
Complain about this comment
#166 JJ
In #165, I laid the charge that you are a very silly individual and your response in #166 proves the charge.
The medium for this dialogue is social. It does not require the same level of rigour as an accademic paper basd upon a particular point of study. As such it invites ideas and opinions that do not need to be supported by evidence - empirical or otherwise. That is the whole point of the exercise. Parties who have an interest are allowed the freedom to express opinions and ideas. Sometimes they are accepted, other times they are contested. What they are NOT are statements of fact. You either utterly fail to understand this concept or you deliberately seek to abuse the freedom.
Now, as for Trivers et al, here we have the published results of a piece of accademic study. Within the limitations of the terms of reference and the reserch methods employed the author(s) will present their findings and attempt to rationalise his/her/ their findings. At best, those findings and conclusions can only be accepted as holding good within the terms of reference and the quality of the research. They are not in themselves general truths. No matter how good the paper it is still open to re-evaluation and other conclusions. That is the nature and strength of academic study. However, you chose, for your own purposes to present these studies as facts without the caveat of "this may not be the truth". Perhaps your slavish adherence to others research without the ability to question explains why you do not appear able to profer any thoughts or ideas of your own. However, it could also indicate that you personally do not have the capacity to engage in academic research.
It is not only science that is a persuit of truth and understanding. The whole of life has that honour. Science has to take its part along with art, philosophy and faith.
So, in my opinion the charge of sillyness on your part still stands.
Complain about this comment
177. At 4:01pm on 21 Aug 2009, JadedJean
I'm not even sure if you are disagreeing or agreeing with me.
Here's a tip - don't use 15 words when 1 will do. Overcomplication of subjects does not make one clever, nor does it prove one's understanding.
If you want to get down to the crux of the matter the question that needs to be answered (but cannot) is "why, given the gift of life, do most humans try to destroy it, either their own, or someone elses?"
Everything we have ever done (or will ever do) leads to the destruction of mankind. Whether it be unwarranted violence (barbarism), exploitation of others (colonialism, slavery, Feudalism, Capitalism) or simple genocide (Facism, Totalitarianism, raping of natures resources)
No other creature on the planet serves a purpose of self desctruction, no other creature commits unwarranted suicide.
If you can explain this then you will truly have my respect - otherwise I shall write you off as the charlatan you appear to be.
For now - I am going to celebrate the cricket score - have a good weekend!
Complain about this comment
foredeckdave (#178) "...it invites ideas and opinions that do not need to be supported by evidence - empirical or otherwise. That is the whole point of the exercise. Parties who have an interest are allowed the freedom to express opinions and ideas. Sometimes they are accepted, other times they are contested. What they are NOT are statements of fact."
You're in your element then as you can (and you do) write any old tosh and expect others to take it seriously (or else why post it at all?). When challenged, you even go so far as rubbishing empirically based statements.
You are demonstrably a bundle of contradictions, so much so that you even discredit your own posts without seeing how. You're irrational, but evdidently can't see why - you don't pay any attention to evidence after all.
You have no grasp of science or even what truth is. The same rules apply to all discourse, only the details make any difference when one is talking about research papers.
Let this be a warning to others who might be more easily misled by your nonsense.
Complain about this comment
#180 jadedjean
Clearly a miror image of your own self! That an outright holoucaust denyer such as yourself can accuse anybody of having no grasp of what truth is beggers belief!
As for nonesense, then look to your own statements and then test just how far from their basis of 'fact' you have managed to remove them.
The mere fact that you can never venture an idea of your own; that you merely hector; that you attack the messenger as you are unable to atatck the thought, clearly demonstrate what a limited understanding of life you actually have. You are in fact an arrogant coward who has little of value to donate to this or any other dialogue.
Complain about this comment
writingsonthewall (#179) "I'm not even sure if you are disagreeing or agreeing with me."
That doesn't surprise me.
"Here's a tip - don't use 15 words when 1 will do. Overcomplication of subjects does not make one clever, nor does it prove one's understanding."
Your tip is premised on your not uderstand what I posted. Maybe you should try harder? If others do understand what I have posted, but you do not, what does that indicate?
"If you want to get down to the crux of the matter the question that needs to be answered (but cannot) is..."
But that can't be the crux of the matter if you're asking questions which you say can not be answered.
You appear to be another member of the foredeckdave school of irrational thinking/writing. The more of you there are, the more hopeless it becomes.
Record A level results this year. We have ever more people with qualifications as the population is getting dumber and dumber. How is that possible given that a) intelligence is largely genetic, b) it is normally distributed, c) we are producing less progeny in the upper half of the ability distributon (1/3 of graduates remained childless) and d) have a below replacement level fertility rate 'compensated for' by rather low skilled immigration fom Afrcia and S Asia?
How's that for a simple explanation?
Complain about this comment
It's nice to see that the set of verbal behaviour categorisable as "JadedJean" remains active :-) Despite it's frequent correlation with the observation of obnoxiousness, it remains warmly welcome. Thank God for innovative challenges to mainstream thinking, or thank your towel for example.
I wonder what kind of verbal behaviour correlated with the the title JadedJean would be elicited in response to the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
I hope for something more than the usual despairing admission of intellectual failure of course.
Complain about this comment
Why don't the MrTweedy's and the JadedJeans of this world try to involve themselves directly in the technical solution to their problems. I am sure that the imagined difficulty is less than the available will to overcome it...
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8214359.stm
Without admitting outright that he bought a pig-in-a-poke, he has just told the world that Lloyds TSB were "conned" into buying HBOS !! Right up until the end, the bosses of HBOS *INSISTED* that HBOS was a solvent company and the government backed them up.
If that was so, then where did all those terrible debts come from ?? Surely not a curse put upon them by the Devil ?? Perhaps there should be an in-depth investigation as to what happened and what has been done with *OUR* money !!
Complain about this comment
"Poor 'lacking lung cancer help' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8214897.stm
A very unfortunate choice of words for the BBC headline !!
Perhaps they are asking for a whip-around to buy more fags for the poor so that they can develop more lung cancer and be just as proud as the rich over the numbers of them that develop this kind of diseases ??
So, the "educational dumbing down" has manifested itself, even in the august halls of the BBC !! Perhaps the *END* is truly *NIGH* !!
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#184) "Why don't the MrTweedy's and the JadedJeans of this world try to involve themselves directly in the technical solution to their problems. I am sure that the imagined difficulty is less than the available will to overcome it..."
Why are you sure?
We live in a liberal-democracy hell bent on limiting the power of the state im pursuit of individualism and free-market anarchism where any effort to laud socialism, statism and control of the population is undermined as a tyrannical threat to 'freedom'. Juts look at how the BNP is treated, yet its polices are not too different from 1945 Old Labour Manifesto.
Look at the nonsense which the likes of foredeckdave posts (clealry unaware of his self-stated epsitemological anarchism/irrationalism), or John_from Hendon, an otherwise sensible person, who hopelessly mis-describes what he reads as nihilistic, and asks for things to be done which could only be done in a command economy.
I've provided you with the key Performance Indicators. TFR. If the TFR is as low as it is in E Europe, you won't have the young peole to support the older as the population ages. If u liberate women, brighter women will limit he size of their families out of short-term self-interest. Why are human males bigger than human females, and why do they have more muscle mass? Look to the Taliban and recent outcry over the 'it's OK to rape and starve your wife' legislation in Afghanistan (Personal Status Law) which can be found in Islamic countries generally. They will survive, because technically they are biologically fit (above replacement level TFRs ensured by their 'sexism'), the liberal-democracies with their love of representatuve democracy and 'freedom' will not, as they cherish an unfit system when examined closely.
People contributing to this blog generally can't see further than the end of their noses. They are that self-centred/narcissistic/hedonistic. This will not change unless they become more allocentric, and in the practical sense that means embracing socialist ways, i.e. like those of Stalinist USSR and PRC (or 1945 Old Labour), i.e. exactly what the liberal-democracies vilify as evil......
Complain about this comment
Someone else I spoke to about this claimed that wealth is the cause of lower TFR. Apparently as wealth increases the opportunity cost of having children therefore increases. In other words, wealth makes having children more expensive.
Complain about this comment
ishkandar (#185) "Without admitting outright that he bought a pig-in-a-poke, he has just told the world that Lloyds TSB were "conned" into buying HBOS"
New Labour continued the anarchistic policies of the Conservative Party, i.e deregulating and progressively eroding the real power of Civil Service by all sorts of methods from poor recruitment to allowing the proliferation of NGOs and 'charities'. With that oversight gone, what did one expect from financial services? Come 'the credit crunch' it was an ideal opportunity to get as much liquidity from the public as possible, effectively risk free. At least major private sector shareholders (usually pension funds and other banks) were aware of the shark infested waters they worked in, Civil Servants/regulators weren't or were powerless to act given the legilation and who was running the show.
If the above is true about Pubic Sector erosion (across the departments), and I challenge anyone who knows anything about the Civil Service over the past few decades to say it is not true, why is anyone surprised at this anarchism? Look at all the 'devolution'. Ultimately it's devolution to the individual who is thereby rendered powerless - i.e 'free'. Why can't people see what they have brought upon themselves?
Read 'Lights, Camera, Democracy!' if my analysis isn't palatable.
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#188) "Someone else I spoke to about this claimed that wealth is the cause of lower TFR. Apparently as wealth increases the opportunity cost of having children therefore increases. In other words, wealth makes having children more expensive."
Why do higher socio-economic status (richer) people have a smaller number of children than lower socio-economic status (poorer) people in the Liberal-Demcoracies? I think you'll find that brighter females know what is coming when they have had one child. They do know what the costs are, bith financially, physically and emotionally. Less able people don't seem to learn as wel from experience, and just care less. You find more neglect and abuse in lower ability people. There is a high positive correlation between IQ and SES/GDP and ahigh negative correlation between TFR and IQ.
People of lower ability are more impulsive, i.e. are less able to inhibit their behaviours. They get pregnant more easily. They make good consumers. Hence low skilled immigration and 50% target for higher education. It's a fast breeder policy. The nation state is expendable :-(
Complain about this comment
# 188 Frank,
The reasons for lower TFR is more complicated than opportunity cost in relation to childbirth and rearing. If you consider the traditional need for numbers of children - mortality and family income generation - then you will have seen far greater changes in developed societies.
As usual #189 makes the usual slanted drivel. However, they may be right when they claim it is all down to breeding as they palpably demonstrate a clear lack of it!
Complain about this comment
Addendum (#190) There are two major points to note:
1) That this is happening, and in some parts of Europe faster than others.
2) That in post demographic-transition liberal-democracies it is well nigh impossible to control in any substantive sense, although it can, and is, be made worse via 'education, education, education'. Now, who would do such a thing?
Debating why it happens is largely, therefore, besides the point. It's like debating why we die or why narcissists are narcissistic. It doesn't change anything if the generating conditions prevail. The dire consequences of our biologically unfit political-economic system should be far more obvious to far more people than it presently is. Alas, it isn't. It's as if the people who should care, don't. Sadly, that makes sense too when you understand why they are 'in power'. They want to export this poison to other countries with high TFRs and which have age old values. In the process they will create markets for their toxic wares.
Complain about this comment
"People of lower ability are more impulsive, i.e. are less able to inhibit their behaviours. They get pregnant more easily. They make good consumers. Hence low skilled immigration and 50% target for higher education. It's a fast breeder policy. The nation state is expendable :-("
For an empiricist you certainly make some very wild and inaccurate assumptions. Perhaps you are showing glimpses of your own social background?
For an individual who proposes that they are/belong to a 'higher ability' group you have neither the knowledge or understanding upon which you base your assertion that "those of lower ability are more impulsive".
"they get pregnant more easily" Again a major inaccuracy. The ability of females from any socio-economic group is in no way dependant on them belonging to a particular ability group. There is far more evidence that, due to higher health characteristics, those females of supposed 'higher ability groups' should have a greater ability to become pregnant.
"they make good consumers" No more and no less than those of any other group within the population. Even you, the great empiricist bigot can be accurately described as a Good Consumer. You may choose different goods and services but you still consume them.
Complain about this comment
Back to 'economics'...
Isn't the real point about QE that it is a construct of the power elite in manipulating that easy to get commodity - 'public money' for mainly political parties?
To my mind, QE is just another example of how largely non-mandated powerful interests construct government and governmental relations and associations in a sophisticated and devious manner so as to further their own interests. This in my view is a mental disease of the power elite that is based on a devious philosophy and culture of sophisticated greed, deceit and corruption.
The results can be seen by e.g. UK jumping headfirst into a 2nd Iraq war to re-pay G Bush for rescuing reputations with the bombing of Serbia, grace and favours especially for non.dom political donors and friends with big boats and even the release of the convicted Lockerbie bomber. All these things, I think are related in terms of the devious and corrupt mindset and prevails in Parliament/Government/ Legal and financial institutions.
What has this all got to do with economics - quite a bit I think because it is this difficult to define and explain mindset and has caused so much econmic mayhem recently both in the UK and globally. The relevance to economics is that the economic effects are dramatic BUT ECONOMIC THEORIES do not explain this - not Keynes, Friedman whoever can be quoted.
This I think is the culture of greed and excess that is destroying our planet, economies, everything we know - the relentless pursuit of growth - and when we don't have real growth our governments instruct our banks to invent it - a facet of human nature.
I see some parralels with some of the comments of other contributors but is difficult to pin down?
Complain about this comment
foredeckdave (#193) You've already undermined your credibility here. All you're posting now are statements as to your own mental states (largely ignorant) and it's not clear that you're any more accurate when you do that so it's best that you give up altogether and do something else.
Complain about this comment
#196
You do make me laugh!!
Now, if my assertions in #194 are inaccurate bring forth your evidence to prove that they are.
By many you have been proved to be a fraud. Therefore, I am most confident that your opinion as to my mental states are equally as incompetently arrived at.
Silly little person.
Complain about this comment
foredeckdave (#196) "Now, if my assertions in #194 are inaccurate bring forth your evidence to prove that they are."
You've told us that evidence doesn't matter.
That's how you've discredited yourself.
Complain about this comment
#197
YOU made the charge - now either put up or shut up!
But as you are a mere sounding gong you will not.
Complain about this comment
How do we positively/productively make a selection from or between ideas like: a) Reduced TFR is down to increasing 'wealth' and b) Reduced TFR is down to feminist ideology and other social dis/incentives propagated as ideas...
Also, if the cost of choosing option X is made less expensive because of the prevalence of certain ideas (eg: women are OK to be in the work place), and that prevalence is accompanied by ideas that result in increased costs (eg: the cost of having babies is higher because I lose the option X) then how can we talk about 'wealth' in terms that have any useful purpose?
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#199) "How do we positively/productively make a selection from or between ideas like: a) Reduced TFR is down to increasing 'wealth' and b) Reduced TFR is down to feminist ideology and other social dis/incentives propagated as ideas... "
We don't.
Some cultures just hit women with sticks if they go out without male permission or supervision (if they get up to more the sanction is even more harsh). Those are the cultures which have survived..... The Liberal-Democratic way is new-fangled and demonstrably not working :-(
Complain about this comment
#199 FrankSz
Why do you need to make a selection from or between the ideas stated? Neither is solely the cause of reduced TFR in developed society and therefore concentration upon either statement would only lead to false/erroneous conclusions.
One has to question if TFRs will be a continuing problem in developed society. We have already had a conversation about what to do with growing numbers of unemployed as technological developments reduced the need for large workforces. Hence a falling TFR could have a positive economic impact in the not too distant future.
As for the statements made in #200, they merely demonstrate a complete lack of undertanding of societal development. The supposed cultures that "have survived" are the very ones under the greatest pressure to change and in which resistance is begining to crumble e.g. Iran.
Complain about this comment
Stephanie:
(QE: More to do?)
Yes, there is more to do and, many more resources will
be given to repair it...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
IS LIBERAL-DEMOCRACY DYSGENIC?
There are medical blogs, engineering blogs, DIY blogs, and behavioural science blogs (amongst others). Blogs are just a C21st version of late C20th USENET groups. Many specialst USENET groups used to have field leaders contributing without a lead article. This is how I use blogs.
In each blog one can spot those who contribute evidence based posts from those who just make it all up and post opinion. In some blogs the latter posters are moderated, in others the community criticises their errant behaviour in the hope of educating them and others. In this blog, when errant posters are picked up, they tend to have hissy fits. This tells one something about the poster, and sadly, the subject matter of the blog ('economics') as well as modration.
The dubious status of modern economics as an empirically based discipline is something which SF herself covered in a recent blog.
TFRs, skill levels (determined by genetic based IQ), and other demographic measures, are critical to group productivity. Hence my references to The Bell Curve and the ETS report in February 2007. In earlier posts I have put this into a global context by referencing TFRs by country and political system. Indigenous European populations in Liberal-Democracies are well below replacement level. This is not true of Muslim nations. Depite appearances, Liberal-Democracies appear to be slowly destroying themselves as the birth rates are not just below replacement level, but tilted towards the underclass, or at least, the lower half of the genetically determined ability distribution. My point is that no healthy system of government would engineer such self-destructive, dysgenic/differenetial fertility.
Complain about this comment
Postscript (#203) The recent planned mass immigration of Muslims into Europe (it is EU policy, see Fratini's statemnet a couple of years back)might even be taken as evidence of an attempt to engineer a wake up call for the indigenous populations where the injection of different values encourage the indigneous population to beave in a similar way to the Muslim immigrants. Yes there will be a clash of civilizations to begin with, with one group endeavouring to change the behaviours of the other, but when one looks at the consequences of each directional change (indigenous females behaving more like Muslim females or vice-versa), which would be the most productive in the long run?
Sadly, the current data indicates that the larger group is effectively exerting pressure to secularise the immigrants, as the Muslim TFRs here are falling, although they are still way above replacmeent level.
Complain about this comment
PONZI INVESTORS, EARLY VS LATE - AND DEMOGRAPHICS
Looking at this development, and bearing in mind the 2% population which this group comprises, given the 1% per month (12% per year) return on the original investment, and given the scheme was in operation for over 20 years, probabilitically, who are the likely long term beneficiaries and who the losers? Is this not how a small group can do very wll at the expense of a larger out-group?
The 7 year NY statute of limitations will limit recovery of course, but what does all this tell one about deceit, entryism, mimicry, and group competition for resources (aka political-econimics/behavioural-economics)?
Complain about this comment
Whichever way you look at it, if the data about TFR is right, the cost of having children is too high. Whether that is because of social pressures, or perceived opportunity costs of lost freedoms or ability to earn, or some combination of those, the cost of having children needs to be reduced.
Before going any further with that though, the question needs to be asked: costs for whom? Is it that the cost of women having children needs to be specifically tackled, or is it that the incentives/disincentives apply to all groups?
Complain about this comment
#201
That's also true. If China could have some of our problems with TFR, it would be very happy.
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#206) "the cost of having children needs to be reduced."
You still have not grasped how powefully environmnetal contingencies shape/control behaviour. Econimic contingencies if you like. Radical behaviours talk of contingencies of reinforcement instead of 'economic values'.
You still talk as if people can 'choose' to do what they want do or that words can chnage how they think etc. Watch the news and note how commentators talk of people as if they aall the same and diversity does not apply. Look at how 'democracy' s being introduced to Afganistan and Iraq, but look at their mean IQs.
The truth is that we are embedded in our environments (like fish are) which have selected our genes which shape our behaviours' expression by consequences. To change any of this the entire political system would have to change. Hence the Cold War (which careful observation will show has not gone away, it has just morphed).
The reason I urged you to look carefully at the EAB site a while back is that this work is deceptively simple. It is in fact the hardest part of psychology. One has to learn to look at things radically differently, not just translate it back into intensional folk posychology. I may make it look/sound easy, but it's not, I assure you.
Capice? I suspect not ;-(
Complain about this comment
errata (#208) "..how powerfully environmental contingencies shape/control behaviour. Economic contingencies if you like. Radical behaviourists talk of contingencies of reinforcement instead of 'economic values'.
These are programmed experimentally to observe changes in behaviour under controled conditions as in physics. Behaviour (depdendent variable) is under the control of contingencies of reinforcement (independent variable) usually holding genes constant (careful selectin of subjects). These contingencies are nature's IF-THEN's if you like. 'Choice' just describes how different classes of behaviour are emitted under different schedules of reinforcment. Free-will doesn't come into this, neither does 'choice' in that sense. 'Choice' is used descriptively not intens/tionally.
Classic economics is mentalistic. Just look at how they write/talk. Look at how they unwittingly equivocate (cf. criteria for extensionality) and pass the buck to other intensiomal terms when 'explaining'. It's hopeless. Look at who disproportionately get the Nobel Prizes for economics. They have no shame (cf. NPD etc), those who do have shame can't write or talk like that without feeling bad.....
Complain about this comment
#208
I see. The problem is the word 'cost', the way I use it, and the implication that the economy is a system of agents making decisions according to some commonly accepted list of preferences (costs) and a common algorithm. The word cost suggests the model that involves systems of 'minds' , and the belief that minds are prime causes, though prime causes are invoked according to predictable processes of decision making that involve opportunity costing in a game-theoretic way.
I admit I had slipped into that way of thinking. Even if 'cost' can be used in the same descriptive sense as your 'choice' above.
There seems to be a difference in the underlying philosophy. Recent conversations with thinkers interested in Austrian economics (note, this is not Libertarianism, which has hijacked Austrian school economics for its own political ends), showed that they outright reject 'objective' science or objective thinking, and really their worldview relies on subjectivity.
This is actually why I posted the link to Bells inequalities above. Does the Quantum Mechanic description of behaviour actually place probability into our ontology? On a fundamental level, does the knowledge that macroscopic entities determine the state of all things? Is free will real and does it emerge from inherent randomness in behaviour of quanta?
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#207) "If China could have some of our problems with TFR, it would be very happy."
How so?
China manages its population. Socialist countries can better do this as they built the state rather than erde it. China is reducing its population but at the same time tilting its birth rate. It has passed eugenics legislation. The EU proscribes this. China does not import people. teh EU does. China plans. How can Liberal-Democracies plan? They are 'free' (anarchistic).
The Europeans have been subjected to a snow job by 'European' entryists, is about the best I can come up with. These people look like indigenous Europeans, but aren't. They make efforts to appear so though. It's how group competition works in all species. They have a very disturbing defence reaction when their behaviour is caught out so most people tend to let it go, at great cost in the end :-(.
Complain about this comment
FranSz (#210) "Does the Quantum Mechanic description of behaviour actually place probability into our ontology?"
No. When building bridges etc one doesn't need QM. It's the same with most behaviour. Try to deal with problems at their appropriate level.
Do you think parasites have 'minds'? Viruses? Ants, Bees? Apply the Null Hypotheis to groups. Do you find any differneces in their behaviours. This is epidemiological. Why are so many people (hosts) scared of doing this if said behaviour is not a group stategy designed to deter detection whilst resources are taken?
Call it politics if you don't like 'group competition'. It's just a name change. People need to wake up to the stats.
Complain about this comment
Whether things have or are minds is the question being posed. I don't see that QM's philosophical implications are affected by the applicability of QM to different domains. The applicability is a pragmatic decision based on available computing power and costs. If all things could be cheaply modelled on a quantum level then they would be.
Complain about this comment
Recession at an End says a bunch of Accountants.
Well that is ok then, just take 1000 accountants and ask them a couple of questions about their confidence level and as if by magic, the recession problems are solved.
This method has the advantage of ignoring the 2.4 million unemployed and the Uni and School Leavers looking for a job, of ignoring real people and the effect on their lives and introduces further example of reality being buried under opinion.
The New Economics of ask for opinion and then state it as a reality
(or truth even)
from Sky News
'The UK recession is at an end with business confidence enjoying a record recovery, according to one trade body.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) said optimism among professionals had moved to its highest level for two years.'
How about asking the People and families without jobs as opposed to asking Accountants with jobs?
It might produce a different take on whether or not the recession is over.
Not much chance of that then.
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#213) "Whether things have or are minds is the question being posed."
And I have told you the answer. The don't. There is no evidence at all. The language of mind is something which is studied as a modus vivendi. Science studies behaviour. Those who use the langauge of mind tend not to know the language (science) of behaviour.
All clear now? ;-)
Complain about this comment
Addendum (#215) Most people don't like learning as it makes them feel uncertain and that their current ways of dealing with matters may be inadequate. One can see responses (tantrums) here when people's core constructs are challenged. People tend to resist change. This gets worse with age, as people have a longer reinforcement history of making do and getting away with things. What's being challenged here is fundamental, as for most people, mentalism is common-sense. Sadly, whilst it may be common, higher 'intelligence' (or skill) is rather rare. See normal distribution shape.
Complain about this comment
BECAUSE WE'RE WORTH IT?
strategycall (#214) The disorder of modern liberal-democracies is, at least in part, this cognitivism. This self-centred, narcissistic thinking is taking precedence over objective behaviour/reality everywhere, and it's scary. It's more than the tail wagging the dog. It may be largely down to feminization, I hate to say.
Alas, thinking oneself or one's economy wonderful does not make either so, and whilst being over-confident may well draw the unwary back into the FTSE, it's recent rally appears to be down to massive priming by QE. Is it not?
Complain about this comment
Evidence, evidence everywhere, bombarding our nerve endings ceaselessly. But which to choose, and which to ignore ? Given or taken ?
Same old same old JJ. You and Mr Quine locked togethor for eternity, going round in ever decreasing circles, unable to equivocate, just the sound of that fly in Wittgenstein's bottle droning away, forever.............yawn.
Complain about this comment
217. At 3:42pm on 24 Aug 2009, JadedJean wrote:
BECAUSE WE'RE WORTH IT?
Alas, thinking oneself or one's economy wonderful does not make either so, and whilst being over-confident may well draw the unwary back into the FTSE, it's recent rally appears to be down to massive priming by QE. Is it not?
>>>>>>>>>>
Absolutelly not due to QE priming in the UK - most of the companies listed on e.g FT100 have substantial foreign ownership/shareholdings and the stock market is rising because:
1) Market sentiment is willing a surge
2) The Property markets are in the doldrums
3) Some of the shares pay cash dividends
4) The stock markets generally lead changes in the regional and global markets.
5) Some countries are applying 'protectionsim' with scrappage and other inducements in e.g. car manufacturing with leading listed companies
6) Many of the main stock market listings are for oil and energy companies and other short supply valuable commodities for which there is exteremely high demand.
7) Many pension companies are rebuying stocks in anticipation of a rising market over the next few years.
Spare cash has to go somewhere - this has little to do with qauntitative sleasing in my humble opinion - you've got to put your money somewhere and perhaps some have lost faith with the banks and prefer to invest directly with the best private companies.
My guess is that the rises in e.g. the FT 100 owe more to the sound economic and production, manufacturing structures/policies of companies like BP, Shell and countries such as e.g. Germany and France.
I'm surprised that you see to be taken in by this QE spin and marketing - QE is what Mervyn King promised Darling over coffee one day earlier this year so as to give some big deals and big numbers out (in 'appeasement'?)
Complain about this comment
strategycall,
Firstly, how would a gang (sorry professional body) of accountants know anything but the cost of everything?
Perhaps one of the least favourable aspects of technological developments has been the emergence of 24hr media coverage. With space/time to fill there is a compulsion to pick-up on anything and present it as "the latest" opinion rather than take the time to balance the opinion against other views or indicators.
There is also the supposed need of the general public to be given good news - preferably in bite size pieces.
Note, there was no explanation of the result. How strong was that confidence? By how much had it risen? What were the prime causes for the increase?
Complain about this comment
"it's recent rally appears to be down to massive priming by QE. Is it not?"
As usual you have not being paying attention have you! In both this blog and the economic news you should have learnt that QE has had a minimal effect, as yet, in the real economy. Therefore, the FTSE movements are predicated upon other issues.
Complain about this comment
superiorsnapshot (#218) Perhaps you need to find something else to read then? If you look around, maybe you'll find something more to your taste? I think you protest too much.
Complain about this comment
#219 nautonier. Now I know that "market sentiment is willing a surge" I´ll rush out and invest in some great stocks. I will ignore the fact that 1 in 10 Americans now rely on food stamps, and that 1 in 50 US children are now homeless - because those are facts and clearly not as important as sentiment.
Who cares that US U6 unemployment is now approaching 20%? What kind of communist wrecker would dare to ask how an economy whose GDP is 70% domestic consumption can possibly recover with unemployment at these levels.
Still all is well in your anodyne world of big oil. Oh look there´s Shell, the very same company that forgot how to count its oil reserves. They must be stupid, because any other answer would mean they were criminal - but big business (except Enron and Worldcom) are not criminal are they?
Then there is BP, a company led for many years by an admitted
(but not prosecuted) perjurer. Clearly a company to be trusted.
Maybe the markets are going up because Goldman Sachs want them to go up. They must be omnipotent because who else could engage in "high risk gambling" and guarantee to make between $100 and $200 million per day.
Complain about this comment
222 What ? and be unfaithful to my little unsinkable rubber duck, never!
Complain about this comment
nautonier (#219) Is your analysis data driven (i.e source of trades) or speculative? Several of the FTSE100 weighted banks are internationals (HSBC, SC etc) which is why they didn't take HMG/Taxpayer money (but raised it through rights issues), but that doesn't mean that the BoE cash injection didn't make it easier for Lloyds etc to buy the formers' stock and thus stimulating the market.
Complain about this comment
fortedeckdave (#221) "Therefore, the FTSE movements are predicated upon other issues."
Like a miraculous change to fundamentals and risk?
I don't believe everything I read. My question really was: what's changed to bolster market confidence? Have you been giving them 'motivational talks'?
For anyone interested, watch 'I, Psychopath'.
Complain about this comment
223. At 6:13pm on 24 Aug 2009, armagediontimes wrote:
I note your observations and I agree with your sentiment but we may see the stock market keep rising for a while on this upward trend in this mad, mad world - even in the face of national and global recession as the stock market obviously isn't sympathetic to the poor and needy.
Also, I forgot to mention the very low interest rates means will also help the stock indexes rise.
225. At 7:25pm on 24 Aug 2009, JadedJean wrote:
nautonier (#219) Is your analysis data driven (i.e source of trades) or speculative?
I must admit I speculate about King and Darling nonchulantly discussing a few billion over coffee - after all it may have been tea that they were drinking.
The rest about shares and ownership/investment is well documented on this blog and elsewhere including FT and many other share trading sources - the stock market is on an upward trend ...FACT ...in the face of recession.
'The rich will at some point start to become richer again and more people will slip into poverty, both in the UK and elsewhere' - that's more speculation as well!
Complain about this comment
fd Dave no 220,
Actually I had my suspicions about the Accountants calling the recession over - as was widely reported by the pack of Journalists who seem to follow the criteria of
'printing whatever we want to print whether it is accurate or not'
What McWilliams of the ICAEW said was something a bit different i.e.
'Despite compelling signs of the recession nearing an end, I remain doubtful over the strength
of recovery. The UK economy is still swamped with debt, earnings growth is weak and
unemployment is rising, so the outlook for households is cautious. The real elephant in the
room is the state of the UK public finances. Major spending cuts – and possibly tax hikes – will
be needed in the next parliament to bring government finances back to health, which is likely
to put the brakes on the recovery.'
A tad different to the conclusions reported.
The full report is here and worth a read if interested. A couple of interesting tables (confidence in the North East prosects show a 50% rise etc)
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
"I don't believe everything I read. My question really was: what's changed to bolster market confidence? Have you been giving them 'motivational talks'?
For anyone interested, watch 'I, Psychopath'."
Then "what has changed to bolster market confidence?" should have been the question that you asked rather than the statement that you made.
As you clearly need educating then I would refer you to the recent statements regarding the French, German and Japanese economies and Bernanke's statements regarding the US economy. You could also spend some time looking at the oil price. Then try think for yourself for once why markets may have reacted to that information. Now these 'indicators' may not be accurate but in combination they will have an effect on the exchanges.
As for motivation in the workplace. Let's start with something simple. I refer you to both Maslow and Hertzberg. Rodgers may appeal to you - parts of the Hawthorne Experiment would appeal to somebody who likes to pull he legs off flies!
As for your entertainment suggestion - your life story is it?
Complain about this comment
No 224 "What ? and be unfaithful to my little unsinkable rubber duck, never!"
Are you sure that's a rubber duck and not something more ...err...natural ??
Complain about this comment
No 227 "I must admit I speculate about King and Darling nonchulantly discussing a few billion over coffee - after all it may have been tea that they were drinking."
Or something even stronger ??
Complain about this comment
#227 nautonier
The stock market has historically proved to be a very poor indicator of economic recovery. If you look at the market history of the US between 1929-1938 you will see that it bears little similarities with the progression of the the Great Depression. This data is more accessible than its Uk counterpart.
Complain about this comment
I forgot to mention...
BBC economics editors are seemingly unable to confirm where the QE money is being spent - except that QE is estimated to have lifted GDP by 9%!
What better reason for QE than to lift GDP by 9% and ease the recessionary statistics - that's a political coup if ever there was one!
Mervyn King is rather vague about the QE investment/expenditure as well.
QE is apperently spent on corporate bonds, gilts and securitised assets but no one mentions buying corporate shares.
So has QE filled FT 100, 250, 350 companies with so much cash that investors are rushing in thinking the cash translates into dividend payments when most of the companies have not even had time to report their company earnings this year? Is anyone that naive to think that in the UK, 'QE' translates directly amd measurably into stock market gains on the London stock market?
Until Mervyn King comes out with a clear breakdown of expenditure with QE and shows where the money has been spent and a clear analysis of the balance of the effects - How can anyone speculate that QE is a significant factor in lifting the FT share indices?
There must be other factors causing investors to be a bit more optimistic regarding investing in shares relating 'hot' spots in the global economy.
also
231. At 11:14pm on 24 Aug 2009, ishkandar wrote:
No 227 "I must admit I speculate about King and Darling nonchulantly discussing a few billion over coffee - after all it may have been tea that they were drinking."
Or something even stronger ??
>>>>>
I may be wrong about the tea drinking and motives if Mervyn King now looks a bit queasy about QE - if the BoE has been pressurised behind the scenes into buying toxic assets bundled as the 'securitised QE assets' and without adequate due diligence? I hope he hasn't been 'water-boarded'!
Complain about this comment
232. At 11:54pm on 24 Aug 2009, foredeckdave wrote:
#227 nautonier
>>>
Yes - that's the point. This bizarre economic climate could well create a strong stock market while the national/global economy is technically in recession.
Our dated economic measures and definitions are now of little if any use if this is the new world, reality and economic order.
Complain about this comment
#229 foredeckdave. You are correct an analysis of the oil price could prove instructive.
Oil is currently around $74/bbl. This compares with a long term average of $17/bbl (1875-2003 in 2003 $´s).
So why is oil well outside its historic trading range at a time when the world economy is in recession? Could it be that oil is a leading and highly visible (but ignored) indicator of the collapse of the US$?
What exactly is the joint venture between BP and Goldman Sachs designed to achieve? The former head of the IPE believes it likely that a central core of this relationship is market manipulation. Market manipulation is illegal - but then why bother with the application of the law when you can sinply find a new head of the IPE.
So, what have we got for entertainment? How about the rich laughing at the general population who think being robbed by corporate bandits is a good thing and presages a great leap forward.
Complain about this comment
No 235 armagediontimes - "Oil is currently around $74/bbl. This compares with a long term average of $17/bbl (1875-2003 in 2003 $´s)."
Simply comparing the *price in US$* of oil is also a very misleading statistic, since the US$, itself, has morphed over the years in question !!
From 1875 until Bretton Woods, the US$ was $4 to £1. After that, both were free-floated and the £ went down the toilet in the 1970s when the Labour government went bankrupt and Dennis Healey had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF and the US$ was touted as *the new reserve currency*. This caused the $ to keep its value because many other countries bought and kept $s !! Then the US$ was decoupled from the gold standard and it went into a frenzy. US debt soared when other countries kept on buying the US$. At one point in the early/middle 1990s, the unofficial currency of post-Perestroika Russia was the US$. Since then, the US debt burden had expanded to ridiculous proportions and, coupled with the fact that many countries are losing faith in the US$, the value of the US$ has fallen significantly against a basket of many currencies.
Therefore, comparing $17/bbl then to $74/bbl now is like comparing apples and oranges, *UNLESS* the currency is adjusted for historic devaluation !!
However, even after historic adjustments, the price of oil *HAS* gone up. This has a lot to do with (1) scarcity of new reserves of oil, (2) historic destruction of oil and oil supplies/reserves (look up the tonnages of oil destroyed during WW2) and (3) the sheer flagrant and ostentatious use of oil by developed nations, especially America and its gas-guzzlers !!
One side effect of this is that, despite the Chinese government's serious efforts to encourage its companies to purchase companies and assets from abroad, for the first time in recent history, the Chinese government *Blocked* the purchase of the HUMVEE assets by a private Chinese company. They know that it's a political time-bomb to allow this transaction to go ahead because they have already been accused of trying to corner the world's oil supply and they don't need a Chinese company producing ostentatious gas-guzzlers to add *fuel* to the fire (pun intended) !! :-)
Complain about this comment
#236 ishkandar
Ineresting explanation - and I wouldn't argue with most of it. However, when we consider the present price of oil we have also got to factor in the future prospects for oil.
In the very near future, the majority of cars will be hybrid or even totally electric. Power generation has for nearly a deade been moving away from oil. The quantity of oil demand is on a potentially steep decline. price will move from a volume base to a quality base. The major producers who also happen to be low quality producers are not unaware of these facts. Therefore there is a pressure to push the price for as long as possible.
Combined with the need for 'money' to circulate faster and faster in order to appear to sustain 'wealth', we are bound to see major fluctuations in the price of oil but an overall price maximisation startegy.
Complain about this comment
THE MASK OF SANITY
foredeckdave (#229) "Then "what has changed to bolster market confidence?" should have been the question that you asked rather than the statement that you made."
It wasn't a statement, it was a heuristic question (as you'll see if you read #217 taking your cue from the title/link). Like so many (of us) you lack awareness of (your) cognitive limitions.
Without a stronger state, the scams will just continue. Sadly, it's group behaviour - i.e. group politics.
Complain about this comment
Addendum (#238) Just in case anyone needs it spelling out ;-)
Complain about this comment
I read somewhere that simply teaching people to read, or encouraging more reading, is correlated with lower birth rate. It was a discussion about contraception, and that the use of condoms in places like India, Africa was presumed to be less effective than encouraging reading.
If people operate according to subjective processes involving weighing up 'costs', how is the above data transcribable into that model?
If people are rational agents, as in neoclassical economics, how is the above explained?
From an objectivist, say biologist, stance, the above is simply a correlation that can be used.
I wonder if the basic distinction in economic schools of thought then isn't a pragmatic one: sometimes it is better to use data driven models, sometimes is is better to use simulations (rational agents, subjective entities etc)
Complain about this comment
MIND BLOWING STUFF
FrankSz (#240) "I read somewhere that simply teaching people to read, or encouraging more reading, is correlated with lower birth rate."
But reading itself is a propositional attitude. So is learning. These are psychological verbs I remind you. How we measure these as behaviours is really quite another thing. Reading ability is one contributor to general cognitive ability (verbal IQ). What do you mean by 'learning to read'...think about this carefully, it may open your eyes a bit to the wider problem.
When I explain things to you, e.g. by saying that 'learning' (as conditioning) was at one time coextensive with psychology itself, that should have made you stand back and wonder just how much lay behind terms as learning and reading. Think of a fractal as a hint. Reading age tests are age normed and people plateau at different ages, some just keep getting better. Why? Can one teach almost anyone to read medical journals, physics journals, behaviour science journals? Tony Blair seemed to have been led to think so, for 50% of the population instead of 5% anyway (nobody with any ability really believes that so what was he up to? Spreading liberal-democracy (predation) maybe?
One can teach most people to read - but to what reading age? It's a continuum. So yes there will be a correlation with reading ability and fertility. In fact, that's one of the standard tests when looking at dysgenic fertility.
Are you prepared to start listening yet (also a propositional attitude)? If so, you'll need to buckle up, as it's likely to be a scary ride. Most people aren't up to it - I assure you of that. Expect lots of rage and sqwarking along the way ;-)
Complain about this comment
But surely in order to teach someone to read (to some 'reading age'), then you must engage in a process that results in some measurable, testable behaviour that you define as 'reading'. ie you supply the subject with input, measure the output, and determine that the subject has read/is reading (to some level, the reading age). In this case, the definition of the word reading needs to be (re)defined in terms of subject behaviour, measures and procedures, and in effect you are operating in a different language - a different ontology/philosophy/conceptual framework/methodological basis - call it what you will.
Whether I am prepared to start listening or not is irrelevant. My method of learning is by provoking responses from you (or other people) in relation to different topics. If you see that as being l'enfant provocateur it is your problem ;-)
Complain about this comment
# 237 - I find it difficult to accept the idea that all "In the very near future, the majority of cars will be hybrid or even totally electric." As I understand it, the UK and US are going to find it difficult over the next 10 years to replace their existing electricity generation capability as "dirty" coal fired power stations and old nuclar power stations are decommissioned. Can the electricity generating industry do this and also provide capacity to power electric cars?
Complain about this comment
#243
There is no technical reason why electricity generation should have problems meeting demand.
Complain about this comment
fd Dave,
Further to my post 228 in which the Mods removed the direct link to the PDF report on business confidence results as issued by the Institute of Charted Accountants...
...the full Report can be viewed by going to the Institute website at
www.icaew.com
the click on the hyperlink entitled
'Record recovery in business confidence - newsflash'
then click on
'Download the Q3 2009 Main Report'
An interesting Report in which the ICA did not say 'Recession at an End' as was widely reported yesterday. They said confidence is up from a previous low level, which is hopeful but it doesn't mean the recession is over.
Which raises the question as to why the Media would wish to headline a certainty of
'' Recession in Britain 'at an end' ''
Mushroom News Management perhaps ?
( keep the population in the dark and feed them lots of manure at regular intervals )
A poor show by those in the reporting world.
Complain about this comment
NO RIGHT TO BE WRONG
FrankSz (#242) "My method of learning is by provoking responses from you (or other people) in relation to different topics."
Might that not better be described as predatory narcissism, i.e an strategy of exploitation whilst making out one is not?
Teachers run reading age tests on kids in the UK all the time.
On BBC NEWS today there was a piece about wider-waisted females (obese?) being more prone to asthma. Note this is a correlation. So guess what is recommended? Most of the work I am tacitly (and sometimes explicitly) referencing goes to great lengths to ensure that the directionality of correlations is not misread, there being no place for causality per se.
Now, low cognitive ability is correlated with criminogenic behaviour as well as poverty, so guess what the answer is? Except it isn't the answer as it doesn't work. All the evidence is against it. The latter is also in the news today viz offender management.
Beginning to see the picture and its relevance to the economy?
What we frequently see posted here are hissy fits (narcissistic rage) as people mistake reporting their (challenged) errant beliefs as rights. They don't have the right to be wrong and have it respected. What I have been explicating requires painstaking attention, and even then, there's no promise of an easy fix. I have highlighted the sorts of verbal behaviour (posters?) one needs to be wary of, and why.
Complain about this comment
"Beginning to see the picture and its relevance to the economy?"
Not really. First it is more important to understand this picture's effect on 'economics' rather than an 'economy'. This is a philosophical question. To an Austrian, the economy is something different than to a Neoclassicist's. The system in question, the economy, exists only in terms belonging to a certain 'economics', a language.
It is clear that in your language, costs and choices do not come in to play, and decisions are better described as correlations between changes in properties of different subjects (correlated behaviours). This is a different economics, not an economy.
Complain about this comment
237. At 05:24am on 25 Aug 2009, foredeckdave wrote:
#236 ishkandar
Ineresting explanation - and I wouldn't argue with most of it. However, when we consider the present price of oil we have also got to factor in the future prospects for oil.
>>>>>>>
I am interested in this strand of thought - the stock markets are increasingly led by monopolistic operations - energy, banking, food, autos, technology - that is where the economic growth is or damage to the planet whichever way it is viewed. The economic growth is largely due to monopolies of one kind or another and supply and demand.
I had originally understood that QE was to support the money supply which traditionally has accompanied organic growth in the UK economy and so the potential negative effects of QE are taken out by having a larger sustainable economy folloiwng the stimulus.
However, this does not appear to be the case with the current UK QE conditions, as the public sector has been dramatically expanded in the last 12 years and the private sector has receded. So the organic growth of the private sector has gone into reverse and the potential is there for QE to come back and do damage in the next few years as the potential is there for the excess money supply. Couple with this we have bloated government and public sector which spends to much in relation to the tax base and funds the difference with long term public debt.
However, some of the 'benefit' and 'risk' of QE money has probably been taken out of the UK economy and is now safely wrapped away in gold bars in a tax haven bank for reinvestment in the emrging economies? (more sepculation). However, has this been exchanged for long term public debt as well?
I cannot understand why so many economists, politicians, even business leaders seem so relaxed about QE as it appears to me to be no more than a massively expensive political stunt to fiddle/artificially inflate the UK's GDP estimate figures.
At best it seems to do little if anything to stimulate the real 'nuts and bolts UK economy' and at worst it has introduced a dangerous structural flaw to our economy and UK finances.
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#247) "The system in question, the economy, exists only in terms belonging to a certain 'economics', a language."
Wrong.
Idealism (solipsism etc) is nonsense. The Austrians like the Frankfurters, fled to London and the USA you know.....
I pulled the trigger,
Well I'm blessed,
he's hit my bullet,
With his chest.
Peter Geach in response to Jerry Fodor peddling Methodological Solipsism.
You appear to have been seduced by the evil ones.
Remember Toto and the very very bad man?
Complain about this comment
I never heard of Toto.
Is idealism what I am demonstrating here? Answer this question: what is a thing? If the economy is a thing, how is it identified?
You, you personally, you exist in a world of colours, sounds, smells, moods. Are these things external to you? Or are they what you are made of? For you, what is red, green, keyboardish, monitorish, gothic?
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#250) "I never heard of Toto."
This may explain a lot! ;-)
Complain about this comment
ishkander (#236) "the £ went down the toilet in the 1970s when the Labour government went bankrupt and Dennis Healey had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF and the US$ was touted as *the new reserve currency*."
Remarkable how national socialist countries end up with crippling economic problems isn't it? Mind you, the PRC has done OK to date. Not the UK, USSR, N Korea, Zimbabwe etc though. Now, why is that one wonders? Might it be their evil economic systems (where are the hidden gas chambers in Bolton?), or might it be done with helpful, freedom loving, hands from overseas?
Complain about this comment
#248 nautonier,
As Lennon sang:
"Strange days indeed
Most peculiar Momma"
Your last paragraph sums it up for me. We know how much has been injected but have little idea as to where it has gone. We see little or no stimulus effect in the real economy. We summise that it has mostly be hoarded by the banks - but we don't know. Is it still inside the economy or, as you suggest, has it already been laundered to others benefit?
However, the price will have to be paid right here.
Complain about this comment
#254 strategycall
Thanks for the link - and agreed!!!
Complain about this comment
No 252 I don't know of any real "National Socialist" states in this era but various "Socialist" states of varying hue do exist. From Orangy US to Deep Red Cuba. In between, there are the various states like most of Europe that are struggling to maintain an economy that provides for those that voluntarily refuse to work. And there are those states that provide state support to those who *Cannot* work but scorns those who can but will not work !!
The last category is probably closest to the Marxist ideal that everyone who can must contribute their "ablest" for the common good !! Two rather disparate examples of this category are Singapore and Israel. China, Vietnam, Mongolia, Canada and Brazil are slowly working their way towards this ideal too !!
Most of the others are either dictatorships or failed/failing democracies. Examples of the latter are the three major Sub-continental countries. Sri Lanka is excused since it has just emerged from three decades of civil war !! As are many African and Latin American states.
All this is not helped when Western countries play fast and loose with the global economy. Despite adamant insistence by the US government that the US$ is rock solid and stable, today's report on the US deficit for the year soaring to $1.6 trillion gives lie to their vehement protestations. The US" is going to take a serious pounding in the near future.
In a similar vein, the UK economy will also be shown to be a straw man and the £ will take a similar pounding in the near future too !! When social benefits take up a 1/4 of the GDP and the public sector swallows up much of the rest, the economy is in deep, deep doo-doo and no amount of queasing will deliver them from said doo-doo !!
Complain about this comment
JJ
Today I was getting off the metro and as usual a group of people waiting to get on were blocking the doorway to some extent. People here do this to signal their intent to board the metro as fast as possible. This is to their detriment as the result is that people get off the metro train slower than as possible. I was thinking that if people here could be better trained to see the consequences of group behaviour (ie think from a less individualistic stance) then the situation would be improved.
Now that is quite a 'mentalistic' description above.
If you would be so kind...how would you transcribe the above into a non-mentalistic description?
Complain about this comment
ishkandar (#255) "I don't know of any real "National Socialist" states in this era"
Look harder. The PRC's Stalinist constitution (even with its SEZs) is national socialist. Socialism in One Country is National Socialism. It's why the USSR and Germany were effectively allies in 1939-1941. Stalin had his opposition (example. His opposition was International Socialist aka Trotskyite, and the COMINTERN. Today, the Neocons. See response to another blogger in Peston's most recent blog. Liberal-Democratic/anarchistic propaganda is very sophisticated/deceptive/effective. What people think is shaped by the reinforcing verbal community, which is largely fiction.
Complain about this comment
Addendum (#257) Blair's (well, his backers' anyway) New-Left, New Labour, is International Socialist (aka Trot/anarchist). See Socialist International - it's why the Old Labourite, Stalinist USSR (see the Webbs on the USSR) and National Socialist Germany saw the Social Democrats, aka social-fascists as their enemy. There is much deception and makeover in this game alas. Hollywood, unsurprisingly, plays its part. ;-)
Complain about this comment
....as a pleasant little interlude during the summer holiday period perhaps, here is a 1969 video of Merv in his hippy days at Cambridge as he rehearsed his speech to the IMF on why he is alone on QE; and also on why money isn't getting through to companies unless all other Finance Ministers in the world do it first....allegedly, etc etc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQYDvQ1HH-E&frature=related
and if the Moderator doesn't approve of direct links to U-tube just copy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQYDvQ1HH-E&frature=related
into your browser and there you go
(40 years on and it still passes the test of time - well done JC)
Complain about this comment
strategycall (#259) why money isn't getting through to companies unless"
It's not getting through to poor risk, or low profitability UK companies, that doesn't mean it isn't getting through to companies elsewhere. These are international players remember. The evidence is in their share price rises surely? The banks etc are competing in an international market and their shareholders are also international players. That's what 'the economy' now is. The UK doesn't matter all that much, except that it gets some of the income tax and other Service Sector spin offs which depend from their crumbs on the viability of the Financial Service Sector. That's surely the way to look at this? We have been told that nationalism is bad, as is protectionism (another word for nationalism). New Labour are International 'socialists'. They want people to be free to buy at Tescos, M&S, Top Shop and watch Hollywood blockbusters, but M Jackson CDs etc all over the globe, taking out loans/credit cards to do so. Why more people don't call it as it is in these blogs is still a bit of a mystery to me given all the evidence, but I guess most people like to dream.
Complain about this comment
#260
LOL. I'd like to hear your detailed explanations of how QE generated money leaves the UK system to international players.
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#261) Money is 'fungible' ;-)
Complain about this comment
Fungible means replaceable, exchangable. In an international transaction, does any replacement or exchange of currencies actually take place?
Complain about this comment
How are 'they' going to stop the QE programme? The markets, especially the banks, now rely on the US and UK governments instead of the largely closed wholesale money markets. Its quite scary that the international banks now have a direct channel for sequestering taxes raised in the US and UK for their own profits and bonuses! Like an addict, they will do anything to maintain this flow to ensure their own survival. Unless this can be reversed soon a vicious circle of ever-increasing government debt has been created that cannot be stopped.
Complain about this comment
#260 JJ,
'The evidence is in their share price rises surely?'
I think that attributing a single cause to a set of rising prices is a dangerous game to play in the Stock Market - correlation/ causation etc.
I prefer the behavioural approach as a general rule i.e. watch what the herd is doing and take a view as to whether that behaviour is sensible or not...and decide if one can profit from that herd behaviour.
It is all in the game so caveat emptor applies.
Complain about this comment
#255 ishkandar
Can Cuba be described as 'deep red' anymore? Whilst limited, private enterprise is allowed, foreign investment from non-socialist countries is allowed and even trade links with the USA are being sought.
As for those people in Europe who voluntarily refuse to work, then that 'card' has been continually over-played by the likes of the Conservative Party. In the UK, much has been made of Invalidity Benefit. Whilst, like any system for social security, there are those who will abuse the system in the short term, there is very little evidence of long term abuse - after all those on long term Invalidity Benefit are reviewed by an independant panel of doctors against defined criteria.
It can also be argued that China has also played fast and loose with the international economy by deliberately holding down the value of its currency. It's just not a one-way street!
Amazingly, the 2 currencies to watch carefully will not be the £ and the $ but the Euro and the $. A lot of the 'heat' on the £ has already been felt. However, great volatility in the currency markets is probably where the first indicators of the next great depressive slide will be felt.
Complain about this comment
#257 jadedjan
"It's why the USSR and Germany were effectively allies in 1939-1941."
You do talk an absolute load of piffle!! Records from both parties to that alliance clearly demonstrate that it was never considered by either party as a true alliance based upon common principles. Rather, it was an act of convenience. However, despite the documentry evidence I'm sure that you will claim that I am mislead by Allied propoganda
Complain about this comment
foredeckdave (#267) "I'm sure that you will claim that I am mislead by Allied propoganda"
Correct. By the end of WWII, National Socialism (under Stalin) occupied Eastern and Central Europe, including half of Germany. France and Britain went socialist too, so did China and N Korea. Today, the Arab world is still supported by Russia and the SCO.
The story isn't over yet either, Liberal-Democratic TFRs are dismal.
Complain about this comment
#268
It's a good job old Uncle Joe isn't still around as you would not be for too long for calling him a National Socialist!
You appear to forget that Britain had a socialist government prior to WW2 as had France - neither of those parties would have even countenanced the fascist standpoint of the German National Socialist Party. As for Stalin, if you care to do your homework properly, that he abored the socialist parties of Western Europe and spent a great deal of time and effort in trying to infiltrate them and turn the to the "true path of Communism" - BTW his words (in translation) not mine.
You will also find - should you actualy care to consult the record - that the USSRs policy towards the Arab nations was based upon their fear of the Western Democracies using Arab/Turkish countries to mount an attack on their soft underbelly!
So you are still wrong - Oh! I nearly forgot you have NO RIGHT TO BE WRONG - your words not mine!
Complain about this comment
foredeckdave (#269) "It's a good job old Uncle Joe isn't still around as you would not be for too long for calling him a National Socialist!"
Look carefully at point six here and look into the purges of the party in the 1930s and especially the comintern. Then look at what WWII was really about according to the Axis Powers.
As I've said many times, Stalin was the premier in a Democratic-Centralist, national socialist, (Socialism in One country he called it) nation. In the 1920s and 1930s he was struggling with his own left Opposition (Trotskyites) and he saw the Social Democrats in Europe as a problem, he referred to them as Social Fascists. New Labour are Social Democrats, see the Socialist International today, read some of their material. You will find them revering Trotsky if you look closely. Why would free-marketeers be doing that do you think? Why would Stalin (like the Chinese later) be so opposed to these people, and why would the USA lobby be so anti-statist during the Cold War and today?
Stalin's USSR was essentially the Labour Party brought to fruition. See Sidney and Beatrice Webb's book 'Soviet Communism: A New Civilization'. Sidney Webb was responsible for Clause IV of the Labour Party. You should read the 1945 Labour Party manifesto which Michael Young drafted. Then look into what he wrote in the Guardian about New Labour's misuse of his term 'meritocracy' (this might take you a few step towards the work by Herrnstein on IQ which I have been covering).
If you find what I post hard to grasp, maybe it's because I am telling you something worth paying attention to. You live in a liberal-democracy which is headed for extinction through biological unfitness.
Maybe you should show more respect for what you don't know? On the other hand, maybe you can't? Maybe this is what the self-destructive behaviour of the liberal-democracies is a function of?
Complain about this comment
strategycall (#265) What are the banks investing in (putting their money, or is it, our future taxes) into which is making others buy their shares and making the stock market rally? Industry/manufacturing is less than 20% of the UK economy, so it can't be there. What is worth investing in within the UK? Where is the money pumpe dinto the banks going, or, what is it doing?
Where are the economic descriptions/analyses by sector in these blogs? There appears to be lots of tea-leaf reading and 'sensing', but not much empirical work alas.
Complain about this comment
IMHO our money needs to go to 'wealth creators' ... not to 'wealth manipulators' ... to make sure real value is added in our economy and so that the overall well-being of our society can improve.
Lord Turner appears to be starting to get more open/vocal on this subject now too, take a look at http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/08/city-socially-useless-and-needs-be.html for instance ... let's see if the Government takes any notice ... as it's increasingly clear where responsibility for both failure and policy actually lies ...
Complain about this comment
Here is a nice little piece:
http://www.brainmysteries.com/research/Study_demonstrates_how_we_support_our_false_beliefs.asp
Complain about this comment
WHY ONE SHOULDN'T MAKE IT UP
leanomist (#272) Are you a 'wealth manipulator' or a 'wealth creator'? If you are going to provide links to what Lord Turner says, why not just link directly to the BBC report? instead of your website which appears to misrepresent what was said? According to the BBC report that you link to:-
"Lord Turner also condemned some financial innovation as "socially useless", questioning whether "the world would have been better off without any credit default swaps"."
In your blog (which you link to above in #272, and which you entitled "The City" - 'socially useless' and needs be 'taxed more') you write:
It was also even more profound to hear Lord Turner say that much of the activities in the City of London are "socially useless"!
Is that the same? Is this fair criticism of your spin? Do you not see how this is an instantiation of what I've been explicating elsewhere as lying at the heart of our problems?
How, where and when did you 'decode the DNA of success' exactly?
Complain about this comment
#272 leanomist,
If the headline statements are accurate then Turner might be considered somewhat Wacky.
If he wants to restrict bonuses then that is the issue to tackle.
If he wishes to increase social capital then that is a separate issue to tackle.
There is no guarantee....or logical consequence... in his assumptions that a tax on transaction = lower bank profits -> THEREFORE this will lead to reduced bonuses (AND/THEREFORE) -> this will increase social capital
If that is Turner's thinking then he might need to employ the left hand side of his brain instead of using the easy half most of the time.
Turner's reported 'proposal of the day' could equally as well result in lower profits = lower dividends = lower benefits for pension fund holders, but with high bonus payment arrangements being restructured and still being paid.
That sounds about right for the depth of thinking for a 'fully considered' proposal from a NewLabour appointed Lord.
Alternatives and unintended consequences not considered.
As for the City having no social value, he must have overlooked the bits about Government Fundings, company access to capital, pension fund management, direct worker employment, consequential employment and trade, technology development, capital flows, cross border trading arrangements, taxes paid, etc etc etc.
If it is his view that these have no social value, then he is unfit for the job
As stated in my first sentence, if it is desriable that the bonuses are to be limited, then that is the issue to be addressed - not listening to Turner's needs and cries for a bit of psychological attention-seeking based around a set of reported muddled proposals.
Complain about this comment
#275
I'm curious on what basis you conclude: "If it is his view that these have no social value, then he is unfit for the job"
Financial middlemen and financial transactions (especially exotic derivatives) have spurious economic benefit and do little but perpetuate fiat paper hegemony and (ultimately) hidden currency inflation. Turner appears to be one of the few people who is slowly waking up to this.
What Turner suggests as a Tobin Tax (levy on financial transactions) is long overdue and could be a major contributor to our way out of this huge mess. Every other "value adding" economic transaction is deemed to incur a tax, so the onus of proof rests with the financial sector to demonstrate why they are exempt.
"A Tobin tax is interesting but is unworkable without international agreement, which could take years and probably will never happen," said the Lib Dems' Oakeshott. Stunning own goal there by the Lib Dems.
This is a global problem, and it will require global solutions: a global form of Tobin Tax (to cover a variety of types of transaction) would be one giant leap in the right direction.
The very concept of a Tobin Tax is core to this story, let's hope the serious debate can stay focussed on this aspect.
Complain about this comment
272 - my blog actually referred to the words used in the original post made by the BBC this morning, before they decided to doctor it/change it - so it now links to the guardian report instead (which, like others, uses the same words the BBC originally used) ... I don't care (or have time) for people who change their story or anonymous people who like to 'dig' at others to try to make out they're clever. As far as deciphering the 'DNA of Success', I also decode the 'DNA of Failure' at the same time, and can clearly differentiate between the two (The DNA of Failure will also be published in the future - which my blog/comments also allude to too).
Complain about this comment
275 - IMHO 'brokers' are not much different to 'bookies', and most investment banking, hedge funds and currency speculators etc are doing little different to 'betting on the horses' ... hence from an ethical and social point of view they should be treated more like gambling and taxed more. Personal banking and commercial banking are entirely different as they do provide more value, a different type of value (e.g. support 'wealth creation'), and we should reserve previous decisions made asap and split these away from 'gambling' again - as nothing else will do, as nothing else will work. As far as employment/tax by these groups is concerned, IMHO we need more people employed in real 'wealth creation', rather than continuing to support a very small number profiting heavily from 'wealth manipulation', as it is only the former that will sustain our economy & improve our society in the long run.
Complain about this comment
...and still no word from Stephanie....
Whether you agree with Turner or not at least these are fresh ideas being aired (accepted Tobin taxes are not that fresh!). Are we finally seeing the questioning of the Reaganite/Thatcherite "markets will decide and by god they will be right" paradigm which has driven our economic history for the last 30 years. We have ended with an economy dominated by "the City" and financial services. Our competitive advantage in this sector made it so and will continue to do so, but faces challenges due to the reckless actvity of the asset bubble. Turner has at least aired the proposition that such dependence on one sector may not be sustainable long term no economy is sutainable with 20% of GDP due to one sector and a high proportion of households economically inactive except as a drain on welfare. How do you rebalance? Do you let the markets decide? (how we arrived at where we are) or do you employ government policy to identify other areas where we want to establish competitive advantage and invest policy in support of those areas. If we had any leaders in this country we would be discussing long term issues and not where to cut next (welfare is my suggestion but then that would be a highly politically charged decision, painful and cause untold misery - but necessary if we are to escape from an incentive to sit at home and watch TV). If we want to rebalance the economy there will be tough choices both for bankers and unemployed (and all of us). I despair that there are no great minds in the political arena who are prepared to explain the problems and suggest solutions. I don't necessarily agree with Turner that placing a millstone around the City will rebalance the economy - debating rebalancing is a start.
Complain about this comment
277 - I linked to a blog rather than directly to the BBC report due to the fact that IMHO (and contrary to the point made in 275) the bbc report focused on the wrong bit - and needed to focus more on comments made about the social value (and wealth creation side) of the city more ... rather than simply finding ways to reduce the huge bonuses given by bankers. It's also worth remembering if such short term gambling and speculation were reduced, people would identify once again with the need to create value for others in order to be rewarded, and on creating long term prosperity, as well as sustainable investments and enterprise. People (and therefore pension funds) really want to invest in funds which provide long term growth and success, rather than relying on manipulation and the short term ups & downs of the stock market.
Complain about this comment
No 266 FDD - "It can also be argued that China has also played fast and loose with the international economy by deliberately holding down the value of its currency. It's just not a one-way street!"
How can China be deliberately holding the Yuan when it has been *steadily* appreciating over the last 5 years ?? Looked at from a jaundiced Yank view, it might seem so but if view in terms of the overall global economy, the US$ was vastly *over-valued* especially in terms of its international debts !! This is what the US Treasure Sec. was trying to convince the Chinese when he tried to get them to hang on to their US$ debts even as the US was running a $1.6 trillion deficit this last year !!
However, as the $ is getting less popular, the reserves have to go somewhere and some/many have speculated that those reserves will go into the Euro. This may give the Euro an unexpected boost. Well, unless we are overly optimistic, we cannot expect that to go into well queased £ !!
Complain about this comment
No 267 The Soviet-Nazi Pact of 1939 was *NEVER* an alliance. It was a pact of convenience. In 1936-38, Stalin purged the majority of his officer corps. Comes 1939, he found that his armies have no reliable leaders to go to war with, so he made that pact to buy time for (1) reinstating some of his officer corps and (2) modernising much of his weaponry !!
Meanwhile, the Nazis knew that the invasion of Poland will trigger a war with Britain and France and they didn't need a second front in the East to distract them !!
Nothing new here since, Napoleon did the same thing about 150 years before !!
Complain about this comment
leanomist (#277) If the BBC made things up and you repeated it, that's tu quoque which is invalid. That you make things up is a little worrying. It makes one wonder what else you are prone to make up. What you are writing clearly has nothing to do with DNA, so it's clear that it's you who appropriates words to make yourself appear clever. This is never a good thing. Clever people see through it, and not very clever people are deceived and misled.
This is accurate feedback on your verbal behaviour. I suggest you try to learn from this. Sometimes, when people say things which appear 'clever' it isn't because they want to appear clever, it's just because they really are saying something clever.
If you are going to peddle creative writing, perhaps you should make that clear in the first place?
Complain about this comment
283 - if I valued anything you have said (either now, or in the past) I would have referred to it in my blog (and I haven't). I think you'll find my work is both grounded & scientific (nb I am a mathematician & scientist by trade, as well as a business leader), and my work is based on Dr. W. Edwards Deming's work too (who was also a statistician and business leader), and we have a lot to say about today as well as the future too ... not that you're interested in such things, so please don't waste my time, other people's time, or your own time, firing randomly from an anonymous position unless you are prepared to say who you really are, what you do, and why we should listen to you (e.g. what's your real name, what's your background and where's you're blog?) I do agree on one thing however - that there are many clever people (e.g. here on these blogs) who provide a lot of great insight, and I often refer to them (and their comments) in my blogs too, and will continue to do so in the future too.
Complain about this comment
foredeckdave (#269) Here are two further links for you to look at. Bear in mind the dates, and the demographics of East London for the second one. The language of diplomacy is opaque and yet clear to the cognoscenti for good reason.
Stalin changed the composition of the Soviet government from the late 1920s onwards, removing the original Bolshevisks. I provided a relevant link earlier to one of the late 1939 Non-Aggreeesion Pact meetings.
Link 1
Link 2
Complain about this comment
283 - As far as comments about being 'clever' are concerned, i personally have no interest in this at all (as I don't want to or need to), but I do have an interest in making people more curious about what's going on, and what the future holds ... Dr W. Edwards Deming wrote about a 'new economics' over 20 years ago - but I assume you know all about that, what he said, and how it relates to my work ... To me your comments suggest you are prone to talking at a mirror, rather than conversing with me, or anyone else for the matter ... hence I ask you again (like others before me have done) tell us who you really are, your background, why we should listen to you, and where your blog is ...
Complain about this comment
#276 Hawkeye,
a)
'What Turner suggests as a Tobin Tax (levy on financial transactions) is long overdue and could be a major contributor to our way out of this huge mess'
Do you think that Turner (or yourself) is aware of what a Tobin Tax is ?
Is he aware of what issue a Tobin Tax was designed to resolve ?
Do you or he think it was designed to curb his stated problem of huge city bonuses, if not then what is the point of him proposing an inappropriate solution to a real issue ?
btw when you say '(levy on financial transactions)' do you mean a levy on speculative currency transactions across borders or do you mean applying a levy to all transactions ?
b)
'I'm curious on what basis you conclude: "If it is his view that these have no social value, then he is unfit for the job" '
I am afraid that if you are unable to identify linkage between the examples of value and the disconnect with his reported view of the city having no value ('socially useless' banks), then you must remain curious.
Understanding the value of the City must be a prime job requirement for Head of FSA.
c)
Do you really think that Turner has an idea of what he wants to acheive ?
The Guardian reports that he thinks that the bonuses are a symptom and not the cause....
....so why is he tackling a symptom when he should be tackling the cause
Who else but a not very sensible person would do such a thing -i.e. seek to remove the symptom and leave the cause to fester ?
Guardian Report here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/27/fsa-bonus-city-banks-tax
Complain about this comment
Post 277 - note the original wording in the BBC article was ...
Title: Lord Turner backs new banking tax
Date/time: 23:53 GMT, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 00:53 UK
"Lord Turner has spoken out against large banking bonuses before he boss of the UK's financial watchdog has said he backs a new tax on banks as a means to prevent excess bonus payments in the industry. Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), told Prospect magazine much of the activities of the City of London were "socially useless" ...' *
... being a writer and a scientist, I read, refer to, and keep a record of my references (nb I have a pdf version of the original bbc article I referred to - hence the quote above). As I scientist I also ideally like to go to the source (e.g. the IPCC reports on Climate Change), but on this occasion it was not readily available (as the Prospect magazine are the ones seeking profit from it - as they want you to register/pay to get it, so on this occasion I relied on the bbc article, with a little bit of cross-checking with articles in the Guardian and the Telegraph).
I hope regular readers of this blog realise from my comments that my interests (e.g. in blogging/writing) are altruistic in nature and lie in value creation & wealth creation, not wealth manipulation ... nb those who meet me, know me, read my blogs (or my book) quickly realise this and regularly point this out (and certainly would not question this) ... e.g. unlike the Prospect Magazine my book is freely available to read worldwide on the internet (via Google Books), and my blog is free to read on the internet too.
David Clift, a Future 500 Leader
* Note the original title/text above and compare it to the title/text now - see below - and note the reference to 'socially useless' banking activities being pushed from the start to the very end. I think this says a great deal, but about the bbc, and not about my blogging/writing. Perhaps Stephanie and/or the BBC would like to tell us what prompted this to happen ...
The new title/text ...
Title: Support for tax to curb bonuses
Date/time: 13:21 GMT, Thursday, 27 August 2009 14:21 UK
'The boss of UK watchdog the Financial Services Authority (FSA) says he would be happy to consider a tax on banks to prevent excessive bonus payments. FSA chairman Lord Turner also told Prospect magazine that the financial services sector had "grown beyond a socially reasonable size" ... and the footnote ... 'Socially useless' - Lord Turner also addressed the question of whether the financial services sector had become too big. He condemned some financial innovation as "socially useless", questioning whether "the world would have been better off without any credit default swaps". "There clearly are bits of the financial system... which have grown beyond a socially reasonable size," he added. He said that you could tell that by considering "what percentage of highly intelligent people from our best universities went into financial services".
Complain about this comment
"Understanding the value of the City must be a prime job requirement for Head of FSA."
I agree with this statement and your point about the need to treat the real causes of this problem. But where we appear to differ is that I believe that Turner is actually prepared to tackle the real underlying issue, whereas you seem to paint him as anti-City (and by implication "the bad guy").
Why do I say he is treating the real causes, because he is actually confronting that which is obvious to anyone with half a brain and a modicum of curiosity: that what the city does is not all "value adding", and that most financial transactions are purely speculative. See Gillian Tett's TF piece today. If he has to "sell" this idea on the back of curbing bankers pay, then who can blame him for this.
Not having heard of a Tobin Tax before I can't claim to be an expert, but I do agree with it's premise. Indeed I have been saying for a while that most financial transactions are spurious wealth, and should be taxed accordingly. For instance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2009/03/were_in_qe_street_now.html#P76853545
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/07/the_shrinking_economy.html#P83364142
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2009/07/business_still_being_crunched.html#P83297648
I can also cite two other main sources for this conclusion. First, see SuperImperialism by Michael Hudson. The dollar gets a free ride as the unchallenged global reserve currency. Look at any chart of broad money supply for the UK / USA and try to convince me that we have REALLY grown this much "richer" since the 1970s. All the US has done is create a stupendous amount of fictitious capital. Read this article carefully, as what is happening now is no different to what has happened in the past (except oil salvaged the dream of industrialised economic growth in the 1800s):
http://democracyandclassstruggle.blogspot.com/2009/05/fictitious-capital-and-credit-schemes.html
Secondly, you need to revisit the basics of economics and history on how wealth is truly created. And it is not by flipping money around on computer screens. The service sector is actually an administrative overhead to society, one that actually draws from the REAL productive classes. A little bit is helpful, but too much is both immoral / unfair and (ultimately) devastating for a society. Read Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter. This article will give you a taster:
http://dieoff.org/page134.htm
If it takes a massive collapse of Western currencies to prove this right, then so be it.
Complain about this comment
leanomist (#286) "As far as comments about being 'clever' are concerned, i personally have no interest in this at all (as I don't want to or need to), but I do have an interest in making people more curious about what's going on, and what the future holds"
You would clearly like others to believe that, but your posts here, and on your blog, are evidence to the contrary, as I have explained. People often deceive themselves in order to appear differently to others and to themselves.
"... Dr W. Edwards Deming wrote about a 'new economics' over 20 years ago - but I assume you know all about that, what he said, and how it relates to my work ..."
I know who he was and how he contribute to quality control. Otherwise, I am very wary of management/business gurus.
"To me your comments suggest you are prone to talking at a mirror, rather than conversing with me, or anyone else for the matter ... hence I ask you again (like others before me have done) tell us who you really are, your background, why we should listen to you, and where your blog is ..."
You clearly don't understand that in science, and in life in general, it's what's said as testable empirical propositions which matter, not who says them. Concentration on the latter is what the ad hominem fallacy (as celebritism, argument from authority, product endorsement, and irrelevant slurs) is all about. You clearly have not read/understood what I have said on this matter before.
A good part of the reason why we are all in this current mess is because so many people have been peddling management 'science'.
Try to learn from constructive criticism.
If the BBC did indeed change their original article, that was a good thing. If you have revised your post on the basis of feedback, that too is a good thing. The FSA did a very poor/good job over the years depending how you look at their remit, but many of the agencies created by this and previous governments have been doing poor/good jobs. That was their raison d'etre in our anarchistic, free-market liberal-democracy. They were for appearances. Sinecures. It is the only explanation which makes sense. The same has been done to government departments. This has been going on since the early 1980s.
Complain about this comment
"Maybe you should show more respect for what you don't know?"
Maybe you should stop dissembling when it is clear from the record that your interpritations are wrong. Respect is a 2 way street.
When you actually learn the difference between National Socialism (as enacted in fascist Germany), Socialism as enacted in the rest of Western Europe and Communism as enacted in the USSR, then you just maybe in a position to profer an opinion. That you believe Stalinism to be a train of communist philosophy demonstrates the paupacy of your understanding. Trotskyism was an excuse for the barbarity of the purges in much the same way as the US used McCatheyism - though much less bloody for the yanks!
In the same way, much of what you claim for IQ, the behavioural sciences (in a most limited form) and genetics/eugenics is again interprited and stretched to fit your own jaded view of reality.
You are therefore not worthy of respect and henceforward none will be given. Now you can rant all you want in your psuedo-intellectual fashion but the truths contained in this post will remain the truth.
You are and will remain a very silly person.
Complain about this comment
strategycall and Hawkeye,
sorry to but in but, could one of the reasons for Lord Turners proposals be that he is constrained by his terms of reference?
Whilst bonuses are a symptom, what power does he have to actually tackle the disease?
I am more and more convinced that we have a major failure that is being exacerbated by the misunderstanding of the elements of wealth and value i.e. that major wealth has divorced itself from tangible value and hence has to sustain itself with speed in the exchanges. Hence, the bonuses are being earnt without reference to any standard economic criteria or constraint.
Complain about this comment
Who on Earth is Lord Turner? I never heard of him before.
From my perspective I wonder what Lord X, Y or GB himself has to do with this crisis at all. This is all about big trends, development of technology, industrialisation, the world wars and great demographic oscillations.
Small tweaks in the policies or leaderships of individual nations, no matter how important they think they might be, have little to do with the solutions.
Complain about this comment
Post 290 - I'm not sure you've read my comments properly as I simply revised the link to the Guardian news article instead (I didn't change any of the content on my blog), and it should be clear to anyone that a 'New Economics' is a completely different subject to 'Quality Control' too (Deming is known for far more than that - which re-enforces my original point). IMHO your comments appear rather confused and made up of unnecessarily complex words/sounds bites, which offer very little value and no answers ... so can I ask you once again, if you are consistent and clear in your thoughts & ideas (as any scientist/mathematician should be), why don't you be open & honest, say who you are, write an article/book on the subject and/or create a blog all about it*, instead of spamming other people's blogs with random comments and personal attacks?**
* I am very aware of the importance/value of 'creative outsiders', as they often ask more fundamental (and searching) questions ... and find far more profound (i.e. breakthrough/effective) answers too.
** I think in many ways post 291, like many others before it, are making a similar point too.
PS IMHO re-connecting value back with wealth (made in post 292) is a good one. IMHO the 'value system' is broken, not just the 'bonus system', and we need to move progressively towards more value creation (and real 'wealth creation'), and away from 'wealth manipulation'.
Complain about this comment
Oh, isn't it wonderful !! Not only is the rate of interest for our deposits down to 0 and the rate of borrowings sky high; not only are we charged for all sorts of bank charges; but now this loopy Lord wants to tax *every* transaction !! So every time you draw £10 from the ATM you will be taxed !! Isn't life wonderful ??
Complain about this comment
leanomist (#294) "IMHO your comments appear rather confused and made up of unnecessarily complex words/sounds bites, which offer very little value and no answers"
Translation: 'I don't understand what you post, and I'm too self-obsessed to find out'.
There's nothing humble about any of your opinions, and there's nothing much to them other than self-promotion.
We live in an essential deregulated, unpoliced, dysgenic liberal-democracy, where just about anything goes by design. Have you learned nothing from recent events?
If you want an inkling as to why things have steadily been getting worse for years, start paying attention to those who bother to tell you what's really going on. It was done to Weimar Germany in the 1920s too. The culprits moved on. They tried it in Russia in the early 1920s, Stalin stopped it, but it took till the 30s (at least).
Watch Newsnight tonight.
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#293) "Who on Earth is Lord Turner? I never heard of him before.
From my perspective I wonder what Lord X, Y or GB himself has to do with this crisis at all."
Exactly.
They are essentially 'window-dressing'. They are there for the media and for the naive public which doesn't understand that liberal-democracies are anarchistic.
Hence Toto and Dorothy.
Complain about this comment
JadedJean (post 296) - I ask you once again (cf post 294), if you are consistent and clear in your thoughts & ideas (as any scientist / mathematician should be), why don't you be open & honest, say who you are, write an article/book on the subject and/or create a blog all about it, instead of anonymously spamming other people's blogs with random comments and unwarranted/unprovoked personal attacks on everyone around you?
PS I will continue to ask the question above in response to your lack of respect and rudeness, until you stop attacking everyone around you and until you answer the question.
PPS Do you realise that your random spamming and anonymous personal attacks on everyone effectively 'tells' the world the type of person you are (e.g. see lack of 'respect' referred to in post 291 above), and such action will inevitably destroy any interest people may otherwise have had to find out more about what you have to say? or is this point also missed too?
Complain about this comment
#294
"re-connecting value back with wealth (made in post 292) is a good one. IMHO the 'value system' is broken, not just the 'bonus system', and we need to move progressively towards more value creation (and real 'wealth creation'), and away from 'wealth manipulation'.
"
As I have done several times before for others, I will draw your attention to the work of Professor Steve Keen at the University of Western Sydney (www.debtdeflation.com/blogs - look for recent posts and the research section), who through the use of dynamic systems modelling borrowing techniques from engineering has shown that:
- a debt economy involving fractional reserve banking (ie. permanently increasing endogenous debt-money creation ) is not in and of itself an unsustainable model (ie, it's not a bad thing per se)
- debt is not a bad thing per se: a loan can support productivity about 4 times more than the value of the loan itself
- the system becomes a chaotic one (literally, as in deterministic chaos) and fundamentally unstable only when some of those loans are not used for productivity increase (wealth creation), but speculation on other assets. This results in assets rising in price because of the debt increase and debt increase rising because of the asset prices.
This is a feedback loop that is analogous to Ponzi investment and is the explanation why the neoclassical concept of markets tending to equilibria as stable dynamic systems is flawed, as evidenced by this crisis and numerous others.
You may contact Steve Keen, he is quite accessible, and I think the models are even downloadable as Vissim models.
Complain about this comment
I hope the mods will allow this link to this powerpoint presentation, it is quite harmless:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/KeenGFCScaleCausesConsequences.ppt
If not then the following link http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/08/15/video-of-whitlam-institute-talk/
contains the following phrase:
The Powerpoint presentation that I gave is available here.
Complain about this comment
Post 299/300 FrankSz -thank-you for taking the time to comment, for the reference and the slides (they're great). I'm a big fan of dynamic systems modelling (and systems thinking in general - it plays a big part in Dr. W. Edwards Deming's 'System of Profound Knowledge' hence I use it and refer to it a great deal) and the 3 conclusions found sound entirely reasonable (e.g. the 'value of debt' as long it is used for real 'value creation' / 'wealth creation' ... and the problem when it is used for asset speculation instead*) - I'll take a look at this further and follow it up properly. Thanks again. Best wishes David
* and what are the banks using most taxpayers money for now ... lending to value adding (wealth creating) enterprises or more asset speculation ('wealth manipulation')... IMHO the 'illusion of wealth' and lure of short-term, 'get-rich-quick', 'easy money' have to questioned - especially as it's taxpayers money being used to bail the banks out (as/when it fails) and providing the 'resources' needed to do the same thing all over again - and I think Lord Turner is helping us to question this ... hence my original point (post 272), my subsequent comments (posts 278 & 280), and the comments on my blog.
Complain about this comment
P.S. #301 David,
The extent to which Lord Turner's comments are quite radical seems to be overlooked by the media. The economic elite know it shakes the foundations, but few except Paul Mason seem to sense its import:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2009/08/radical_capitalist_proposes_di.html
This musn't get swept under the carpet. The is the first (and hopefully not the last) time that someone in a position of authority has dramtically raised the stakes. Far from little bits of tinkering, the suggestions he makes are actually challenging fundamentals, something that puts them high up on the Meadows leverage point scale (3: goals or 2: paradigms):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points
Complain about this comment
leanomist (#298) "I ask you once again (cf post 294), if you are consistent and clear in your thoughts & ideas (as any scientist / mathematician should be), why don't you be open & honest, say who you are, write an article/book on the subject and/or create a blog all about it, instead of anonymously spamming other people's blogs with random comments and unwarranted/unprovoked personal attacks on everyone around you?"
My criticisms are of propositions which I see as having, in general, contributed to instrumentally bringing about the dire economic conditions which we all now endure. My criticisms are not random, on teh contrary, they are very selective. Nor are they unwarranted. Nor are they personal. If they were, they would be moderated out, and that would be right. You simply do not see what you are peddling. Nor do you appear to be able to learn from sound criticism.
'The DNA of'....indeed.
I suggest you look more critically at what you are writing, and read more carefully what I am saying, as what you are posting is just grist to my mill that you are incorrigible, much like others who peddle the same.
Complain about this comment
addendum "..will inevitably destroy any interest people may otherwise have had to find out more about what you have to say?"
You evidently don't understand at all that unlike you, I am not interested in personal recognition. If people do not follow up what I post, it is their loss not mine. We live in a narcissistic, celebrity obsessed, liberal-democracy. Your behaviour is (a small) part of the problem these systems now endure. That you do not see this is in fact, part of the problem.
You are primarily self-interested. This is one of the things which I am drawing to your and others' attention. Experience suggests that you will not be able to see this. Experience suggests that you will continue to try to defend the indefensible.
Complain about this comment
#301 David #292 FDD
Wealth creation or wealth manipulation, that is the question!
This distinction has troubled some of the greatest minds for centuries, nay millenia. One thing is clear though, and that is that it is not the same thing as money per se:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2009/05/welcome_to_shizuishan_city.html#P80355007
In my brief amateur investigation into the nature & causes of wealth I posit three key criteria for genuine wealth:
1) Creating wealth involves an irreversible transformation of something into a more useful form. The growing of a plant, the rearing of an animal, burning wood or coal for warmth etc. (see Chp 14 of Eric Beinhocker's Origin of Wealth - much of this is borrowed from Georgescu-Roegen) Only one-way processes yield something beneficial - if it is reversible then it is not really "value adding", just flipping back and forth. Therefore trading a good is not the value adding activity, but the making of it is.
2) Real wealth is physical. Food, medicine, warmth etc. I have serious doubts that knowledge, information etc. are really wealth. Certainly some aspects of information are useful (e.g. technical know-how) but most (especially modern media) is worthless from a true value creation process. (A certain proportion of leisure activity is needed, as a form of R&R, mental / physical recharging, but this suffers from diminishing returns - see my previous links to Tainter)
3) Real value adding activity comes from Win/Win co-operation / collaboration. This can manifest in two ways. Firstly, a task may not be possible unless people collaborate (either because it will take too long or because it would be impossible without some form of co-operation). Secondly, it could work if one person is better at something than another and they reciprocate individual specialities. This is the basis behind Smith's emphasis on division of labour and industrialisation. A real win/win is when something qualitatively different occurs through collaboration (i.e. it takes a man & woman to procreate).
Only by adopting a framework such as this can we truly asses whether what we do as a nation is actually wealth creating. Unfortunately the spurious antics of the City will fail each of these tests. The very premise of Globalisation will also fail the test. China does not make things more efficiently than we can in terms of man hours, but exploits the hard work ethic, poor working conditions and low wages of its workforce. Globalisation is not innovation, therefore not wealth creation.
Complain about this comment
JJ
Have you read Joseph Tainter's Collapse of Complex Societies? I'm halfway through the book at the moment.
Here is a short article as a taster:
http://dieoff.org/page134.htm
"It is essential to know where we are in history"
Complain about this comment
I was going to post a big presentation with lots of "technical" terms and coloured graphs, explaining that borrowing in order to spend your future earnings is risky and could lead to bankruptcy; but I decided not to.
I've also got a very detailed presentation called "dynamic chaos modelling of protective footwear securitization", which explains in detail how to tie your shoe laces to stop your shoes falling off when you walk.
Other gems include "the modelling of portable hunger management solutions" - explaining how to make a cheese sandwich.
Complain about this comment
Post 303 -thank-you for the comments & insight and I agree the stakes are now being raised ... and the people doing it certainly won't be 'thanked' by the 'powerful' or the 'economic elite' either.
Post 304 - I ask you once again (cf post 294), if you are consistent and clear in your thoughts & ideas (as any scientist / mathematician should be), why don't you be open & honest, say who you are, write an article/book on the subject and/or create a blog all about it, instead of anonymously spamming other people's blogs with random comments and unwarranted/unprovoked personal attacks on everyone around you? ... and IMHO I think you're the one who needs to read all your post again, as there are both open/veiled attacks questioning other people's understanding / intellect in most of them. I ask you again, who are you, why do you fail to answer the most basic of questions, why do you like to remain anonymous, where is your blog, why are you not creating one to let other people read it, find out what you think and let others comment on it? You singularly fail to answer these questions (and for this reason) and all the reasons stated by myself and others (e.g. post 291 earlier), I have no interest in what you have to say now ... because whatever it is you are trying to say, you fail to endear people in such a way to listen to you ... hence if you did have something useful to say, I hope someone else who knows how to treat people properly (e.g. with respect) comes online and articulates them for us properly.
Complain about this comment
No 305 - MASH_crew - "2) Real wealth is physical. Food, medicine, warmth etc. I have serious doubts that knowledge, information etc. are really wealth. Certainly some aspects of information are useful (e.g. technical know-how) but most (especially modern media) is worthless from a true value creation process. (A certain proportion of leisure activity is needed, as a form of R&R, mental / physical recharging, but this suffers from diminishing returns - see my previous links to Tainter)"
I think we should differentiate between Information and Knowledge (and Data, for that matter). Data is everywhere and has no value beyond its intrinsic meaning. Information is derived from processing Data in some shape, form or manner to derive more meaning and, possibly, value out of the Data !! Knowledge is the ability, imparted or impartable, on others to process the Information and derive value from that !!
Unfortunately, too many in our government mistake Information for Knowledge and blather on endlessly without the ability/knowledge to do any good with it !!
Just my tupp'orth !! :-)
Complain about this comment
No 305 - Addendum - "A real win/win is when something qualitatively different occurs through collaboration (i.e. it takes a man & woman to procreate)."
Alternatively, it may take a man, a woman and a test-tube !! :-)
Complain about this comment
No 307 - Then there is the "modelling of terminal government thinking" - Step (1) insert foot in mouth !! Step (2) shoot foot !!
Complain about this comment
EVIL DOOERS
Hawkeye_Pierce (#306) Thanks. Seems a bit windy. Read Fisher>. ;-) he was a eugenicists like Darwin, Galton, Pearson, Keynes...(in fact, most of the fathers of statistics, genetics and modern biology) ;-)
In other words, we know what the problem is. Sadly, this doesn't stop some people from thiking that they know better...In our anarchistic system, there's not much that can be done about it, and in the meantime, our foreign policy seems to be to undermine those who do!
Complain about this comment
#307 Thanks Mr T. Mildly amusing, maybe.
But, like #305, it makes me wonder about the difference between benefit to the individual and benefit to society:
If the economy switched to one of saving behaviour, you would in effect have a currency 'sink' in the collective savings. Wealth would simply be being drained out of the system in the form of savings. Excessive saving behaviour IS debt-deflation is it not?
What I am saying is that borrowing to spend one's future earnings is of course risky, but in a well functioning debt economy, borrowing should be about a quarter of the borrowing's increase in productivity. It is not the borrowing per se that is causing the problem, it is the use of borrowed money to invest in assets that do nothing for increases in productivity that is the problem.
Complain about this comment
#292 fdDave,
Dave,
As you will know from your readings in Strategy (intent etc), the success of outcome is dependent on the application of (sub)strategies and tactics which are appropriate to meeting the stated aim.
Otherwise it will be a failed strategy.
Turner has been reported as saying he wishes to curb Banker Bonuses by imposing a transaction tax.
His proposal for the imposition of a transaction tax is his 'chosen' strategy ( or tactic ) to meet his reported aim of curbing bank bonuses....
...and yet if you draw up his words into a strategy you will see that it involves an assumption which does not necessarily follow
'if I do A, then B must follow; or perhaps it might.. but there again..'.
He has applied a basic incorrect leap in his logical steps - or what might be described as a sophistry of argument
so his strategic thinking is shoddy because A will not necessarily result in B.
Perhaps he needs to get back to his drawing board if he is in any way sincere in acheiving an objective of bringing bonuses into line with a wider utility.
And he might also do better to pursue the set of regulatory principle as set out in his January 'Economist' lecture. (see below)
Assuming that he is clear about what the head of FSA is supposed to do - i.e. ensure appropriate regulatory action is effected to prevent financial collapse or misconduct.
If Turner's ambitions lie in changing legislation to obtain re-distribution, then he might do better by switching to being a full-time as opposed to a part-time Politician, whilst the FSA recruit someone to do a full-time FSA job.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2009/0121_at.shtml
Complain about this comment
JJ
Here's what I accept:
- According to data, average IQ is decreasing, and other dysgenic processes occuring, in liberal democracies (or that which we take to mean free and market driven societies)
- Apparent leadership does nothing effective to stop these trends
- In order to solve this problem, some aspects of society need to be changed
What needs to change in order to stop these dysgenic processes?
Complain about this comment
Post 308 - I was actually agreeing with post 302 from Hawkeye_Pierce here ... and perhaps Paul Mason's blog might also be a better one to look at in the future too? ... given he was one of the few to blog about this landmark event ...
I also agree with much of what's said in 305 too, as well as the additional comment made in post 309 too. Thanks for all of them.
Complain about this comment
leanomist (#308) "..why don't you be open & honest, say who you are,"
Read the post(s). Try to learn what the ad hominem is, rather than self-promote. You appear to have no idea what 'open and honest' means.
Complain about this comment
MrTweedy (#307) That's the way to do it!
Complain about this comment
No.313. FrankSz
Agreed.
My point is that simple concepts are dressed up using complex jargon, models, and visuals, to make them seem highly academic. The economy is much simpler than it's often portrayed.
Words such as "chaos", "complex", "algorithmic society", "negative change coefficient", "volumetric method", etc, etc...are routinely used to describe the bleeding obvious. They are the equivalent of "blue sky thinking", "think outside the box", "joined up thinking" and other intensional waffle.
You managed to state your point clearly, using only a few words; whereas professor what's his name takes pages of padding to deliver the same information, but he intentionally complicates it as a way of justifying his paid "research".
Complain about this comment
#318 - Now now JJ, don;t be childish. I wonder which one of you two is the sock-puppet. In any case, your affiliations with the BNP ought to be clear at all.
On a happier note: The presentation I linked to offers asset re-classification as a solution. I understand that in the UK there is talk of placing obligations on shareholders, to ensure that companies are not things that can be traded willy-nilly, without ownership
Complain about this comment
MrT
"You managed to state your point clearly, using only a few words; whereas professor what's his name takes pages of padding to deliver the same information, but he intentionally complicates it as a way of justifying his paid "research"."
This is factually incorrect. As I understand it, this research is unpaid, for one, and second it serves to put into words what is only obvious to a few heterodox thinkers, and to formalise it. These models show for example that subsidising borrowers has a demonstrably better effect and prognosis for recovery than subsidising banks. Why is that obvious?
Complain about this comment
FrankS (#317) "What needs to change in order to stop these dysgenic processes?"
Good.
Our system of (non) government must change, and very soon. The EU Lisbon Treaty and it's 50+ article FCHR is bad news as it proscribes eugenics (Article II) and prescribes liberal-democracy. let's hope Eire does not ratify it. It is therefore subversive, and people need to wake up to this and look at why I say this. Prima facie the alternative is Democratic-Centralism/National Socialism (see Old Labour 1945). It will happen or we will disappear, one or the other. We should be studying what the Chinese are doing, and the N Korean. Even the Muslims. We should learn from what Germany ad Italy got right in the 1930s, what Stalin got right in the 30s-early 50s. What Franco got right, what Portugal got right. The PRC allegedly thought the USSR took a wrong turn after Stalin's death. Stalin was struggling with much the same that the Spanish were in the 1930s (Stalinists vs Trots/Anarchists). Note how we don't even look at alternatives rationally? Note how our media just makes childlike slurs against statist regimes? Who does that benefit given the biological fitness stats? This is extremely bad prognostically.
China passed eugenics legislation in 1995. Have a look. The views of those in the region where you're located are surely also worth airing far more here I suggest. Things have gone from bad to worse there according to the East European TFR data (1.1-1.2) With a TFR of 1.1 a population halves in 30 years (delayed by longevity of earlier generations)! Surely you accept there is a problem there?
Smart people are having small families. Why? The answer is fear.
Complain about this comment
Post 317 - IMHO this is pure garbage I'm afraid (by choosing not being anonymous doesn't mean I'm self-promoting ... it simply means I'm open, honest, and prepared to stand up and be counted - once again you make too many assumptions/translations and because of this you completely miss the point made) ... and you have also failed to answer the questions asked of you again too (see post 294/308). I'm afraid I also have to move on, as I have better things to do, and by doing so I guess I'll be joining the growing number of people ignoring anything you say (e.g. see post 291).
Complain about this comment
#322
Ultimately one must ask if 'leadership' as a role should exist and what it should do. Clearly leadership is necessary, whether as an emergent phenomenon of social monkey-like creatures interacting or as a benefit to society.
If there is to be leadership, and effective leadership, it must not be hampered by being in conflict with legal institutions that seek to prevent it from make effective policies based on appropriate and effective discrimination (categorisation)
In order for things to change in that direction, the main source of discouragement, namely the USA, must be changed. In order for this to happen, the world must first decouple from oil, which is the prop for the dollar 'brand'.
The green movement is encouragement, rightly or wrongly, factually correctly or not, away from oil. All in all, an economy that is unhampered in its development of energy with no technical ceiling on that development is bound to be more optimistic, and the world is bound to be a less confrontational place.
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#320) "In any case, your affiliations with the BNP ought to be clear at all."
Really? Are you sure it isn't the Old Labour Party? Or British (can we still use that word?) Civil Service?
Complain about this comment
#322 JJ
I take it by now that it hasn't escaped your attention that all of those "regimes" have a major image problem.
How would you describe modern Scandanavian countries in terms of Democratic-Centralism/National Socialism?
Complain about this comment
#325
British - it never made sense to me, I am dual nationality, half capitalist, half socialist, and I saw both sides of the propaganda from an early age. I have a mix of European nations in my blood and I never developed a national affiliation or strong sense of national identity.
Complain about this comment
FrankSz
Go ahead and explain the theory clearly and succinctly.
Remember to put both sides of the argument, the pros and cons, and explain the risks involved, all without being partisan.
Then draw a conclusion, and explain why you have chosen it and any trade offs which may have to be made.
"Paid" can mean establishing a "reputation" which brings "recognition" of one's work. Paid does not mean only money.
PS - why do you choose to use the word "subsidising", what is its exact meaning in the context used?
Complain about this comment
Frank
"I understand that in the UK there is talk of placing obligations on shareholders, to ensure that companies are not things that can be traded willy-nilly, without ownership".
Shareholders are the owners of a company in law.
Therefore your statement reads:
"I understand that in the UK there is talk of placing obligations on ownership, to ensure that companies are not things that can be traded willy-nilly, without ownership".
What does that mean?
Complain about this comment
#289 Hawkeye,
Thanks for you reply and for your links/refs etc but I must ask
- have you really thought all this through ?
you did say
'Not having heard of a Tobin Tax before I can't claim to be an expert, but I do agree with it's premise
Which might tell me that you don't know what problem a Tobin Tax was designed to fix, or what instruments it was designed for...
...and yet you are in favour of the principle of a Tobin Tax approach to all transactions.
Is that really logical ?
And when you say
'If it takes a massive collapse of Western currencies to prove this right, then so be it.'
Would you say that acceptance of a massive collapse of Western currencies is a reasonable position to argue from ?
Or is it even likely to ever get you a reasoned hearing?
Or might there be a number of more suitable starting points ?
But as a side issue, can you give a bit of thought to the implications in this question
'From a starting capital of £1000 in a pension pot, how many trades will it take to reduce that pension pot by 10% (ok 9.5% approx) assuming a Transaction Tax of 1% per trade and with each trade being transacted at the same entry/exit price'
Turner appears to have missed the point that turnover is not profit;
and a Transaction Tax (turnover) will reduce Capital
(pensioners, widows and orphans etc get stuffed for ever)
whilst a Profit Tax has the benefit of not reducing their Capital.
Turner and his supporters really do need to think a bit deeper.
Complain about this comment
Frank
I finally reached the end of that chap's presentation, and it boiled down to:
– Redefine capital assets to reduce Ponzi behaviour
• Time-limited Shares (like bonds)
• House valuation on imputed rent
– Maximum secured mortgage debt say 10 times annual rental
OK, the above looks interesting and may prove valid, if only there was a bit more explanation. Please explain how the time limited share ownership would work. What is imputed rent, how is it set and who by? How is the valuation linked to the imputed rent? Lending controls based on a legal mortgages secured against which assets exactly? For example, a company borrows, the loan is secured against the directors' art collection; what is the value of the imputed rental value of a piece of art? Therefore, is the legal mortgage restricted to domestic property only, or commercial property or anything that can be rented, like a truck or van for example?
Where is the exact explanation?
Complain about this comment
leanomist (#323) "I'm afraid I also have to move on, as I have better things to do,"
Jolly good. Does that mean you won't be hawking any more of your 'DNA' stuff and idiosyncratic translations here?
"..and by doing so I guess I'll be joining the growing number of people ignoring anything you say"
This is why we have the problems we currently do. People like yourself can never see this of course as such insight into your behaviour would make it much harder for you to hawk your snake-oil/neologisms.
Complain about this comment
#329 MrT
The Robot & the Rentier
I think what Frank is trying to say is that we currently treat stocks & shares in a highly speculative manner - the curse of the rentier class trying to make money from money. This is where the legal (property right) ownership seems more biased towards exercising its rights (to obtain profits / dividends) rather than its duties (due care & attention on what it is doing and how it is doing it - i.e. Governance).
The example of Credit Mobilier in the 1800s is an excellent example of how stock markets can actually work against the very thing they claim to promote - genuine capital investment & liquidity:
http://democracyandclassstruggle.blogspot.com/2009/05/fictitious-capital-and-credit-schemes.html
"The individual investor can always transform his share of stock into a sum of money – all he has to do is sell it .... this has nothing to do with the 'mobilization' of society's real capital ...... the so-called 'liquidity' of capital investment arising from the development of joint-stock companies means nothing more than that a large part of society's floating capital is pressed into the stock exchange. Because a share's price fluctuates completely independently of the real capital it represents, a shareholder has no inherent interest in his company's real capital. He is primarily concerned with his shares' price .. real capital investment was thus subordinate to securities speculation."
Sorry guys, but for the last 30 years or so, the Chicago school has sold us a whopping great lemon.
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce (#326) "I take it by now that it hasn't escaped your attention that all of those "regimes" have a major image problem."
I have indeed. Guess who owns/controls most of the liberal-democratic press? You won't find those 'image problems' in those vilified countries' won press. Odd that eh?
"How would you describe modern Scandinavian countries in terms of Democratic-Centralism/National Socialism?"
I wouldn't. They are very small (around 4-8m), and still very Northern (cold). There is a general problem with the liberal-democracies when judged by what matters, biological fitness. That doesn't appear to have sunk in. Look up the TFRs of the liberal-democracies (East and West). Let than sink in a bit. It's very simple stuff. When it has, look at differential fertility, as a function of educability, and do the maths in terms of demographic change, productivity, health and social stability etc.
Watch this video several times (original was Feb 2007) - I amnd others have been saying this for a long time, ETS were late to this. Look at the demographics of NYC #5, and think about them very carefully in terms of hegemony, to see what is going on. This is not necessarily intentional, most group competition isn't, it's genetically driven. Just as many women say they don';t dress up for males, much of behaviour is blind to its consequences, nature is tricky that way. I am mainly just describing what is happening, although some would prefer I didn't. This is why certain areas of science are driven off limits ;-)
Complain about this comment
#330 Strategycall
I'll take a punt at n=10.
"Turner appears to have missed the point that turnover is not profit"
And you and many other proponents of the Chicago School doctrine have missed the point that turnover of financial transactions is not "value adding". If the turnover was obtained through venal means, then the profit is venal.
Here is a question I posed many weeks ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2009/07/next_weeks_banking_white_paper.html#P82551450
To me, flipping transactions as per the pension example you give is not REAL value adding. The best way to stop the fictitious economy is to tax it. You completely misunderstand me. I actually want you to stop flipping make-believe ownership of real things (see post #333), and if that means taxing you 'cos that's the only part of your anatomy that has a sense organ, then so be it.
Do you really think Turner does not understand the maths in your post and the implications of his suggestion?
Complain about this comment
#334 JJ
"They are very small (around 4-8m), and still very Northern (cold)."
Have you answered my question about their socio-political struture? I think you gave me a Geography lesson.
My reason for asking is that if they are far closer to the ideal political structure you desire for our country then they would make far better role models. They might be a bit dull, but at least they don't don't suffer from being labelled fascists.
Complain about this comment
JJ
Talking of Geography lessons, was this comment in #312 an academic critique or a weather forecast? "Seems a bit windy."
Tainter provides a framework for understanding ALL societal collapses in terms of economic decline - more precisely diminishing returns to complexity. His theory is based on data & evidence. I'd value your opinion of it.
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce (#336) "Have you answered my question about their socio-political structure? I think you gave me a Geography lesson."
They also have below replacement level TFRs. They have low immigration because of climate and quite strict controls on social security.
"My reason for asking is that if they are far closer to the ideal political structure you desire for our country then they would make far better role models. They might be a bit dull, but at least they don't don't suffer from being labelled fascists."
In the 1930s, Mussolini and Hitler were (like Roosevelt) highly thought of (even in the USA) believe it or not. Now, what happened to change all that? Why did the USSR and USA fall out after WWII, and why is the act of 'holocaust denial' itself a criminal offence in many European countries? Answer, it keeps the home fires of anarchistic liberal-democracy aka the free-market burning... The fact that it is self-destructive does not seem to have dawned on most people in the liberal-democracies, but then frogs slowly heated up in a pan of water don't jump out I am told.
The first thing to do is grasp that what I am saying in terms of outcome measures is accurate. The next is to ask how Jeffrey Sachs got away with giving a Reith Lecture at the BBC on us 'Bursting at the Seams' without an outcry. In fact how did he and his Chicago Boyz friends in Russia ever get away with democratizing the Russia? See their TFR.
When this finally dawns on people, it'll be like waking from a dream. Most are still very much asleep.
PS Regional Assemblies are each the size of an EU NUT (same as a Scandinavian country, more or less. Until the late C18th we were no larger than they. We are now too big, and we're also very dumbed down. Over 99% of London's growth in the next 30 years is projected to be in BME groups - seriously - that's Lord Mayor's Office stats. At age 7, about 23% of Tower Hamlets is White British. Newham, Hackney etc are going that way. This is why more Eastern boroughs like Barking-Dagenham are receptive to the BNP. Why does this matter? Note, it isn't a colour issue. See the two 1919 links I gave foredeckdave to consider.
Complain about this comment
Post 332 - a veiled attempt to stop other people from expressing their views/ideas now? ... Im afraid that'll never work ... in 'your world' is that what 'freedom of speech' and 'democracy' actually look like? Or is it a simple case of do as I say, but not as I do ... Hey ho. Moved on.
Complain about this comment
Hawkeye_Pierce (#337) "Tainter provides a framework for understanding ALL societal collapses in terms of economic decline - more precisely diminishing returns to complexity. His theory is based on data & evidence. I'd value your opinion of it."
I gave it - Fisher (see also Cattell, Lynn, Murray), second only to Darwin who was concerned the same way. 'Complexity'? Note how he uses weasel words. The work I have referenced looks at well researched, composite measures of behaviour at the population level and basically points out that if you allow your country, borough, family to fill up with people who can't produce much apart form trouble and strife (because of low cognitive ability (it's a statistical FACTOR, 'g' - that's like force in physics). Low ability people can't plan, they can't defer gratification, they're like kids), and if you also denude your brighter half of the population (through a low birth rate), i.e those who are more productive/provide care etc, it will all fall apart (think Dr - patient rations in Africa). It's a kind of domestic brain-drain.
It's simple - that's what has happened in the past e.g. Rome, and it's been happening since the demographic-transition to the liberal-democracies. It's quite a slow process, but Blair and chums speeded it up with 'education, education, education'. Can you see how? It's not obvious. These people are Trots in my view (aka Neocons aka Social-Democrats/Social-Fascists). Along the way they capture resources. people are ultimately expendable. they will move on. They are globalists. They are asset strippers. The assets being people.
Complain about this comment
No.333. Hawkeye_Pierce
I haven't had a chance to read the link you posted.
My starting position before reading the article is:
(i) I will buy shares in a company if I know I can sell them and get my money back when required at some point in the future; I accept the price of the shares may go up or down;
(ii) I buy shares in order to receive dividend income. Therefore, the price I am willing to pay for the shares is a function of the likely annual dividend payout, and the length of time I plan to hold the shares;
(iii) If price inflation occurs, pushing up the company's costs, will it be able to pass the increase on to its customers, and protect its profitabilty and dividends? What effect will this have on its share price? Will the shares be a good hedge against inflation for me? If I buy shares in utilities companies, will the dividends cover the cost of my gas, water, and electricity bills?
(iv) Taxation must also be taken into account, from stamp duty payable on buying the shares, to income tax on the dividends, to corporation tax payable by the company and the effect on distributable reserves, to capital gains tax on the increase in price of the shares should I sell them.
The trick is to buy the shares at the right price (of course), but based on the above considerations.
Speculators buy and sell shares in order to realise capital gains in a short space of time. This causes distortions in the price of the shares, as it's the price that is being traded rather than the underlying dividends. Sometimes this works to my advantage, and I buy shares cheaply, and sometimes it works against me when I can't afford to buy them because they are over-priced by speculators. How should we control these speculators, and do we need to try to control them?
Complain about this comment
No.333. Hawkeye_Pierce
Further to my post No.341.
If I buy shares in a company, it's because I believe it will be productive. In other words, the company performs the productive function on behalf of the wider economy.
For example a new water company comes into existence. It issues shares, and with the capital raised, it establishes a network of water sourcing, purification and delivery. As a result, its customers now get clean drinking water straight to their homes, and don't have to rely on bottled water, boiled water from wells, or weak beer. As the company grows, it makes a profit and pays a dividend stream to its shareholders.
The shareholder gets a return on his investment, the company provides a real productive advantage, and the consumer gets an improved product/service at a price he is willing to pay.
The share price goes up in line with general price inflation, and/or any increase in the company's profits/ dividends as a result of the company sourcing and delivering water more efficiently. The company is regulated by the government, to ensure the water is good quality, and that it isn't over-priced to the customer, given the product is a necessity.
People bought the shares when the company was first set up. They then sell the shares when they die, or pass them on to their decendants. The company keeps trading for hundreds of years. If it expands overseas, it will issue more shares, or invest some of its reserves of cash. Its customer base goes up, productivity goes up, profits go up, dividends go up, share price goes up.
This capitalism works. It is real capital; it is not fictitious capital. Real water is being provided relatively efficiently to real people. The profits and dividends are real. As long as the share price does not increase way above the value of the dividends, the share price is real.
Complain about this comment
MrTweedy (#341) How should we control these speculators, and do we need to try to control them?"
In the 1920s, the German National Socialists regarded them as enemies of the people (state), so had quite severe sanctions. See the 25 Points. It was that bad. They will not learn. They are always just doing their job. It's a sleight of hand making venal behaviour legal, but that's what we have done. People can not 'see' why what they are doing is wrong. Watch the I, Psychopath short film.
Complain about this comment
An interesting headline over at Yahoo Finance
'British Economy Shrinks Less than Feared'
ONS reports a 0.7% Q2 GDP drop, they were expecting more of a drop.
Worst year on year drop since records began in 1955.
So - question - is a less drop than feared, good news or bad news, considering it is the worst y-on-y drop since 1955 ?
(ftse up 39 btw)
Complain about this comment
leanomist (#339 "Post 332 - a veiled attempt to stop other people from expressing their views/ideas now? ... Im afraid that'll never work ..."
Keep digging.
Elsewhere it's called education. Upon you, it appears to have been wasted. Consider that writ large and the penny may drop.
Complain about this comment
345 BOF
"Elsewhere it's called education. Upon you, it appears to have been wasted. Consider that writ large and the penny may drop."
And where exactly would "Elsewhere" be? If you had any true idea of the nature and philsophy of education you would understand that what you have been engaged upon above is no more than propoganda and ego-scratching. I see that you still haven't understood a thing about European political history since 1900 as you ramblings prove that.
As for your #317, obviscation of the first order! I'll put it more simply for you. I doubt anybody apart from leanomist cares who you are but many (apart from just me) are sick and tired of you hideing behind the ad hominem and then making personal attacks. It merely shows cowerdice and a missunderstanding of the principle.
So let's look again at some of your favourite topics:
IQ Does it have any relevance to human value or potential? The majority of studies would agree that it does not. It is an unreliable and poor indicator. It's only benefit being that as it reduces value and potential to a number and is easily manipulated. Therefore the choice of IQ is based upon minimising dissatisfaction rather than maximising satisfaction.
SATS Though I note you have strayed from this topic for while. At both an academic level and a practitioner level, SATS as they exist in the UK have been roundly criticsied for being next to useless. Unlike your assertion, they do not test IQ, the scores are manipulated to to give an approximation of a useless indictor in terms of development.
EUGENICS. So China has eugenic legislation does it. Would you care to enlighten the audience of the terms and scope of that legislation? Is there a prohibition of procreation with differing ethnic groups? Is there any legislation based upon the purity of an ethnic group - if so where? Is there any policy to liquidate non pure chinese?
COGNITION Having continually dismissed cognitive theory and practice without any evidence to support your contention, you then have the audacity to use it as a major plank in your post #304.
You still remain a fraud and instead of navel scrathching are actively engaged upon a programme of ego-scratching.
Complain about this comment
" I think what Frank is trying to say is that we currently treat stocks & shares in a highly speculative manner - the curse of the rentier class trying to make money from money. This is where the legal (property right) ownership seems more biased towards exercising its rights (to obtain profits / dividends) rather than its duties (due care & attention on what it is doing and how it is doing it - i.e. Governance).
"
Yes. By ownership I mean the responsibility of being an owner. The fact that simply holding shares is legally defined as ownership is part of the problem.
Now that guy Tweed is either being INTENTIONALLY obtuse or is simply lacking the intelligence to grasp what is being discussed. In either case it's a good reason for him and his BNP ilk to take themselves off the forum, because one way or another they cannot contribute. Further MrT, you've openly admitted you yourself are nothing more than a parasitic speculator. If you want to redeem yourself, offer solutions, offer some productive behaviour, or invest in people like me.
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#347) Maybe Credit Cruches have silver-linings? Maybe if done properly, they limit the activity of the likes of foredeckdave and Leanomist? Perhaps 'BNP types' like myself and MrTweedy should be complaining to the Credit Crunchers that they didn't go far enough, as some of the reprobates are still peddling their snake-oil? ;-)
Complain about this comment
No 346 "EUGENICS. So China has eugenic legislation does it. Would you care to enlighten the audience of the terms and scope of that legislation? Is there a prohibition of procreation with differing ethnic groups? Is there any legislation based upon the purity of an ethnic group - if so where? Is there any policy to liquidate non pure chinese?"
As far as I know, the Chinese consider anyone with a Chinese surname to be Chinese despite whatever admixture of other "races" in their genetic make-up !! Eugenics has/had *NOT* been part of the Chinese philosophy/concept since when all good Europeans were bashing each other with stone axes !!
As a matter of fact, most Southern Chinese have a good dose of Southern tribal/Tibeto-Burman blood in them. And many Northern Chinese have large dose of Mongol/Manchu or Central Asian blood in them. But they are *ALL* Chinese !!
Complain about this comment
ASSUMPTIONS: THEY'LL BE THE DEATH OF US
ishkandar (#349) "EUGENICS. So China has eugenic legislation does it."
Yes. What's more, there are serious objections to Article II of the FCHR proscribing it for the EU, but one needs to think about why. One also needs to grasp what eugenics is, and what it was designed to address (dysgenesis) and by whom. Finally, one has to grasp how opposition to this has in fact been a tool of demographic warfare against the unwary but self-righteously naive, in the liberal-democracies.
Perhaps your understanding of (tacit assumption about) eugenics is as misconceived (well conditioned?) as some others' conception of National Socialism aka Socialism in One Country. ;-)
Complain about this comment
#331 . Twee
It's all on the site. Go dig.
Complain about this comment
ishkandar (#349) "Is there a prohibition of procreation with differing ethnic groups?"
What were the Nuremberg Laws really all about? They were about group competition. The Nuremberg rules were modelled on Jewish practice! They are still used by Israel to determined Judaism for immigration and marriage purposes! Might you havebeen hood-winked by hypocrisy?
How much African, S Asian or European immigration is there into the PRC?
The reality is that groups assortively mate and compete for resources. It's in all the pairing stats, even in multicultural nations. Have you not noticed? Germany, after WWI, had a problem with its birth rate (a post demographic transition problem in fact). That's why they had a pronatist birth program. This was exploited for propaganda purposes as some nations don't like statism, it is bad for their economic interests.
Some anarchists don't even like the BBC.....See Murdoch.
Complain about this comment
leanomist (#339) "a veiled attempt to stop other people from expressing their views/ideas"
I'm very explicit about what I criticize, I thought you'd noticed? The problem with those who see 'veiled talk' is that they're prone to make stuff up. Look into the intensional idioms of propositional attitude to see how that works. These idioms are great for creative writers peddling snake-oil like 'the DNA of xxxx' which tries to appear as science.
'Management science' is full of this. It was the sociology of the 80s, 90s and 00's. It's pseudoscience.
Complain about this comment
No 352 "How much African, S Asian or European immigration is there into the PRC?"
It seems that your grasp of history is not as extensive as you have assumed !! The Sub-continentals have been going to China from one of four Silk Routes (two Northern and one Southern sea and one Southern land routes) for nigh on 3,000 years. A lot of them settled in trading enclaves wherever they traded !!
Vikings have reached China during the First Millennium, mainly as caravan guards, over both the Northern Silk Routes. Some have settled there too !! Persians, Jews and Arabs have traded and settled there for millennia.
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha was an Indian prince. How did you think an Indian-originated religion reach China ?? By flying carpets ??
Several Chinese prime ministers, eminent strategists and scholars have the surname "Ssu-ma" which is a Sinicised version of Shimon (or Simon, in English). How did they get it for *NO* foreigners ever settled in China ??
The famous Admiral Cheng Ho (aka Sam Bo or "Three treasures") was a Muslim. Several of his ancestors had performed the Haj. He was descended from Arab origins and spoke perfect Arabic,which helped enormously when his treasure fleet visited the Arab lands. There are theories that his 7 voyages gave rise the the Muslim legends of the 7 voyages of Simbad the Sailor !!
Calcutta, Madras, Calicut and some parts of (now) Sri Lanka have fairly large populations of mixed Chinese ancestry. They have even re-discovered persons of mixed Chinese ancestry in Madagascar.
Try visiting Shanghai, Hong Kong and Macau. There are a great many Eurasian families there !!
Is all that eugenics ?? Your beloved National Socialist (Nazi) Party would have considered all of them mongrels !!
Perhaps you are thinking of the Japanese (the other ally of the National Socialists) who are still quite racist to this day !! Ask any Korean living in Japan !!
And if you are thinking of numbers, then consider how many people in Britain have mixed Inuit or Inca ancestry !!
It's all a matter of mixing occurring where there are opportunities and, as far as I am concerned, mixed ancestries *IMPROVE* the gene pool !!
Complain about this comment
Addendum to 354 - "Some anarchists don't even like the BBC.....See Murdoch."
Well, he's in the majority, then. I'm not that pleased to pay my TV license fees either !!
Complain about this comment
ishkandar (#354) "The Sub-continentals have been going to China from one of four Silk Routes (two Northern and one Southern sea and one Southern land routes) for nigh on 3,000 years."
That way well be so, but please read my posts more carefully. I said the PRC. When was it established? What happens when these National Socialist nation states establish themselves? Do they not become isolating communities. See North Korea. Look what has happened to the UK. The Conservatives passed legislation which made immigration easier, as well as anti-racism legislation. Look into who was behind the latter. Who benefited and how? It is a classic strategy which has been used in the USA to secure hegemony. Just look at the NYC statistics. This is human group competition at work. It is also known as politics.
Please have the intellectual honesty to recognise when you are mistaken as it provides opportunity to learn. Japan has been demographically deteriorating ever since it had liberal-democracy imposed upon it by the USA. This is a form of demographic poison (or warfare) judged by the TFRs. Who benefits from domestically peddling and exporting this?
(#354) "Well, he's in the majority, then. I'm not that pleased to pay my TV license fees either !!"
Truth is not a function of consensus. The truth of the statement that the Earth goes around the sun and not vice-versa is not a function of how many people believe the former. The facts of the matter have nothing to do with who does and does not believe them. This problem is a sign of our solipsistic, anarchistic/narcissistic, times. and will be the death of us. I am pointing out what is happening. Please make an effort to distinguish what you personally want and don't want, from what is the case.
Complain about this comment
Post 346 fordeckdave - to be honest I don't give a stuff who JadedJean is. IMHO their recent outbursts say it all ... for example:
1. The fact that JadedJean openly refers to the fact they're a "BNP Type" (Post 348).
2. The continual focus they have on 'picking out'/'quoting' a small part of everyone's comments / sentence and creating personal attacks (see point 5 as well), rather than listening/responding to the overall observations/comments others are making (far too many to mention - and virtually every one I've ever seen!)
3. The continual failure to answer any of the fundamental questions asked of them (e.g. Posts 294, 298, 308, 323, 339, 346,353 ... and again there are numerous more even in this one single post).
4. The level of delusion/arrogance arguably shown e.g. "If people do not follow up what I post, it is their loss not mine" (Post 304).
5. The apparent confusion/hypocrisy shown ... e.g. stating "my criticisms are of propositions ... are not random ... nor are they unwarranted .. nor are they personal" (Post 303) and then in the next breath 'randomly' referring, in an 'unwarranted way', to specific individuals as "reprobates" (Post 348) ... and I'm sure this point will be lost on them too.
There are many more things that could obviously be added to this list (feel free to add more if you wish) ... and perhaps rather than asking them questions (which they do not answer), or ignore them (which they clearly, and erroneously, translate as 'succeeding'), we should just repeatedly point to this list, or one like it, every time the decide to start personally attacking people from their cowardly position of anonymity.
Complain about this comment
A PUBLIC SERVICE
leanomist (#357) "to be honest I don't give a stuff who JadedJean is."
Honest? You said you'd 'moved on', being so busy etc.
You have as much insight into your behaviour as foredeckdave. Having said that, it's very common in our liberal-democracies, and some think the frequency has increased since the Axis II PDs found their way into DSM-III a generaton ago. Is it just increased diagnosis?
Describing one's behaviour as one would like it to appear to others rather than as it really is, is classic self-deception, and in extreme forms, it's pathologically narcissistic. I've been suggesting that these problems are probably highly prevalent in the Financial Service Sector and its support services. After Hollywood and prisons it probably has the highest prevalence of the PDs (see Hare expressing the same views).
One is judged by the company one keeps ;-)
Show us otherwise.
Complain about this comment
If you've bothered to read Post 358 I think you'll find points 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Post 357 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/08/qe_more_to_do.html#P85023144
are all evident (and highly relevant) again ...
Complain about this comment
IShkandar
"...mixed ancestries.."
Undoubtedly. It's I think down to the fact that whenever there's some major upheaval one area tends to be attractive for a lot of people. Like the US to WW2 and some cold war events, or Bohemia being kicked around like a football from empire to empire. Then a lot of bright and good looking people head to those areas. Even nationally, your local population centers (eg: London) have a damn sight more in the way of good looking women than the equivalent population of outlying villages. Enough said.
Complain about this comment
No 356 "I said the PRC. When was it established? What happens when these National Socialist nation states establish themselves? Do they not become isolating communities."
I have read your post carefully and if you had looked further into the information I gave you, you will discover that it was the *PRC* who "re-discovered" the persons of mixed Chinese origins in Madagascar !! They even offered one girl there a free scholarship to study medicine in Beijing. Strange way of conducting eugenics !!
North Korea (DPRK) is *NOT* China (PRC). Or are you suggesting that Britain is Stalinist because it is near Russia ?? Please don't mix apples and oranges in your arguments. It makes for very poor persuasion.
"Japan has been demographically deteriorating ever since it had liberal-democracy imposed upon it by the USA."
The Japanese have been anti-everyone else since the year dot and has nothing to do with their current government !! And their "Liberal Democratic" Party is neither Liberal nor Democratic !! They are a dynastic bunch. The current politicians and Prime ministers are/were sons or grandsons of former prime ministers and cabinet ministers and they are quite racist to the extent that they believe in the exploits of war criminals and the massacre of other peoples.
"Please have the intellectual honesty to recognise when you are mistaken as it provides opportunity to learn."
Do a little more research and have a little more "intellectual honesty" to accept the *YOU* have *NOT* learnt as much as you think you have and are not omniscient !!
""Well, he's in the majority, then. I'm not that pleased to pay my TV license fees either !!"
Truth is not a function of consensus. The truth of the statement that the Earth goes around the sun and not vice-versa is not a function of how many people believe the former. The facts of the matter have nothing to do with who does and does not believe them. This problem is a sign of our solipsistic, anarchistic/narcissistic, times. and will be the death of us. I am pointing out what is happening. Please make an effort to distinguish what you personally want and don't want, from what is the case."
What has this got to do with the price of bagels ?? Stick to the point and stop waffling !! 0 out of 10 for effort and 0 out of 10 for content !!
Complain about this comment
JJ
"The truth of the statement that the Earth goes around the sun and not vice-versa is not a function of how many people believe the former. "
That depends on what you accept as a definition of 'truth'.
One day when you are older, or wiser, whichever comes first, you will understand that the one truth is that there is no truth. God is fiction, JJ.
Complain about this comment
Yeah JJ you have to admit. When it comes to geography and politics, Ishkandar has got you well and truly nailed.
Complain about this comment
ishkandar (#361) Sadly, it appears that your background is the humanities (like so many posting here). Sadly again, that doesn't prepare one for empirical reality, just story collection and 'arguing'.
Alas, argument (it's a logical thing) has absolutely nothing to do with persuasion, that's rhetoric. I've covered the difference at length in these blogs.
I have been informing you of empirical facts, not trying to persuade you. Ignore them, or argue with them, at your peril...
Re-read the posts and you might learn something. The reason why liberal-democracies are now in so much trouble is because so many living within them (comprising them) are detached (alienated) from empirical reality. You included - you are too content with plausible stories.
People today have been bred and misled to be primarily concerned with rhetoric at the expense of reality. It's why science is taken up so little both at A level and university.
You last paragraph is classic ;-).
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#362) "That depends on what you accept as a definition of 'truth'."
Is that true?
Stay off the drugs FrankSz.
Complain about this comment
Addendum (#364) Here's the problem in a nutshell:- We have a major cultural/demographic problem in the liberal-democracies. Most of those who have had to have this pointed out to them simply don't know how to respond to it, in fact, they erroneously think that the way that others think and express themselves is very similar to how they themselves have been taught to think and express themselves. The sad fact is that this is not the case.
Instead of thinking that you are not persuaded, or that you need to argue, what you should do is ask yourself why you don't understand and why someone like myself would bother to say that it's obvious that you don't.
When you take that on board and treat your puzzlement as a cue to learn, we might begin communicating. Writ large, if more people did that, we might have some hope of getting out of the mess we are now in. We now sent nearly 50% instead of 5% to university, and most of them are doing arts subjects. We have an economy which is 80% Service Sector. We have females dominating the workplace even though there are twice the number of males with IQs of 120 as females and the ratio pretty much exponentially increases as one moves to the right of the curve (it's a normal curve thing, with females having a narrower range than males). All professionals know we have a major problem here. That's a culture killer (ask the Taliban). Then there are the other group differences...
Life is not about self, image and story telling....That's just Hollywood stuff...
Complain about this comment
#365
JadedJean:
"leanomist ....
Read the post(s). Try to learn what the ad hominem is, rather than self-promote. You appear to have no idea what 'open and honest' means. "
JadedJeam:
"Is that true?
Stay off the drugs FrankSz.
"
Now, JadedJean, as you are now probably aware, I am very glad you said that.
If you are going to be competitive, you must acknowledge that there must be a winner.
You are a spectacular loser. This is no surprise, though. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, and you set yourself up for this.
I do hope that all the others, foredeckdave the butt of your oblique abuse, leanomist, libkurt et al, cherish this moment, because you have finally undone yourself with your own words.
Ad hominem?
Keep taking drugs? Now I do hope there is nothing actually criminal in your recommendations or insinuations. Irrespective, I would like you to explain why I should or should not keep taking "drugs" and what you categorise as a "drug" and why you should do so.
JJ, you are a fool.
You have invested too much in a narrow absolutist stance. Even the uneducated can see that this is pointless. It is nice to have standards, but we all know..there are none. Go home, if you can find one.
Complain about this comment
To all:
Let this post, and the above, be an anchor for links from other posts. Whenever anyone wants to point out the hypocrisy in JJ's attacks on others' perported logical fallacies, here it is. The fool rants for pages about ad hominems and wotnot, and here we have it - when confronted with superior knowledge, the fool quickly turns to puerile insults. Let us waste no further time here.
Mr David Clift, the floor is yours....
Complain about this comment
#366 BOF
That YOU think that , "We have a major cultural/demographic problem in the liberal-democracies." is quite apparent. However, that does not make it true. Neither does it mean that of all the problems the Western Democracies face, this is the most important one.
Now, oh great empiricist, for somebody who can quote the constitution of the PRC, it sold be a very easy matter for you to give us chapter and verse of that country's eugenic legislation. Along with others, I await your response with interest.
You should thank ishkandar for the lesson on Chinese history, you could learn from it. In a similar vain, you should also thank me for correcting you on your misunderstanding of European history and politics. As you have claimed for yourself, these corrections are made solely for your own good.
BTW, further to your # 352, I asked the Isreali Embassy today if there was any legal prohiition on either Isrealies or those of Jewish descent from marrying a non-jew or Isreali in Isreal. I was assured that no such law existed. Now who is making it up?
Complain about this comment
#369
That we have internet access. That we know what words are. That we understand latin origins of words. That we know the difference between latin character sets and cyrillic, or kanji, and that some of us can even transcribe. That in pictures we can communicate. That we can gesticulate. That we can gesticulate hunger, thirst, cold. That we can be united in love of our children....
This is humanism, and it is antithesis to the claptrap peddled by the likes of JJ and the nationalists.
We are humans, we are animals. We do as we do, we live on this little planet that oscillates in vast space around our star, the Sun. All we ACTUALLY do, in behavioural terms, is go round and round and round and round, year after year, century after century, and nothing makes a blind bit of difference.
Complain about this comment
No 370 Not forgetting that we also eat, sleep, procreate and die !! :-)
No 369 Eastern (from Near East to the Far East) history had/has been rather of a hobby of mine. Unfortunately, earning a crust tended to intrude rather heavily into my time. Now that I'm semi-retired, I will have to time to indulge my passion !! :-)
Complain about this comment
FrankSz (#368) There are no standards? Not even your own..? Looks like a hissy fit. Good for the free-market I guess :-)
Complain about this comment
On a more economic note -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8228371.stm
Notable, was this paragraph - "The mission was expected to cost 3.8bn rupees (£45m; $78m), considerably less than Japanese and Chinese probes sent to the Moon last year."
Considering that the effort was centered in Bangalore, the centre of Indian IT, shouldn't they have learnt the famous IT acronym - WYPIWYG - What You Pay Is What You Get !! You pay cheap, you take your chances !!
Why do I get the feeling that someone over there is going to get a Bangalore (torpedo, not out-sourcing) ??
Complain about this comment
Addendum (#372) The ad hominem is invalid because who affirms or denies a proposition is irrelevant to its truth-value. This is why it's immaterial who someone's identity is here, i.e. because it neither adds nor detracts from the truth of what's said. Criticizing someone for their posts is not, in itself, an ad hominem, it's just criticism.
A lead article does not have greater value than a commentator's because it's written by a BBC journalist.
A product does not have greater value because it's endorsed by a celebrity.
Complain about this comment
#374 BOF
"A product does not have greater value because it's endorsed by a celebrity."
Shows just how little you actually know about the real drivers of consumer behaviour.
As satisfisers, a product may have far greater value to an individual consumer than another of equal utility because it is associated with an idividual or a set of beliefs.
When you actually understand what the term behaviour means (and not the limited sense in which you attempt to use the word) then please fell free to come back and discuss the matter.
Complain about this comment
#371 ishkandar,
My hobby has been European history and as part of that, the political and social developments. I find that it really helps to put current issues in perspective.
Complain about this comment
Post 368 FrankSz - If you're asking me to briefly 'take the floor' then I would probably say ...
"... This floor should be dedicated to everyone who wants to listen and learn from others, and who also want to contribute, in a positive way, to all the insightful & intelligent comments made here. I have personally learnt a great deal from numerous comments, ideas & references made here (and often refer to them in my own comments/blog too) and I look forward to continuing to do so to ... and if I'm able to post a few comments/ideas that also prove useful/helpful to others in return then all the better ...
... However this floor should not be used by people wishing to personally attack everyone, or to spam/bully everyone, all the time from a cowardly position of anonymity. IMHO 'freedom of speech', powered by communications technology (internet/mobility), is something we need to cherish, as together they will eventually reverse the 'erosion of our civil liberties' and transform 'power', 'politics' and 'economics' forever ... however IMHO if people wish to see society become more curious (in order to improve society as a whole) they shouldn't try to use 'bullying' tactics to do it - as such approaches will not work ..."
I hope this is useful/helpful.
Complain about this comment
No 376 European history is also quite fascination although an enforce