The 08-?? Depression

[mjdgreg]

Multiple property owners that buy cheap and sell on for profit or rent out must take a big portion of the blame then eh?

All I'm doing is buying up Doncaster to put a roof over some poor unfortunate souls heads because they've  fallen for the leftie claptrap that it is your duty to borrow and spend as much as you can to keep the economy afloat. I prefer to live within my means and save some of my money which I then invest to the benefit of me and my family and others (usually lefties). I am also doing my bit to sort out the demographics time-bomb by putting a roof over the heads of foreign workers as well.

It may interest you to know that the last house I bought, I fully expect to go down in value not up. Because I am a big picture sort of person, I am prepared to take this loss as eventually I will make a profit when the market has bottomed out due to continuing to receive rent. At the moment the rent is only just covering the losses on the depreciation of my asset. So I would argue that I am being very philanthropic and executing my social responsibilities in a very caring way.

Just be grateful that there are people like me about.You being a leftie that relies on the state to look after you, may one day need a roof over your head (when the state can no longer borrow money to keep you in the style to which you have become accustomed). I will be there waiting with a set of keys to a house for you (providing you haven't spent all your money and got loads of debt).

[mjdgreg]

Given that this explanation of growth excludes technological advancement,

Wrong. This is included in 'rising labour productivity'.

[mjdgreg]

When the fallacies of one argument are made clear to you, you simply choose another argument and carry on as though nothing had happened

Followed by

Quote from: mjdgreg on November 04, 2012, 11:58:59 pm

Look, it's very simple. Labour created a housing boom and consumers borrowed to the hilt in the expectation of ever rising house prices. They have now realised that this was an illusion and are not about to go on a spending spree any time soon, as a lot of people are now in debt and will be for many years to come.

Banks are sat on a lot of potential debt from lending against increasing house prices. Now house prices are falling the consumer and the banks are not about to get into even more debt so the economy is stuffed. The last thing we need is Government borrowing even more money to get the country into even more debt.

There will be no sustained recovery until the housing market reaches the bottom and this is going to take years because interest rates are too low to sort it out quickly. Add in the demographics time-bomb and we are going to be in a bad way for many years. Simply saying that everything will be all right if the Government spends a load more money we haven't got is the biggest load of cobblers I've ever read. You show no real understanding of what is going on because you are so left wing you can't see reason.

If only I was the benevolent dictator of the country things would soon be sorted out.

I believe the most appropriate term is Q.E.D.

Look, I've already explained that I've totally demolished all your arguments in previous threads. I've got a life and will not repeat it all again just to keep you happy.

I don't constantly berate you for not picking up on the demographics argument. It's obvious to anyone that you hadn't given this area of economics a seconds thought even though it is the most powerful economic force there is. I don't need to berate you because I just let the readers make their own minds up.

You're complete lack of regard for demographics, exposes you as not having a clue what you are on about. You'd do better to take on-board what I'm saying before it's too late.

[Glyn_Wigley]

You're complete lack of regard for demographics, exposes you as not having a clue what you are on about.

I remember when you had a complete lack of regard for demographics. Presumably you had no clue what you were on about then too.

[mjdgreg]

I remember when you had a complete lack of regard for demographics. Presumably you had no clue what you were on about then too.

I've always been aware of demographics. I had been waiting many months to see if Billy would ever bring it up unprompted. Unfortunately I have decided it was never going to happen so I have now enlightened him.

[MachoMadness]

I remember when you had a complete lack of regard for demographics. Presumably you had no clue what you were on about then too.

I've always been aware of demographics. I had been waiting many months to see if Billy would ever bring it up unprompted. Unfortunately I have decided it was never going to happen so I have now enlightened him.

[Glyn_Wigley]

He can't even remember what he's written in this thread!

So much for the infallible photographic memory!!!

[mjdgreg]

I remember when you had a complete lack of regard for demographics. Presumably you had no clue what you were on about then too.

He can't even remember what he's written in this thread!

So much for the infallible photographic memory!!!

pmsl. You're the one with the bad memory. I defy you to find one statement (you can even use other threads) where I have stated that I have a complete lack of regard for demographics. You won't find one.

It would be enlightening for us all if you could clarify your statement 'He can't even remember what he's written in this thread!' I'm sure I'm not the only one baffled by this comment.

As far as my photographic memory goes I've never stated it was infallible. It is particularly susceptible to error after several ales have been consumed. However, I have yet to come across anyone who has got even 5% of my amazing powers of recall.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've always been aware of demographics. I had been waiting many months to see if Billy would ever bring it up unprompted. Unfortunately I have decided it was never going to happen so I have now enlightened him.

OK Mick, so when you said this a couple of weeks back...

I've come across some astounding evidence about deflation which I have weighed up and this has led to me changing my view.

...and the evidence that caused you to change your mind was the fact (sic) that demographics means that we are going to have deflation,  was that:

a) You being a little tinker and being economical with the truth because you knew all along the effect that demographics has on de/inflation?
b) Genuinely new information to you because before reading that you didn't appreciate the effect that demographics has on de/inflation?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Thanks BST, that's what I remembered and Mick obviously hasn't, despite his phenomenal memory.

[Filo]

Done like a Kipper, again, I`d say!

[mjdgreg]

...and the evidence that caused you to change your mind was the fact (sic) that demographics means that we are going to have deflation,  was that:

a) You being a little tinker and being economical with the truth because you knew all along the effect that demographics has on de/inflation?
b) Genuinely new information to you because before reading that you didn't appreciate the effect that demographics has on de/inflation?

You're the one being economical with the truth, trying to make out that the only reason I've changed my mind is all down to demographics. Simply not true. Your memory is as bad as Glyn-Wriggly's. 

[Glyn_Wigley]

Only quoting you, Mick. Your words not ours.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Go on then Mick. What was the dramatic new information you read that made you switch your mind from rampant inflation to rampant deflation being the big threat?

I'm sat comfortably waiting for the explanation.

[mjdgreg]

Go on then mjdgreg. What was the dramatic new information you read that made you switch your mind from rampant inflation to rampant deflation being the big threat?

Twisting my words again. I don't ever remember using the words 'dramatic' and 'rampant'.

Anyway, I seem to remember that the main reason I thought we were headed for deflation is that every major debt bubble in history has always been followed by deflation. In 2008 the latest debt bubble peaked and history tells us that deflation will inevitably follow.

Also the government thinks it can inflate the economy by creating debt via quantitative easing but it will fail. Public sector debt is only a third of the size of private sector debt so what happens in the private sector has far more impact on the economy. Unfortunately for the government the private sector is deleveraging as fast as it possibly can and it always wins the inflation/deflation battle.

Don't believe me? Just look at what has happened to Japan.

I think you'll agree that your assertion that I said deflation is going to happen solely  because of demographics is way off the mark. I will accept your apology instantly and forget this incident ever happened as it is obvious that my memory is much better than yours. 

[mjdgreg]

Only quoting you, mjdgreg. Your words not ours.

I'm confused. Where did you quote me? What words did I use?

[Glyn_Wigley]

I think you'll agree that your assertion that deflation only being down to demographics is way off the mark. I will accept your apology instantly and forget this incident ever happened as it is obvious that my memory is much better than yours. 

The only person who's asserted that deflation is down to demographics is YOU. In fact you say it's unavoidable.

So you can take any 'apology' you fantasise you've been offered and stick it where your memory (and the rest of your head) seems to be languishing.

You also have a hilarious opinion as to what quantative easing does. I'd love to know how you think increasing M1 creates debt.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Only quoting you, mjdgreg. Your words not ours.

I'm confused. Where did you quote me? What words did I use?

Of course you're confused. It's the natural order of things.

[mjdgreg]

I'm still waiting for you to show where you quoted me and what words I used.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'm still waiting for you to show where you quoted me and what words I used.

I didn't, BST did it before I could in his post at 04:46:27 PM. I confirmed in the very next post that the words of yours he quoted were those I meant. But they're still your words that were quoted, whomsoever quoted them (and I never said that I'd quoted them myself either).

[mjdgreg]

You also have a hilarious opinion as to what quantative easing does. I'd love to know how you think increasing M1 creates debt.

You really should know this stuff. This is how it's supposed to work. The BOE reduces interest rates to near zero and then floods the markets with more money supply to promote private lending. They basically print money, which these days is done electronically, and purchase bank assets, thereby increasing money supply. This brings down the interest rates further. The idea is that now the banks have more money available to lend to consumers and businesses who in turn can spend the money back into the economy. The consumers and businesses that then borrow this money then incur debt.

[mjdgreg]

I didn't, BST did it before I could in his post at 04:46:27 PM. I confirmed in the very next post that the words of yours he quoted were those I meant. But they're still your words that were quoted, whomsoever quoted them (and I never said that I'd quoted them myself either).

I'm still waiting because BST did not use any of my words about demographics. He only quoted some of my words about deflation. Deflation and demographics are two different things.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

I always used to think you were Peter Schiff. I've changed my mind. The way that you insist on telling a lie over and over again in the hope that it becomes a truth makes you more like Mitt Romney.

Let's get this right. Are you NOW saying that demographics do NOT have a dramatic effect on in/deflation? And that the real reason for your Damascene conversion was that you found out that debt bubbles are always followed by deflation?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Twisting my words again. I don't ever remember using the words 'dramatic' and 'rampant'.

Mick
No you didn't use those precise words. Out here in the real world, words are used as signifiers and, as long as the meaning is not changed beyond recognition, other words may be substituted.

So, you said that you had "come across some astonishing evidence" about deflation. Out here in the real world, we could substitute "dramatic" for "astonishing" without changing the meaning of that phrase.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are Humpty Dumpty and words mean precisely what you intend them to mean. In which case, can you give us a Micktionary so that we can interpret what a word means when you use it?

Meantime, back to the case in point. What was this "astonishing" evidence that you were ignorant about before? It can't have been demographics can it Mick? Because you knew about the effect of demographics all along.

So. What was it?

[Filo]

In 2008 the latest debt bubble peaked and history tells us that deflation will inevitably follow.

Don't believe me? Just look at what has happened to Japan.

Mick, I`m sure you`ll remember how every time BST made any historical reference to support what he was saying, especially Japan, you just either ignored those references or dismissed them as not relevent! You`re backed into a corner Mick, and making yourself look dafter by the minute, those Diploma`s they dish out at High Melton must be ten a penny!

[mjdgreg]

No you didn't use those precise words.

Thank you. Please tell that to your acolyte Mr Wriggly.

[mjdgreg]

Meantime, back to the case in point. What was this "astonishing" evidence that you were ignorant about before? It can't have been demographics can it Mick? Because you knew about the effect of demographics all along.

So. What was it?

Again you try to twist my words. I've never said that I had come across some 'astonishing' evidence that I was ignorant about before. I know pretty much all there is to know about economics but I am always coming across new information that expands my knowledge. Unlike you I am prepared to keep myself up to date with the latest information and adjust my views accordingly.

What is it that you don't understand about what I posted at 12:11:05? This clearly states 2 very good reasons why there would be deflation with no mention of demographics.

Of course demographics also has an effect but you are trying to paint me as not ever having heard of demographics before and saying that my change of view is totally down to demographics.

I think you're just a bit annoyed that in all the drivel you've posted you've never mentioned demographics before. Not even when you were banging on about Japan.

I don't go around saying that therefore you have never heard of demographics. I suspect even Mr Wriggly had heard of demographics before I mentioned it. You are just making yourself look dafter by the day.

[BillyStubbsTears]

OK Mick

We're getting close to the endgame now.

Here are the facts.
1) In July, you were saying that inflation was "the biggest threat to us all."

2) In October, you said that deflation was the big threat.

3) You explained this change of opinion as being due to your having found "astonishing evidence" that led you to re-appraise your views.

4) The evidence you presented was that
a) Debt bubbles have previously led to deflation.
b) Demographic changes lead to deflationary pressures

5) You're now saying that you were ALWAYS aware of the effects of demographics.

So. Tell us. What was the "astonishing evidence" that you found that you weren't factoring into your consistent and stridently held opinion back in July?

Simple question.

[mjdgreg]

I can't get my breath. I've explained my position very clearly. I've presented three valid reasons why  I believe deflation is now inevitable, yet you try and twist my words again and only present two! At least it's two now and not just one.

You really are a first class pedant, but seeing as I'm in a good mood I will humour you further. Looking at the overall picture I am now in the deflation camp. Demographics is just one part of the reason (not the whole reason as you like to make out). Just for you, I will go into a bit more detail about demographics.

I have stated that I have always been aware of the effects of demographics. This is true, I have. What has happened is that I have become aware that the deflationary effects of an ageing population is greater than I initially believed. I've always believed that an ageing population is deflationary but thought that the inflationary pressures being stoked up by the BOE would offset this and we would still have inflation (though not as great as it would have been due to the deflationary effects of an ageing population). I've also explained about the 'baby boomers' in previous posts so I'm not going to do it again.

So hopefully now you are clearer about where I'm coming from. If not, then I really don't think I can help you further. Just take it on the chin and admit you don't like what I'm saying because you have been blissfully unaware of the factors I mention.

I've done you a big favour by expanding your knowledge of the economy. I just hope you'll take it on-board and change your spend spend spend philosophy. It really makes my piss boil that you think it is OK for future generations to pick up the bill. Harden up man and start to live within your means.   

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right. Thanks for clearing that up.

So, in summary, you were ALWAYS aware of the deflationary effect of demographics and ALWAYS aware that deflation has always been a major problem after credit bubble crashes.

I'm still not sure though what the astonishing new evidence was that you found. Sure, you posted a statement of what you think (or had read), but that was opinion, not evidence. You gave no indication of what the quantitative effect of the deflationary pressures from demographic change and post-debt bubble crash effects are. Neither did you suggest quantitative values for what the inflationary pressure of QE might be. You simply stated as a matter of fact that QE will not work.

None of that is evidence Mick. It's unsubstantiated opinion. So, we've finally arrived at the end point. What you meant all along Mick was that in July you held Opinion A and in October, you had a complete volte-face and now hold the diametrically opposed Opinion B. With no evidence presented to explain why that change occurred.

Glad we finally got there.


PS: It's not the first time in this thread that you have confused "opinion" and "evidence". When I asked you for the reasons why you generally think that the IMF are clowns, but sometimes don't, I'd expected an evidence-based explanation of why you disagreed or agreed with them over particular issues. Perhaps a critique of the veracity of the analytical tools or models that they were using. Perhaps a comparison of what they had predicted against what actually happened. What you actually said was that they are clowns except when they say things that chime with your opinion. Then they are right.

At least you're being consistent. Doesn't really help us move on in a debate if the correctness of an issue is determined solely by what you say is correct, but at least we all now know where we stand with you.