Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, Sep 14, 2019.
I never thought you were wrong in anyway, Huawei will goes on, the economy will continue to grow, there was a hick up due to Wuhan
done well above many, eg 6%, but there are still so many to be done and get done, it better be done quicker....
looking back when the main cities were growing so rapidly, Hk will be left behind, so if nothing is done... HK will really be backward in the next 20 years
why would they nationalise the housing market, the govt can be building their own too
the capitalist, would just let the private sectors bankrupt
why would I defend it ???, just let the building collapsed on its own
so long there are big sign, for people to keep a safe distance is good enough for me
hope it can come to silver too, few thousands % of inflation on silver would be GREAT 10X
They have started testing it in certain markets. Banks finance SOE to buy back apartments from the market and rent it out cheaply at a loss.
They can build their own, but after 20 years, the abandoned projects will become an eyesore just like the ghost buildings of the asian financial crisis still standing in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Why waste resources when you can just print more RMB to buy back the empty buildings?
hk is a colony. philippines aspires to be one. they are doing very badly now from what I’ve read. Indonesia is doing much better despite hit by the virus.
we can check with Pinoy stacker, last time we met two back in 2011-2013 I met a few hundred people, buy/sell/trade kopi etc
Actually, I'm not so sure, don't think the American empire can withstand another 8 more years of Obama-like shit. This is the reason why I'm in gold, to hedge against that scenario. Either way, I'm ok as I don't depend on pm to make money.
Some comparisons of government spending around the world. John Maynard Keynes would be shocked and disgusted at what China is doing.
China spends too much, while Australia spends too little.
Japan disproves all predictions for economic collapse based on fundamentals. The game is an online casino.
Or it proves the fundamentals.
Stephen Moriarty: Australian private debt is high because the government hasn’t spent enough to allow growth.
Im not behind his argument that a fixed amount of currency circulating eg sound money prevents growth in wealth, maybe he’s making that comment in relation to our modern monetary system, but he’s pretty spot on about the other stuff he says.
The private sector has carried the burden, whilst the government has absolved responsibility. But I think that is changing, which may also mean Scomo will be difficult to dislodge.
A fixed currency doesn't prevent growth, but it does greatly reduce it. Now that can either be a good or bad thing depending on your view of growth.
He was making the point that without injecting new money into the system (and this is where I’m not sure whether he’s referring to our current system or not) the amount of currency remains the same, is just recycled amongst people and no one gets any wealthier.
Every exchange of currency for a good or service and vice versa results in a corresponding increase in wealth, as economic players trade currency/goods they own which they subjectively view as being of lesser value for currency/goods which they desire and subjectively view as being of more value. All of this can happen without an increase in money supply under a system of sound money, and still result in a perpetual increase in wealth.
I also disagree with him that our needs/wants are finite. Bill Gates will still have a need to expand his philanthropic activity long after he’s funded the last known vaccine required and I’ll still have future demands to satisfy that I’m completely unaware of having any current need to satisfy.
I guess we just have to ask: “Why is it essential that the currency supply keep increasing?”.
I can only answer that it’s because the value of the currency is decreasing.
But that’s almost a chicken/egg scenario.
The thing is a factory owner will mostly always need to loan money to significantly expand operations, knowing that the ROI justifies the investment. The creation of money is required to fuel this level of growth.
From a starting point it's not essential, but our current system was designed to have inflation in order to achieve accelerated growth. This is a choice and not a fundamental law.
I think the reality is somewhere in the middle. It might not be as low as he described, but it's not infinite either.
This is why I’m thinking his comment was in relation to our current system, as opposed to say a system that Austrians would propose for example.
Isn’t that the problem we have with a centrally planned economy, the decision makers think they know what every one else wants?
Under a system operating on the principles of sound money the loans are provided by savers forgoing present consumption for future consumption.
Which of course can’t happen now. So we get speculation, asset inflation and devaluation of our purchasing power and wages.
Separate names with a comma.