perfect description of the show, impossible to follow
"Addicted to Money" TV Show - Appalling
- Thread starter The_Banker
- Start date
perfect description of the show, impossible to follow
Rockahoola
Registered User
- Messages
- 14
Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling
A lot of people gathered in Knock last week on the expectation that a woman called Mary who died more than 2000 years ago would re-appear in front of their eyes. Amazingly she didn't, but more amazingly, in her absence, many of those gathered reported a 'dancing' sun. By coincidence, in 1917, many thousands of people gathered in Fatima in the heat of anticipation of an almost guaranteed appearance by the well- travelled Mary but instead witnessed an even more excited 'dancing' sun.
Moral of the story, don't gather in places where people are very certain about unbeliveable things, and above all stick to your guns when you're told the sun is dancing but you can't see it.
Follow the gourd....
A lot of people gathered in Knock last week on the expectation that a woman called Mary who died more than 2000 years ago would re-appear in front of their eyes. Amazingly she didn't, but more amazingly, in her absence, many of those gathered reported a 'dancing' sun. By coincidence, in 1917, many thousands of people gathered in Fatima in the heat of anticipation of an almost guaranteed appearance by the well- travelled Mary but instead witnessed an even more excited 'dancing' sun.
Moral of the story, don't gather in places where people are very certain about unbeliveable things, and above all stick to your guns when you're told the sun is dancing but you can't see it.
B
Barabas
Guest
Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling
This enthusiasm can come across as sensationalism but 'Nama is highway robbery'.[/quote]
Fine but what alternative do you propose to sort out the banking mess. Bear in mind none of the four main parties in the Dail favour letting the Banks go Bust.
This enthusiasm can come across as sensationalism but 'Nama is highway robbery'.[/quote]
Fine but what alternative do you propose to sort out the banking mess. Bear in mind none of the four main parties in the Dail favour letting the Banks go Bust.
I used to be a programmer.
People would say to me what do you do. I'd say I write software.
They say "I've just done the EDCL test" have you?". - I say no. cue confused look.
They'd say "my laptop has stop working can you fix it?". I'll look but probably not. cue look of distain.
They'd say "what exactly is it that you do you do again". I'd try to explain, but found it difficult. How you to explain something to someone that has no reference points to aid their comprehension.
Well that is how it is with the Financial crisis. Where do you start.
Now imagine if you are McWilliams. He comes across as likeable and approachable - the Gay Byrne of the Business media maybe.
He's gonna get asked questions by everyone he meets. How on earth is he gonna answer simple questions like who has all the money.
My 9yr old phrased this one. "If the world loses a lot of money then someone else must have it - so who has it?". Noddy Holder asked the same question on Have I got news for you. No one had the answer - not even a jokey one.
McWilliams seems to have decided to make a program to illustrate some of these issues. Gawd knows there is a need. He appears to be trying to present some answers at least in simple terms with a lot of visualizations.
Take his question "Where does America get its money from?" - simple but very important question. McWilliams tells us it is China.
So where does China get its money from?
McWilliams makes another call (disputed on this thread) he says its from a Waong in a factory - at 2 dollars a week or something, and he interviews Waong.
It may not be the whole picture but if it is someway true then I think that'l do for the purpose of his illustration - no?
I dont know where big countries get their money. Does anyone know the full details?. Perhaps China just makes the stuff up out of thin air. America has being doing that.
Imagine trying to explain that to anyone who doesent have an understanding of high finance.
Dad - what does printing money mean - er it just making up money from nothing.
What - you mean just printing money on a printer - er, no, its even eaiser that that, It means adding a lot of zeroes to a field on a computer screen and then pressing the send button - then the banks get it.
Wow - great - why doesent everyone do it - er, I dunno, David - can you help here.
Maybe episode three will tell us.
People would say to me what do you do. I'd say I write software.
They say "I've just done the EDCL test" have you?". - I say no. cue confused look.
They'd say "my laptop has stop working can you fix it?". I'll look but probably not. cue look of distain.
They'd say "what exactly is it that you do you do again". I'd try to explain, but found it difficult. How you to explain something to someone that has no reference points to aid their comprehension.
Well that is how it is with the Financial crisis. Where do you start.
Now imagine if you are McWilliams. He comes across as likeable and approachable - the Gay Byrne of the Business media maybe.
He's gonna get asked questions by everyone he meets. How on earth is he gonna answer simple questions like who has all the money.
My 9yr old phrased this one. "If the world loses a lot of money then someone else must have it - so who has it?". Noddy Holder asked the same question on Have I got news for you. No one had the answer - not even a jokey one.
McWilliams seems to have decided to make a program to illustrate some of these issues. Gawd knows there is a need. He appears to be trying to present some answers at least in simple terms with a lot of visualizations.
Take his question "Where does America get its money from?" - simple but very important question. McWilliams tells us it is China.
So where does China get its money from?
McWilliams makes another call (disputed on this thread) he says its from a Waong in a factory - at 2 dollars a week or something, and he interviews Waong.
It may not be the whole picture but if it is someway true then I think that'l do for the purpose of his illustration - no?
I dont know where big countries get their money. Does anyone know the full details?. Perhaps China just makes the stuff up out of thin air. America has being doing that.
Imagine trying to explain that to anyone who doesent have an understanding of high finance.
Dad - what does printing money mean - er it just making up money from nothing.
What - you mean just printing money on a printer - er, no, its even eaiser that that, It means adding a lot of zeroes to a field on a computer screen and then pressing the send button - then the banks get it.
Wow - great - why doesent everyone do it - er, I dunno, David - can you help here.
Maybe episode three will tell us.
"The previous owner of the asset, i.e. the seller of the asset, has the money you paid them for the asset that subsequently drops in value"
Isn’t that a theoretical answer.
Who has it exactly. Where is it stored. If the banks have it on deposit then why does America think it needs to add made up money to the system to get money moving when it’s already there – somewhere – not moving?.
If it was a simple as that then Ireland would be a rich country – didn’t we sell the assets to ourselves. Where’s the cash.
Isn’t that a theoretical answer.
Who has it exactly. Where is it stored. If the banks have it on deposit then why does America think it needs to add made up money to the system to get money moving when it’s already there – somewhere – not moving?.
If it was a simple as that then Ireland would be a rich country – didn’t we sell the assets to ourselves. Where’s the cash.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,045
Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling
from last Sunday's Business Post - I can't find a link:
from last Sunday's Business Post - I can't find a link:
Can you be more specific with your question: "If the world loses a lot of money then someone else must have it - so who has it?"
When assets like houses, property, etc. fall in value there is NOT any "loss of money", there is still the same amount of money around.
Money is defined as all cash in circulation plus all current a/c balances plus all deposit a/c balances.
A massive fall in property and share values is a fall in wealth, not a loss of money.
If a farmer's land is zoned, and he then sells it for 10m, and the property developer borrows another 20m to build houses, but subsequently goes bust, then the farmer still has the original 10m on deposit.
In the case of central banks increasing the money supply, they feel that a recession is so bad, and that the stock of money may be stagnant or falling, so there are enough reasons for them to actually increase the stock of money.
NB: this does not increase wealth, as the CB's increase of the stock of money will be matched by an increase in liabilities.
So there will be more money, but not more wealth.
Ireland is a rich country, with huge wealth.
Our national annual income has fallen by 10-15%, but we are still wealthy.
In terms of cash deposits, households own 90bn.
If we include all financial assets and financial liabilites, we arrive at 100 bn + household wealth.
See page 73 below:
[broken link removed]
Thanks for the replies Protocol. I'll need to digest them slowly to comprehend fully.
Re:
"When assets like houses, property, etc. fall in value there is NOT any "loss of money", there is still the same amount of money around"
That’s the bit that confuses me. It’s what I reckoned initially. The money pile stays the same. Someone does make a loss though. A property has to sell for less for a drop in value to be realised. The original seller when the price is high has the money.
I can only think of one high profile seller who didn't buy on (in Ireland at least) and that’s the doyle/jury's hotel group so presumably they're still sitting on the 1 billion cash pile.
We hear about all those who owe billions - why don’t we see the list of the people that have the billions made from selling while the boom was on. And lets borrow it back from them - no?
I'm pretty sure I heard or read that one of the justifications for printing money was that if x amount of trillions has disappeared from the worlds banks then lets just fill the hole with cumulative easing. It may have been an over simplistic metaphor of things but it did plant in my mind that the money had disappeared.
If liquidity is the problem (and not shortage of cash) then why cant the worlds governments just force the banks to release the cash - no bail out needed.
And why is America borrowing from China when the boom made wealth is presumably sitting there in Western Banks.?
Who has the power. Banks or Governments. Maybe thats the issue here. Governments ultimately have less real power than banks ?.
The answers may be in your replies so apologies if I am slow to cotton on here. I gotta think it out.
Re:
"When assets like houses, property, etc. fall in value there is NOT any "loss of money", there is still the same amount of money around"
That’s the bit that confuses me. It’s what I reckoned initially. The money pile stays the same. Someone does make a loss though. A property has to sell for less for a drop in value to be realised. The original seller when the price is high has the money.
I can only think of one high profile seller who didn't buy on (in Ireland at least) and that’s the doyle/jury's hotel group so presumably they're still sitting on the 1 billion cash pile.
We hear about all those who owe billions - why don’t we see the list of the people that have the billions made from selling while the boom was on. And lets borrow it back from them - no?
I'm pretty sure I heard or read that one of the justifications for printing money was that if x amount of trillions has disappeared from the worlds banks then lets just fill the hole with cumulative easing. It may have been an over simplistic metaphor of things but it did plant in my mind that the money had disappeared.
If liquidity is the problem (and not shortage of cash) then why cant the worlds governments just force the banks to release the cash - no bail out needed.
And why is America borrowing from China when the boom made wealth is presumably sitting there in Western Banks.?
Who has the power. Banks or Governments. Maybe thats the issue here. Governments ultimately have less real power than banks ?.
The answers may be in your replies so apologies if I am slow to cotton on here. I gotta think it out.
Interesting.
Presumably the 'financial liabilites' are not based on worst case valuations or the picture changes.
I seem to remember a time not long ago when Bill gates could have bought all the property in Ireland. (i know over simplistic and sensational but catchy).
I think he had 50 billion at the time.
Is 100 and something billion, and depreciating, really wealthy for a soverign european state of 4 billion people in this day and age?.
You are assuming that they just took the money and put it on deposit, rather than invest it or spend it.
The problem lies in fractional reserve banking, the increase in money supply and artificailly low interest rates. Basically, low interest rates increased the demand for credit (private and corporate); to keep up with the demand for creadit, banks reduced the amount of reserves they held (in some cases as little as 2%) and central banks increased the money supply. When people can get money more or less for free, they will borrow to spend more now, which increased demand for everything from houses to biscuits causing the high inflation numbers we saw in the past 10 years. When this strategy crumbles, credit losses have to be written off by banks against their assets, which were VERY little.
You can't force a bank to release cash/assets when those assets are barely covering losses.
It was paper wealth, not real wealth, i.e. America has been increasing it's asset prices by making cheap credit available to its citizens, with money borrowed from China. You are confusing wealth (percieved) with actual hard assets. If you buy an asset for €100 and then sell it for €150 you have increased your actual wealth by 50%. If you buy an asset for €100 and someone else sells a similar product for €150 that does NOT increase your actual wealth by 50%, only your perceived/theoretical wealth.
In a true free-market economy neither the banks nor the government would have the power, it would be the market participants, i.e. consumers, who make the decisions on what products deserve their custom. As it stands now, governments have ultimate power over everyone in the economy; they can raise taxes, nationalise a company or industries, restrict competition, etc. But politicians are influenced on decision making by voters and industry lobby groups, where the lobby groups often have most influence.
The whole banking and money system is a very confusing and obscure topic. If you want to learn more about I would recommend "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard; it's a very well written book which makes the topic a lot easier to digest.
The money didn't exist in the first place. Banks create money when they issue loans, and nearly all of the money in the world is money (debt) created by loans.
I agree with the rest of your post - McWilliams is aiming his show at people who know nothing about finance.
Z
z109
Guest
Quantative easing, though I like your malap. better.
Some of it did disappear, in that it wasn't ever there in the first place. This would, for example, be the value of your pension fund - you put money in, others did too. Stocks rose. But the levels they reached made everyone 'wealthier' without that money actually being spent on them.
Put it this way:
Brian buys 1 stock in NAMA at 1 euro
Mary buys 1 stock in NAMA at 10 euro
The total 2 stocks in NAMA are now worth 20 euro
Only 11 euro has changed hands
NAMA makes a big loss
The price of NAMA stock drops to 25 cent
The 2 NAMA stocks are now worth 50 cent
19.50 has been lost
or
10.50 if you count the money that actually changed hands...
So notional wealth drops don't equal real wealth drops, but real wealth drops do happen too without anyone benefitting from them - there is no transfer of wealth.
serotoninsid
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,754
I don't understand how it all works but could we not just let the banks fail?? I can't fathom why its necessary to prop them up. By the nature of things, if theres a void, someones going to fill it right??
Z
Zorrow
Guest
Well, I'm feeling sorry for all you guys who are uncomfortable with "Addiction to Money". You do not like being shown up as pushers of addiction. Well, I'd imagine I would as well if I'd been engaged at various street corners, right under the noses of the police, pushing this stuff on an unsuspection public......and once Brian Cowan had 'fessed up prior to last election it gave you extra confidence.
You'll be in rehab for years.....enjoy..
You'll be in rehab for years.....enjoy..
If a farmer's land is zoned, and he then sells it for 10m, and the property developer borrows another 20m to build houses, but subsequently goes bust, then the farmer still has the original 10m on deposit
If the farmer then buys bank shares. for 10 million and now these shares are only worth 2 million then where is the 8 million gone?
If the farmer then buys bank shares. for 10 million and now these shares are only worth 2 million then where is the 8 million gone?