We could be into the last 10 days of the Euro according to the Financial Times...

Hayte

Its not about the money, is that what you are saying? I mean seriously?

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So the money is just a sideshow? Yeah?

If they earned minimum wage they'd still do it.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So someone who bets against the favourite in a race is "a heretic, a truth-teller, a dissenter"...

my other leg is jingling,
Scofflaw

Valmont

All of this criticism presupposes that wanting money is a bad thing. Considering you wouldn't have green subsidies, welfare programs, and gold plated civil service pensions without the money grabbers and business-people of the private sector "idealising" money in the first instance... well that's another argument.

I just can't see the Euro being destroyed within the next few days. My own prediction that nobody here seems to talk about is that they will probably hit the printing presses* sooner or later. I don't see any other option.

*or Eurobonds, quantitative easing, monetisation of debt, liquidity injections, and a host of other benign sounding synonyms.

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote: »

All of this criticism presupposes that wanting money is a bad thing. Considering you wouldn't have green subsidies, welfare programs, and gold plated civil service pensions without the money grabbers and business-people of the private sector "idealising" money in the first instance... well that's another argument.

I just can't see the Euro being destroyed within the next few days. My own prediction that nobody here seems to talk about is that they will probably hit the printing presses* sooner or later. I don't see any other option.

*or Eurobonds, quantitative easing, monetisation of debt, liquidity injections, and a host of other benign sounding synonyms.

No, it doesn't require that wanting money be a bad thing. But wanting money and dressing it up as some kind of noble fight against oppression is hilarious, sad, and more than a little nausea-inducing.

Wanting to eat a cake isn't a bad thing either - but if someone seriously tells me they're only eating cake because they're "a heretic, a truth-teller, a dissenter" then my response will be derisive. Cake is nice, money is nice - dressing up your liking for either of them as some kind of noble existential struggle is...well, hilarious, sad, and more than a little nausea-inducing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If speculators always won, they wouldn't be speculators, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

It also isn't perfect because it's possible for someone to professionally benefit from a situation that they personally dislike. The undertaker, if they like your mother, may be genuinely sad even though they professionally benefit form her death.

Cynicism isn't the same as scepticism.

Is that not what I said ? That's covered by the fact that I said that the undertaker isn't deliberately impacting on your mother; they are just doing their actual public service; a service we could not (excuse the pun) live without.

Speculation, on the other hand, is about impacting on others - in many cases very deliberately and consequentially - for no reason other than to make money, and are not interested in performing any worthwhile service other than lining their own pockets, regardless of the casualties.

So - as I said - speculation can involve injecting the cyanide needle in the hope of a quick buck, and feck the consequences for others.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Valmont wrote: »

All of this criticism presupposes that wanting money is a bad thing.

That's a serious simplification.

Wanting "enough" money isn't a bad thing; wanting too much is.

The problem is that very view people can define too much, and they don't care whose it was before they got their hands on it, or who foots the bill.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wrong.

As I have stated repeatedly, if you CONTRIBUTE to society or take a gamble on whether something is worthwhile, then you deserve a reward for that.

If, on the other hand, you buy up stuff in order to sell it at a profit later when the lack of supply - caused by your intervention - raises the price, then you are negatively impacting on society.

So my view is nowhere near as black and white as you're trying to imply.

Speculators who gamble on an oil field being viable and foot the bill for exploration are not a bad thing.

Speculators who restrict the availability of oil or currency are.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Unless someone is printing money, then there is only so much to go around.

And I never implied "stolen", so do not put words in my mouth.

Neither am I "left"; extremes are not workable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I do. A perfect example being the property market here, where speculators bought up houses in order to make a quick killing., preventing families from buying them for a reasonable amount.

So there's no need to be - yet again - patronising towards people with different views to yours.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, if they sold on the houses, they got paid.

Personally though I don't care what happened the vultures.

Although some of them apparently got cushy jobs "advising" NAMA - paid for by the taxes of the same people they screwed! Go figure!

Mr.Micro

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well, if they sold on the houses, they got paid.

Personally though I don't care what happened the vultures.

Although some of them apparently got cushy jobs "advising" NAMA - paid for by the taxes of the same people they screwed! Go figure!

Nama has saved many of them and their lousy clients. Another big cozy club.

djpbarry

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You mean the success of the banking sector?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Speculators and investors are not the same thing.

carveone

Interesting thread. I'd like to know the difference between speculators and investors in people's minds. Is an investor someone who puts money in and never expects it back? Or is an investor one who lives off, say, dividends and has no intention of selling?

My view of speculation is that of assuming a large risk in anticipation of a larger gain. In other words it's solely a matter of risk. That's not the way the extreme left like SF and ULA see it - they see any investment of any sort as some sort of bad thing.

There are many people out there who believe markets and capitalism and free trade are a good thing. Indeed, one could find it hard to argue that people living now are living better than at any time in history. But I think that explosion in living standards came about by attaching the capitalism jet engine to social equality (I read that in a book somewhere recently - can't remember where!). In the US, for the last 20 years, since Reagan in fact, that connection has been cut.

This allowed an unfettered capitalism to sive money upwards to the top 0.1% who, when it all went wrong, were allowed to switch to a temporary socialist model and avail of state funds. This is unacceptable. This is not free markets. This isn't even rampant speculation (whatever you think that means). This is socialism for the top 0.1% - assume whatever risk model you like, there are no consequences.

It's not speculation when the outcomes are predetermined.

View

carveone wrote: »

Interesting thread. I'd like to know the difference between speculators and investors in people's minds. Is an investor someone who puts money in and never expects it back? Or is an investor one who lives off, say, dividends and has no intention of selling?

I think it can be explained by the old trick of declining the verb "invest". It goes as follows:

• I invest,
• You speculate,
• He/She gambles recklessly (by loaning money to a "AAA-rated" bank such as Anglo)

Hayte

I work in law and I've seen the kind of investment schemes like land development partnerships where x individuals put in equity, builder throws up a shambolic collection of houses and then the sales rest on contract to avoid stamp duty. I've seen the terrible implications of it when they have been misrepresented, when there is conflict of interest issues, when its all just done like "put in money, get out money" and everything in between is cutting corners, skirting laws, dodging tax. And you know what? I don't see anything created in this. Only a five figure profit for people with enough money to pitch in a 5 figure sum if you gambled right.

I know it happens in the US too, on a much larger scale than in Ireland because it is facilitated by that fraudulent disaster of a system you call MERS - an industrial scale government stamp duty avoidance scheme to facilitate the transfer of large numbers of property (in big RMBS packages) without having to assign all the of the individual property rights as well.

All of those MERS mortgaged Florida sinkhole shacks are less than worthless. They are a blight on the land and none of them have clear title. I don't see anything created in this. I don't see any benefit or utility to it that isn't profit motivated by private interests. I don't see any skill in the structuring of these schemes, most of which cut so many corners in proper conveyancing practice that purchasers literally have no rights at all and sellers are incredibly exposed to litigious claims because there the paper title is so poorly established.

Maybe its because I work in an environment that every day sees the negative and failed consequences of investment schemes gone bad, that I find the whole John Galt/god's work thing so offensive.

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it doesn't require that wanting money be a bad thing. But wanting money and dressing it up as some kind of noble fight against oppression is hilarious, sad, and more than a little nausea-inducing.

The productive members of society are taxed by some in the name of those who condemn the entrepreneurial urge as "greedy" whilst simultaneously trying to get a cut of the profits for their own ends. So—relatively speaking—these productive individuals are quite noble, heroic, and admirable; but only when compared to the parasites who castigate them and then have the cheek to reach into their pocket afterwards.

Quite like the rapist calling his victim a slut, really.

Now that's nausea-inducing.

Scofflaw

carveone wrote: »

Interesting thread. I'd like to know the difference between speculators and investors in people's minds. Is an investor someone who puts money in and never expects it back? Or is an investor one who lives off, say, dividends and has no intention of selling?

My view of speculation is that of assuming a large risk in anticipation of a larger gain. In other words it's solely a matter of risk. That's not the way the extreme left like SF and ULA see it - they see any investment of any sort as some sort of bad thing.

There are many people out there who believe markets and capitalism and free trade are a good thing. Indeed, one could find it hard to argue that people living now are living better than at any time in history. But I think that explosion in living standards came about by attaching the capitalism jet engine to social equality (I read that in a book somewhere recently - can't remember where!). In the US, for the last 20 years, since Reagan in fact, that connection has been cut.

This allowed an unfettered capitalism to sive money upwards to the top 0.1% who, when it all went wrong, were allowed to switch to a temporary socialist model and avail of state funds. This is unacceptable. This is not free markets. This isn't even rampant speculation (whatever you think that means). This is socialism for the top 0.1% - assume whatever risk model you like, there are no consequences.

It's not speculation when the outcomes are predetermined.

While I like View's version, I'd say dividing "speculators" from "investors" is a combination of intent, duration, and outcome, since in general 'speculator' is intended negatively while 'investor' is intended positively.

To take a very old definition from many Medieval city statutes - someone who puts money into a voyage to buy grain for a city, intending to make a profit thereby, is an investor. If the grain arrives at a time of scarcity, they will make a larger profit.

On the other hand, someone who buys up grain, intending to sell it for high prices during a time of scarcity, is a speculator. Someone who buys up grain before it reaches the city in a time of scarcity, intending to sell it at high prices in the city, is also a speculator. Either of these was often a criminal act under city statutes.

The difference here is that the investor has "added value" at a risk to themselves, the speculator hasn't.

Similarly, someone who buys land and puts capital into a goldmine during a gold rush is an investor. Someone who buys and sells plots of land during a gold rush is a speculator.

Again, the difference is that the investor has tried to create value, intending to profit from it, whereas the speculator adds no value - he simply uses capital to benefit from rising prices.

That's really the nub of it - and it's what Permabear's defence of speculators rests on, although in fact he's covering pure speculators with a defence appropriate to speculative (high-risk) investors. If you put money into the 19-year old who might be the next Bill Gates, you're speculatively investing, not speculating. If on the other hand you buy up the lad's patent intending to sell it when it's more valuable - through no effort of your own - then you're a speculator.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Valmont wrote: »

The productive members of society are taxed by some in the name of those who condemn the entrepreneurial urge as "greedy" whilst simultaneously trying to get a cut of the profits for their own ends. So—relatively speaking—these productive individuals are quite noble, heroic, and admirable; but only when compared to the parasites who castigate them and then have the cheek to reach into their pocket afterwards.

Quite like the rapist calling his victim a slut, really.

Now that's nausea-inducing.

Both can be nausea-inducing, and for the same reasons - because they can cloak greed under a mask of worthier purposes, which cheapens the worthier purposes. But not all of those who want to tax the entrepreneurial are doing it for baser reasons, any more than many entrepreneurs are.

I'd be an entrepreneur even if it didn't pay better than whatever full-time job I could get - indeed, am an entrepreneur even though it doesn't. And I don't object to being taxed on what I make for the benefit of others, either. If I received a citizen's wage identical to that received by everyone else, I would still prefer to spend my time self-directed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blowfish

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, someone who buys up grain, intending to sell it for high prices during a time of scarcity, is a speculator.

The difference here is that the investor has "added value" at a risk to themselves, the speculator hasn't.

The thing is though, that's only looking at it from the perspective of the grain company.

If you look at it from the grain consumers perspective (i.e. the ordinary citizens), the speculator buying up surplus in a 'boom crop' and selling it during scarcity results in prices actually falling during scarcity. In other words, the supposed 'negative' speculators have actually provided a benefit to the ordinary people.

This is precisely why assuming that speculation is automatically bad is ludicrous.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's really the nub of it - and it's what Permabear's defence of speculators rests on, although in fact he's covering pure speculators with a defence appropriate to speculative (high-risk) investors.

Interesting that you've picked that up, Scofflaw, because I've repeatedly and clearly stated that anyone who adds value is entitled to a profit, reserving my venom for those who simply hoard to force prices and exchange rates and the like upwards due to scarcity.

And yet Permabear still objects to my views.

Maybe that's what you mean by the second part of your sentence ?

Scofflaw

Blowfish wrote: »

The thing is though, that's only looking at it from the perspective of the grain company.

If you look at it from the grain consumers perspective (i.e. the ordinary citizens), the speculator buying up surplus in a 'boom crop' and selling it during scarcity results in prices actually falling during scarcity. In other words, the supposed 'negative' speculators have actually provided a benefit to the ordinary people.

This is precisely why assuming that speculation is automatically bad is ludicrous.

Well, no, not really in this case, because you're making the mistake of presuming modern large market conditions and applying the reasoning to small medieval markets. A speculator wouldn't be driving prices down in this case, because the amounts involved would be small, the sale quick, the people desperate, and the information poor.

However, your point in principle is fine, because at least the speculator is providing some grain, but I didn't say that speculation was automatically bad, or even that speculators are. I'm just trying to describe where the line is, not establish that it's right. People in general feel it's right.

Speculators, if people denounce them, will usually claim in some way to be providing a service - that is, adding value - and if they can successfully persuade people that's what they're doing, then they won't be considered 'speculators'.

There are obviously borderline cases, and indeed there are relatively few clear-cut ones, but in general buying up things and selling them on at higher prices simply by taking them out of circulation until prices rise through no effort of the speculator is generally considered a bad thing. That the price increases through no effort of the speculator is important - if you make the effort to take the goods somewhere they're valued more highly you're not 'speculating' in the pejorative sense.

cordially,
Scofflaw