Reply to: This may be intellectually challenging for some, but well worth a read..

[milanbenes]

Denny,

don't worry about Franko he's only bitter as he failed as a contractor and didn't take up the chance to get on the gravy train when he had it.

Milan.

[Denny]

Everything above Winnie the Pooh is intellectually challenging for you, Milan. I am sorry that the majority of us need more interesting insights.

I read philosophy and politics and classics. Yet, I didn't understand a word of it either.

[Francko]

http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...cle1919397.ece

and this...


http://news.independent.co.uk/busine...cle1919393.ece


Milan.

Everything above Winnie the Pooh is intellectually challenging for you, Milan. I am sorry that the majority of us need more interesting insights.

[DimPrawn]

What it all means is simple. Buy another / bigger house and you're sorteeed

HTH

[AtW]

I believe that thinking the BoE setting interest rates is independent of the government is not quite what it seems.

The bank may be independent, but people who make decisions there were appointed by Gordon Brown - in effect Govt has got control over it by proxy and in fact has got plenty of control.

Being independent per se is not a virtue - making right decisions is, and in case of BoE they should have raised rates to stop house pricing bubble from growing so high that when it pops people will bleed from ears.

[Denny]

Stephen King is managing director of economics at HSBC

No, he's a horror book author turned.........horror writer of badly written (oh I'm trying to be so clever you're all too daft to understand me) meaningless, jargon and cliche ridden economics-related mumbo jumbo.

[TwoWolves]

Sady that remark is pretty spot-on. Nobody knows what the hell's really going-on, they just hope it will just keep doing exactly that.

Economics by fingers... (crossed that is)

[hyperD]

I believe that thinking the BoE setting interest rates is independent of the government is not quite what it seems. The government set the rate of inflation through their preferred "independent" source: the ONS.

From the Torygraph

Sir John pointed to "real anger" within the ONS that official numbers are "often challenged by ministers", using analysis from government departments.

"The ONS should be run strictly as an office of the House of Commons, with no requirement for figures to be 'checked' by the Government," he said.

He said that recent Treasury proposals to make the ONS independent, while retaining statisticians elsewhere in Whitehall, "amounted to a half-way house".

Sir John added: "Even if it was run in an independent way, its independence would never be believed. One would always be looking for Treasury levers under the table."

Within the ONS, said Sir John, "professional people feel their work is being subverted. That is very worrying for our democracy".

[milanbenes]

Sas,

notwithstanding that you take the p too much,

that answer/summary,

'That no one knows WTF is going on as the traditional "laws" of economics relied on certain assumptions that no longer apply due to globalisation in markets and labour.',

is excellent

Milan.

[gingerjedi]

Something will go bang at some point fairly soon.

Thats what I like, a succinct answer

[bobhope]

In a nutshell - no! Cash in the bank devalues by the rate of inflation (assuming no interest is paid). An increase in the money supply may or may not result in rising inflation depending on whether it results in increased demand outstripping supply.

One of the points being made in the article is that despite there being an increase in the money supply, this does not appear to be resulting in increased demand.

In a nutshell: It depends.

M4 has outstripped inflation / repo rate / anything you care to name for a number of years now - it's asset price (as opposed to goods + services) inflation. Now why asset inlation is supposedly 'good' and the other inflation 'bad', I don't know.

It astounds me that inflating the money supply above interest rates, never mind 14%, doesn't set off big red flashing lights. But then, I'm not a central banker.

Something will go bang at some point fairly soon.

[sasguru]

great reply Sas,

ok jokes aside, what do you make of this information ?

Milan.

That no one knows WTF is going on as the traditional "laws" of economics relied on certain assumptions that no longer apply due to globalisation in markets and labour.

HTH

[milanbenes]

great reply Sas,

ok jokes aside, what do you make of this information ?

Milan.

[sasguru]

Dabbling in Economics again, eh, Milan. Stick to changing tapes, there's a good boy - we've already determined that it's beyond you...

[Gonzo]

I'm by no means an expert on this but I'll have a go...

question for the experts...

from the first article, where he says...

"Money supply growth has been buoyant in recent months. Offering almost 14 per cent growth in August, money supply is expanding at a rate that would make even the most laid-back central banker feel distinctly squeamish. ",

does he mean cash in the bank is devaluing at 14% annually based upon the equivalent growth in the supply of money ?

Milan.

In a nutshell - no! Cash in the bank devalues by the rate of inflation (assuming no interest is paid). An increase in the money supply may or may not result in rising inflation depending on whether it results in increased demand outstripping supply.

One of the points being made in the article is that despite there being an increase in the money supply, this does not appear to be resulting in increased demand.