Ekononics

[Troll]

I don't believe it is impossible to look through the coating, I haven't yet heard of a scam in that area yet, but it will come, so one day it will be the case that cards will be processed before being sold to hapless punters. Would be really quite hard to catch.

There was a case a few years ago where some punters had spotted a printing flaw in winning scratch cards but rather gave the game away by asking the newsagent if they could rifle through the roll of cards before selecting

Did you use to work on the LIFFE Connect Project btw?

[scooterscot]

Variable change that is.

[Dominic Connor]

He also said people like buying NEW scratch cards because they feel it increases probability of win!!!

That's an interesting point, if you Google the Monty Hall problem in probability, this stuff is not as obvious as one might think and I suspect you are assuming that it is a fair system.

I don't know about Camelot, but I do know that if you are running a promotional competition for consumer goods the firms that run them can deliver a defined spread of dates for winners as well as geography and other things to "keep it interesting".

Also probability is subjective and can cause some non-obvious results like in the Monty Hall problem...

The subjective issue looks a bit like this

You and your mate each buy a scratchcard, you scratch yours and lose and yet without your mate doing anything his chances of winning have gone up.
They've gone up even if he doesn't know you lost.
So if he doesn't know he experiences a different probability than if you tell him.

In other words probability is a measure of our ignorance, beautifully illustrated by the "dumb tax" that the National Lottery gives you a much lower chance of getting a win than betting on horses or any other form of legal gambling.

Another example is a pregnant woman, the chances of it being a boy are slightly over 50:50, but she may have had a scan, so she will experience a different probability to you. But the scan often misses a micro penis, so if they say it's a girl, they are more likely to be wrong than if they say it's a boy.


And finally I can think of another rational way that you might prefer newer scratchcards.
I don't believe it is impossible to look through the coating, I haven't yet heard of a scam in that area yet, but it will come, so one day it will be the case that cards will be processed before being sold to hapless punters. Would be really quite hard to catch.

[AtW]

In my local shop with good selection of drinks had a chat with friendly shop owners - asked him which of the many instant lottery scratch cards are popular.

He points to £10 and £5 valued cars and says - those!!!

He also said people like buying NEW scratch cards because they feel it increases probability of win!!!

I bought a few beers for a tenner instead - instant win

[scooterscot]

When they demand BoE just prints money, that's why Govt yields are so low.

If QE is forever the answer I'd be looking to unload any pounds I was holding. Inflation is one thing all well and good, but holding a fiat currency in a race to the bottom, no thanks.

[AtW]

Patience, the party only begins when bond holders demand more interest.

When they demand BoE just prints money, that's why Govt yields are so low.

[AtW]

I am concerned that the UK has way too many dependants on free and easy government money

0.5% BoE rate for how many years now? Japan could not get away from low rates because everybody got addicated - people are taking on mortgages and paying 3-4%, if BoE rates gone up to modest 5% then mortgages would be at 8-10% for banks to maintain their profit margins.

[scooterscot]

Patience, the party only begins when bond holders demand more interest.

[BrilloPad]

I am concerned that the UK has way too many dependants on free and easy government money. I talk of course of the bankers who seem unable to survive without a regular dose of QE.

The sooner we inflate our way out the better.

[AtW]

"A tax windfall from Swiss banks has helped the UK post a bigger improvement in its public finances than expected, giving a boost to George Osborne ahead of his spending review next week.

But analysts warned that the shrinking deficit was largely down to one-off factors rather than longer-term changes. There was a deficit of £8.8bn in May, almost half the £15.6bn a year earlier, on the government's preferred measure for public borrowing, which excludes some of the effects of bank bailouts. The May figure was also well below the £12.6bn forecast by economists in a Reuters poll.

Publishing the figures, the Office for National Statistics said the deficit had been cut by two temporary factors: there was a reduction of £3.9bn thanks to receipts from the Bank of England's quantitative easing bond purchases and of £3.2bn due to be received from retrospective tax payments by Swiss banks.

That windfall follows a deal with Switzerland in January on the tax of Britons with undeclared Swiss bank accounts. Under the agreement, banking deposits of UK residents held in Swiss banks will become liable for taxation."

Windfall tax on Swiss bank accounts helps reduce government borrowing | Business | guardian.co.uk

---

So, what do we have here:

1) May 2013 deficit is £8.8bn
2) Year ago in May 2012 deficit was £15.6bn - difference of £6.8 bln

How the reduction was achieved?

1) £3.9 bln "funny money" from BoE
2) £3.2 bln one off event

Total - £7.1 bln, which in effect means that real deficit gone up by £0.3 bln

No wonder Jeffrey is looking very smug -